User talk:Harej/Archive03

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Your solution seems to be getting a fair bit of support - I've also seen other alternatives, ranging from deleting & salting the lot, or tagging everything historical, to writing a quick paragraph, or even a full essay about it. Should that essay replace the main page, or be somewhere else? Some people have said to tag all the historical pages that are "relevant", but what's relevant is an open question. I've tried to write up a more detailed option on Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza which tries to cover all these points - I'd appreciate any feedback. Cheers! Quack 688 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to write an essay somewhere, which makes the point that an AfD that nominates too many different things at once could lead to a "no consensus" trainwreck. However, it's better to have an example like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles to point to. I'm using the same logic here. It's one thing to tell people in the future, "Don't make WikiProjects too bureaucratic". But pointing them to Esperanza will let them see with their own eyes. I suppose if the sub-pages are blanked and re-directed, anyone would be able to look at the edit history and see this for themselves. But as long as they're able to see the history somehow, they'll be in a better position to figure out for themselves that too much bureaucracy is a bad thing. Quack 688 07:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucky 6.9 case has now been archived. Did you reach any conclusions? — Sebastian 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wonder the same thing too. I'd never heard of Lucky 6.9 until yesterday, