User talk:R. Baley/Archive1

AIV notice

You are welcome. As for the notice, if the dyn ip is not vandalizing any more pages, you may remove it. --soum (0_o) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that vandal. =) ··coelacan 02:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann

Okay, I have semi-protected (anon editing blocked) it for four days. Hope the issue with Media Matters for America has been resolved. Thanks. --soum (0_o) 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not protecting it (Media Matters for America) again right away, but rather keeping an eye on it. If the vandalism from the dyn ip pool persists for the next few hours, I will sprotect it. --soum (0_o) 03:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good.Thanks.R. Baley 03:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Good call. The article is likely to undergo some significant splitting up into subarticles and revising to accomodate. You're invited to monitor and participate. -- Yellowdesk 11:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Swift

I left my comments on the talk page. I hope you find them useful. Noble Story 05:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jericho refs

Re: [1]

Three references is extremely excessive for something as minor and uncontroversial as the sending of nuts to CBS. This is especially true when all of the references say the same thing. I also question you assessment that the NY Times is more reliable than the existing sources. Wikipedia does not measure level of reliability beyond reliable vs. non-reliable and there is nothing about the New York Times that makes it more reliable than the paper with the largest circulation in New Jersey, The Star-Ledger. Perhaps something could be made of the NY Times being "more reliable" than the Showbuzz link due to Showbuzz's coverage of the entertainment sector, but it is part of CBS News and the information in the article is the same as in the other sources. Finally, linking to the NY Times will not resolve any issues with "information disappearing". NY Times requires you to pay to view its articles after 24 hours which will effectively make the information disappear. IMHO, if a free source is available it is preferable to a non-free source. So, no. I won't reconsider removing a redundant source for a non-controversial sentence when the existing sources are reliable and equally support the sentence for which they are used to source. The Jericho article is overrun with fanboys/girls that see Wikipedia as another front in their campaign and they are not above adding sources to show how much "support" their campaign is getting. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yi Jianlian

Thanks for taking the time to evaluate the article. I definitely be taking your suggestions into consideration. Noble Story 07:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Raphaelaarchon/71.100.1.7

Hi hi! I just posted 71.100.1.7 to the 3RR notice board for obvious reasons.[2] What an annoying twit this guy is. Lame. --AStanhope 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AlGoreWin.jpg

Thank you for adding a fair use rationale for Image:AlGoreWin.jpg. Still, I don't understand how the visual representation of the Academy Awards ceremony is significant for the two articles the image is used in, since every Academy Awards ceremony looks alike. – Ilse@ 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I refer here to the "Purpose of use". – Ilse@ 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the event is significant, and while all of the ceremonies may look the same, an image still conveys and verifies information in a way words alone can't do. I'm not 'married' to the idea of including it (and I haven't actually seen how it's used on Al gore's bio page) but I think it is significant to the AIT article. Now that I think of it, not sure if it would merit use on Al Gore's own page, especially as there are several Free photos of him on commons. R. Baley 20:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that images can sometimes show what is not easy to say with words. And I also agree that to mention the event (Academy Awards ceremony) is significant to both articles. But I think the image is not unveiling any significant information that is not already in the words. – Ilse@ 20:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear on my part, I think the image is significant to the AIT article (on this I suppose we disagree), but probably not significant to the Al Gore article/bio. R. Baley 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) edited to add: Having checked out the Al Gore article just now, I still think it's not as necessary, but probably harmless (esp. as a free image will probably not be forthcoming wrt this particular event). R. Baley 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a general rule that non-free images should not be used on Wikipedia, unless they cannot be omitted in an article. In case you want to read more about this, check out Wikipedia:Non-free content. So in my opinion the "harmless" argument is not a good argument, and the image should be removed from the Al Gore article. And I don't think you gave any different arguments for the An Inconvenient Truth article (so far). – Ilse@ 21:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think we were making arguments, but if so, that's fine too (though this may be better conducted with a wider audience -my talk page seems inadequate for this purpose).

1. It's my opinion that the photo in question technically meets all ten of the requirements in the official policy laid out here.
2. With respect to #6 in the above criteria, there is another link to official policy here which is not very specific (but still official policy) but then links to a guideline which you linked to in your above response. It is also my opinion that it meets the guideline (link here).
3. It is my understanding with respect to the above (1 and 2) that in addition to the US legal requirements for fair use, wikipedia also requires that images include commentary in the article with which the image is associated (hence no generic galleries of images).
4. The image of Gore accepting the award provides a level of verifiability and documentation that words alone can not convey. The event has passed and there is no other way to document it photographically. Anyone who was there to photograph the event in a professional capacity will expect to paid for their work (and rightly so), so no Free images will be forthcoming.
   

Finally, I would like to add that I understand the push to add free images to the encyclopedia, and where it is possible (not just probable, possible) we should do what it takes to get the freely licensed images under GFDL uploaded. This is admirable and will hopefully increase the scope/availability of information. But in regards to this particular case, a fair use rationale was requested, and I added one. If that was the goal of tagging (and I've been following ANI, so I'm unsure if there are ulterior goals) then mission accomplished. If the request for the FUR was really a red herring on the way to deletion, then sorry I temporarily threw a wrench in the process. It's been enjoyable thus far to discuss this image and its FU rationale, but I'm afraid it's taking up a bit more of my time than I intended (especially this last response). Respectfully, if your goal is to remove the image (not saying anything is wrong with that), then I think this discussion should be moved to the AIT talk page where more people can weigh in/comment on the situation. R. Baley 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: sorry if I mistook questions as having a goal. I try to take each editor at face value and not look over their talk page and stuff (unless it gets weird --when first interacting, I don't want to prejudge by what I see). Eventually curiosity does get the better of me however, and from what I see, you're doing commendable work to get things 'up to snuff' around here, and I appreciate it. R. Baley 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AIT

This edit [3] dumps your sig on the AIT page which isn't right. Tag the image if you want to William M. Connolley 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't think about that, will change it. Just wanted to let people know what was up with the image before removing the candidate for speedy deletion tag. R. Baley 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at it, thanks for removing. Do you think that the notice (or some form of) should stay? R. Baley 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC) edited to add: sorry about replying here instead of my page, just remembered that you prefer to do that, I can move the discussion if you would like. (moved 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)) R. Baley 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should do it on the image talk page; possibly add a note to the t:AIT page if inclined William M. Connolley 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Another set of eyes

Hello. Can I ask for your opinion regarding this?[4] It feels like a straightforward issue to me, but apparently it isn't. What do you think? --AStanhope 04:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for your kind words of support - it makes a crappy situation that little bit better. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Off day

No worries. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann anon editor

Thanks for backing me up on that osteopath issue. I would be more inclined to believe that this fellow is well-intended, but perhaps confused, were it not for the fact that he has vandalized the article numerous times in the past. This just gives him another excuse to add nonsense. This osteopath thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers! ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 18:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I would've acted sooner had I checked and make the connection Bobblehead did. Thanks for taking the initiative, I thought it was out of proportion as well at first, I was just waiting to see if anyone else thought the same. R. Baley 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, the IP has been going on a vandal spree today, so I submitted them to WP:AIV.[5] Maybe we'll get a permaban on the IP and his user account, User:Tanninglamp. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish, as far as I'm concerned. It's always the same crap with this guy. What is his problem? ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 18:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

72.79.115.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked [6].

Didn't see a block on Tanninglamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) yet, not sure why that is though. R. Baley 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this IP is also tanninglamp: 69.115.23.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If so, it was used to evade a 3RR block. (per this contrib [7] and Tanninglamp's block log [8]). Would either of you care to look at their edit to Rick Reilly's page? R. Baley 20:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on edit histories I'd have to say 69.115.23.71 is another Tanninglamp IP address. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done about the block evasion a month after the fact. I'd just keep a watch on the Keith Olbermann, Toupee, and Mike Francesa articles for the next week and if someone pops up with the same edit patterns, make a report at WP:AN/I for block evasion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Welp, looks like Tanninglamp unleashed his other IP address on the Olbermann talk page. I submitted a request on WP:AN/I to get it blocked for block evasion.[9] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just saw that, thanks. I've also let Netsnipe (the blocking admin) know about this. R. Baley 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi R. Baley. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Moyers page

I'd appreciate your comments on the Moyers talk page regarding two editors' insistence that O'Reilly's four-year-old attacks on Moyers somehow merits inclusion as "criticism" of Moyers in the article. I noticed you reverted this edit once before. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi and thanks. The more I learn about what has gone on here, the more determined I am that the old policy of preferring peer-reviewed references in academic subjects should be restored. Tim Vickers 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI board comment

not to nitpick, but when you spell out ED, well it's a lot easier for people to go there (find it). Not saying that if someone wanted to find it otherwise that they couldn't, just that it makes it really easy (i think I have seen it referenced at least 50 times over the last month, but didn't care enough to google it until I saw it spelled out today). I was just thinking you might want to remove the comment because it seems to compound the problem Will has with it. R. Baley 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that's an issue, but he can remove the comment if he wants. -- tariqabjotu 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, R. Baley. I am happy to be back!

I should note that today also marks the end of the first month with my wife and daughter overseas in Thailand. (pics here if you're interested). It hasn't been as difficult as I anticipated for any number of reasons, the most important probably being how inexpensive it is to call Thailand now. In the old days it used to cost $3 for the first minute and $1.25 for each additional minute. Now a $5 phone card purchased at the Chinese grocery makes 8 hours worth of calls. Nice! Anyway - thanks again. I hope all is well with you and that you're enjoying your summer. --AStanhope 13:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks! Welcome back! Adam - --AStanhope 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Not sure what you mean, RB. I have no COI (can't even imagine what it would be) and I'm one of the admins handling the situation. We've decided on a topic ban, and we're waiting to hear back from SZ. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. I archived my talk page in case it was the length that was making it go funny. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

That was nice of you. The newbie had every reason to feel upset, and made a valid point though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your most welcome, and I maybe should have said that he had a point. I know that sometimes the reactions here can seem strange or upsetting to someone who just gets here (whereas if you've been here a little while, it becomes more routine). But on the other hand, he did step into the middle of edit warring/conflicts. . .and just in general I think it's to your credit that you put yourself out there (on a limb) to make judgment calls such as these, and in the vast majority of cases, do it well (which is what I wanted to point out). Long-windedly, R. Baley 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario

I really appreciate your involvement in this dispute and, in particular, your sandbox work. At this point, however, I don't believe it's appropriate for me to participate as I'm doing my best to build a pursuasive case for exclusion of the SF tragedy.

I understand that this pursuit might seem more than a little biased, quixotic and/or odd. However, my motivation is that, before becoming a student of the subject, I held some views that were completely the opposite of those I hold now. I changed my opinion based on I learned through a lot of reading and research.

I'm operating under the assumption that the vast majority of those participating in WP tend to be somewhat above average in their ability to analyze and reason, particularly when presented with a good, cited, (mostly) unbiased argument - and that with the right argument, nearly set-in-stone opinions can be changed. My intent is to take my best shot at constructing that right argument and then living with the ultimate outcome - at the very least, I figure I'll be satisfied that I took my best shot.

So, that said, I'm trying to be comprehensive and think a couple of steps ahead in building my case. I'm of the opinion that, if I'm successful and SF is excluded from the article, the Florida attack should also be excluded. Here's my thinking: It's tragic, it made the papers, but it's own notability is questionable without the existence of the SF attack. What leads me to this opinion is that shortly after the FL attack, there was another dog attack fatality in Florida, this time by a boxer [10] - but it's never been brought up anywhere in the Boxer Dog article [11] or it's associated discussion.

So, hypothetically, why would or wouldn't it be a good idea for me to consider adding a reference to the boxer attack to the Boxer Dog article? Would the subsequent inclusion or exclusion of the boxer attack be of any use in determining the notability of the FL presa attack?

I realize that there's probably an obvious answer here, but I'm unable to figure it out myself at the moment. If you'd be generous enough to provide a little insight on the matter, it would offer a great deal of help to my thought process and I'd be really appreciative.

(oh, and for the record, I have absolutely no intention of editing the Boxer Dog article - I'm asking completelhy hypothetical, earnest and perhaps somewhat stupid questions just to gain some insight)

Thanks in advance. Frangible 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I'm writing to let you know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat has been resolved and archived. Thanks for participating. Bigglove 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Worse

Okay, but I see User:Bdj has already been deleted. Anyway my point was that if you see worse examples, please point them out so that we can get rid of them. We keep losing good editors because of negative atmosphere, and so I am rather tired of these "hey I haet user:foo so lets put all bad stuff about him heer!!!1" pages. >Radiant< 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the compliment. To be honest, the guy was sorely testing my patience, what with the calling me a troll and all. I kinda was thinking that it was the way he was going to decide to intereact with me, and so long as the article turned out okay. I frankly began to lose a bit of AGF when he uploaded a few images and manipulated the licensing, but I guess he wasn't trying to specifically deceive folk, simply trying to get an image in he liked. He really seems to hate Lennon's Weird-Beard phase...
Your comment brightened me up a bit, and I appreciate it. Your input of image use was of exceptional value, and I hope I can ask you more when i run into issues about images. Are you from America, or are you what the Thai call a farang? I ask towards a specific end. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

essay

Don't know if you saw this. Tvoz |talk 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

May Pang

Hi R. Can you please do something about user: Arcayne. This person is vandalizing the May Pang page by adding CN tags at the end of almost every statement. Please help.Sixstring1965 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am so sorry, I keep 'vandalizing' the page by expecting information in a BLP to be cited, following Wikipedia policy. Flippancy aside, if you feel I am incorrect in asking for citation, please let me know. If you feel, however, that the labelling of 'troll' or 'vandal' is inappropriately applied, it would be nifty if you could maybe point that out as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond in a timely fashion (real life took a turn towards the busy). I see that there is discussion on the talk page now (with some good advice by Raymond and Tvoz). I don't think there's anything I can say which hasn't been said at this point, but I've added the page to my watchlist for the future. R. Baley 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Your essay

A great essay on images. I've added it to my useful links page; User:Phoenix 15/Useful links under "Other". Good job!--Phoenix 15 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

mfd

the editor who started this mfd (not understanding it was a joke) has deleted my comment (not understanding it was a joke). I don't actually love justin timberlake, and that isn't my password. I cannot revert it (the comment was placed there by someone else for me) as the conversation is too large for my phone to edit. I have just moved and have no computer access. would you mind uncensoring my comment, and yours as well? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done by me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

dammit, too late. I didn't look to see who had deleted it. Just assumed you were feeling misunderstood (clearly a joke, I mean Justin? That part was actually funny). R. Baley 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any time!

Sorry about the late reply, dear R, but I didn't want to leave your lovely message unreplied, because it's rare these days to be thanked for a deletion instead of being systamtically bashed for it instead ;) Please, any time you encounter a similar copyright problem, don't hesitate to message me for a second opinion and a quick deletion if necessary, k? Love, Phaedriel - 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you R. Baley!!

Thanks for your excellent photo essay. It helped me secure two photos for Athabasca University. Your essay is a moment to good procedure and practice, and should be featured if that's possible for a user space essay. You're my favourite person of the moment. Thanks again! Me-123567-Me 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to leave feedback. Me-123567-Me 22:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WMC, evidence and guilt by association

Your commentary on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_nth_repetition... puzzled me. Did you actually read the page before you supported the deletion? There's an exception to the "no personal attacks" rule in wp:user and I was trying to place my page smack dab in the middle of that exception. So how should it have been done right?

Separately, I'm of the opinion that a complainant's actual complaints deserve consideration independent of previous cases not involving the complainant. You seem to differ. Am I misreading you? TMLutas 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope didn't get a chance to read it, I was trusting the judgment of admins who did. If indeed you are trying to get a dispute resolved, you should keep the issues raised related to content rather than than trying to build a case for bad conduct. In the event you know where he has clearly violated a policy you should probably take it to WP:AN (though I should warn you, it needs to be very clear to get anywhere, and "clear cases" do not require a separate page to "build up" evidence). So with regard to user sub-pages, they're probably ok where they are devoted to resolving content disputes where the actions of an editor are incidental to the content which is in dispute. But probably not ok when focused mainly on a particular editor unless the dispute is long term and in such desperate need of a resolution, that a CSN or ArbCom case is clearly coming up real soon. Since none of the dispute resolution methods have been tried up to this point (making CSN and Arbcom extremely unlikely), building a case against an editor, is inappropriate. R. Baley 16:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald

I reviewed the article according to the good article criteria, and my analysis is on the talk page. Thanks for your nomination! GreenJoe 21:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks!

Luckily he didn't ask me anything about images.....Tvoz |talk 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP Noticeboard closure

I only did the one closure, which I picked up on the talk page (I think it's a new template). But it worked fine on the Tammy Duckworth discussion, save for the same problem I had which is that it puts an extra "----" on the bottom and therefore shows an unnecessary additional section break. I've removed it. Perhaps the {{blpb}} template can be fixed to remove it. Sam Blacketer 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid issue at WP:BLPN

Hi R. Baley. I do thank you for your comments on this issue, and for your obvious interest in seeing this issue resolved rather than prolonged. However it may appear, I am sincerely not interested in escalating this dispute either. I would like to share with you my current thoughts and then, if you're willing, get your input as to how, if at all, I should proceed in light of these thoughts. If you'd rather stay completely out of this dispute, I'll certainly understand that, but please understand that I'm sincerely looking for guidance rather than validation of my position. In any event, my thoughts are as follows:

• The comment in question was stupid, and added very little to the debate. So why fight to restore it? Well, I hate to invoke Voltaire, because the quote gets bandied about so often and because (as User:FCYTravis correctly points out) Wikipedia talk pages are not unrestrained free speech zones, but it's less about restoring the specific comment and more about standing up for the principle that editors can't delete each others' comments just because they're dumb and don't add much to the debate - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to ArbComm your right to say it."
• More seriously still, User:FCYTravis's conduct in this dispute has made me question his willingness to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. When the combined consensus at WP:WQA and WP:BLPN (where he explicitly told me to list the dispute after he refused to abide by the WP:WQA consensus) has been (rightly or wrongly) that he was incorrect to delete the material, and when he tells me, in effect, that it doesn't matter how overwhelming a consensus I can garner, he won't agree to restore the material...well, I have trouble letting something like that slide. When he tells me that the only way he's going to abide by a consensus is on the orders of ArbComm, I have trouble letting that slide. I'm prepared to accept that it may be in the best interests of the project to let it slide, but it will take some convincing.
• Overall, he's clearly a good editor. This isn't a case where you've got a problem editor and you think to yourself "Well, this is ultimately going to have to end with him being banned, but I need to go through the proper dispute resolution channels first." I would dearly love for us to be able to declare a consensus, act in accordance with it, and move on. But at the same time I feel like I went into this process quite prepared to let the issue drop if that's the way consensus went and that, since consensus went the other way, the onus is now on him to give in.

I would welcome an attempt on your part to convince me, in light of my thoughts above, that letting this drop is the right course of action. Further, I promise to listen completely open-mindedly to any such attempt you make. But if you'd rather take no further role in the dispute, that's completely understandable as well. In any event, thank you for your intervention thus far. Sarcasticidealist 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment in a moment, still trying to clean up troll stuff (maybe you saw the top of my page?) Patiently, R. Baley 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi SI, for the purposes of this post, I assume that everything you say is exactly how it went down (I don't really know, but I think I can make a convincing argument anyway). I have seen enough on this site to know that some users have achieved enough "status" to bully their way through a lot of things. I don't care for it either (generally, this is especially true of late with BLP, though, not to my knowledge, with FCYT specifically). With regard to your first principle: lose the battle, not the war (metaphorically speaking, WP is not a battlefield of course). I agree that people should be able to make points and not have one person be the arbitor of whether it's OK or not. Whether FCYT is right on the technicalities of policy doesn't matter because you can't possibly put your whole self behind a principle, when your defending (simultaneously) the godwinning of a thread and a blowjob comment (w/Nixon thrown in). And seriously, if you've compared the article/kid to hitler, you've greatly undermined/negated any point made. (I know it wasn't yours, but someone else's point).

I'm thinking you might want to wait for a better comment to be made, to make your case for this principle (One that can be shown to help improve the article, for instance). It might never come (and in that case, all is well). Because while you may be right "technically", in the end it's just a really bad comment.

Finally, it doesn't have to be your argument. If there is a strong consensus (with a will behind it) it will probably exert itself, regardless of what any one editor does. Oh, and another final point, has anybody tried just archiving the thread, in it's entirety? Would that alleviate everyone's concerns? The issue of whether to include the name is settled, right?

Hope this helps,

R. Baley 09:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll sleep on it before I decide what to do (it's 3:26 in the morning here, and I nominally have a day job). I'm still a little disturbed by his approach to consensus, but I'll certainly take what you say under advisement - thanks again for posting your thoughts. Sarcasticidealist 09:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sleeping on it is almost always advisable in these situations. There's never a hurry and it's just a wiki :-)

Best,

R. Baley 09:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies the rub, guys - if a better comment was made, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have an issue with reasonable and rational discussion. But I feel that the comparisons in question were unnecessary, insulting and completely out-of-line for describing the actions of some 14-year-old kid dancing in a home movie. Put yourself in the shoes of someone or someone's family who ends up with a Wikipedia article for something that a bunch of stupid people saw on the Interwebs and laughed at. It's bad enough that we have an article on him - to allow anonymous Internet jokers to compare him with Hitler is beyond the pale. There is nothing which obligates us to accept the lowest common denominator in speech and thought. We can be and should be above that. Indeed, we have a policy which explicitly states that we must live up to a higher standard when discussing living people, in articlespace or talkspace. There are millions of ways to rationally make an argument about SWK - many of them are already on display on that talk page. I have removed none of them, and will remove none of them - except for the one which invoked Godwin's Law. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Scan that entire userpage. There are many debates and many viewpoints from all sides. None of the others resorted to such tabloidesque sensationalism. If they can do it, why not him?

As for consensus, it cannot override WP:BLP. BLP was explicitly created because "consensus" decisions far too often failed to live up to our legal and moral obligations with regards to living people. Consensus cannot allow violations of BLP, any more than a consensus can decide that Wikipedia should host blogs in violation of what Wikipedia is not. The BLP explicitly states Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. It is unquestionably negative and contentious for anyone to describe SWK's actions as analogous to Hitler's. Demand higher standards in thought and words, Sarcasticidealist. Disagreements and good-faith debates can and should take place without juvenile resort to hateful false analogies. FCYTravis 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think there is still some question on the policy part, due in no small part, to the fact that it subject to interpretation of BLP. Probably, the consensus that developed was because people perceived that you were asserting control over the discussion in a way that can seem less legitimate when done alone. It's too bad there isn't a quick way to determine these things as a group, because I think it might not have led to arguments if everybody felt they had a say in the matter (and I also think that the consensus would have been to 'remove', but perhaps I'm too optimistic). Well, I hope that didn't come across as too critical, from what I remember, you're a good editor (as is SI) and I wish you well. Happy editing, R. Baley 23:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Eleemosynary

This regards the recent back-and-forth revertions of my friendly reminder to not engage in personal attacks on User talk:Eleemosynary. According to WP:TALK, a user can remove any comments from his or her own talk page for any reason, although doing so for no reason is generally regarded as uncivil, so it would have been good for Eleemosynary to provide a good faith explanation. Eleemosynary's lying about my comments in his edit summary — calling the comments nonsense and me a troll — are uncivil, but there's nothing that can (or should) be done to undo them via simple edits. Happily, his (or her) edit summary underscores my point, that Eleemosynary engages in personal attacks within edit summaries (although it may be open to interpretation whether calling a non-troll a troll violates WP:NPA). In any event, the comments were meant for Eleemosynary, and he obviously read them and chose to scrub his talk page of them. It's a tad dishonest, but I can live with it. Perhaps he will heed my warnings and refrain from further personal attacks. If not, next time he engages in personal attacks, my comments in his talk page history can be used to illustrate that his attacks are part of a consistent pattern made in the face of reminders of the policy he continues to violate. Calbaer 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calbaer, I had no problem with you leaving a comment. And I have no opinion to offer (no knowledge) on the dispute which you two are engaged in. The only thing I objected to was a supposedly new user with no contribs, being so confrontational about re-adding text to a talk page. I think you've hit the nail on the head about talk page history, and that's why we allow users to delete comments if they want to -it establishes that they've seen it, and in the future, should it become necessary, can be used to illustrate a point/make a case.

Hope you two can work it out (like the above section), I really would rather see the more established editors getting along better. Well, take care, and best wishes for happier editing in the future,

R. Baley 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure "confrontational" was the right word, but I thought the way that user was handled quite odd. Restoring a deleted comment may not be great, but it's hardly "vandalism." Also, the indefinite block seemed a bit odd, especially since the template cited the contributions, which were pretty much limited to the two reversions. How these show that the user is a sockpuppet is beyond me. It would have been good of the blocker to state the real reason for the block, e.g., a common IP address. As it is, I'm a bit mystified about a block involving my words but not me! Calbaer 03:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

David M. Spindel

Hi R.B., I have been fortunate enough to speak with David Spindel on the phone and recieved a treasure trove of info on him and his career. He gave me full permission to use whatever I deem fit for Wikipedia. He's even sending a picture. His page is going to be reformatted in the near future. I wanted to thank you by sticking with me on this. Sixstring1965 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Your welcome. Make sure the pic has the appropriate license info (not to pimp my own material, but you might want to look at my guide to acquire a free image). As for any other material, use stuff that has been published first. For right now, you want to try and make his notability solid. R. Baley 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please block me properly

This is viran. And I can still edit pages. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairiliyan (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) OK (thanks SQL) R. Baley 10:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done, sorry for the delay. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I was going to a bit ago, and, got distracted. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 10:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User viran

I have declared all my sockpuppets on user:viran page. Please block them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 11:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja Vu!

please block properly. I can still edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishka (talk • contribs) 12:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)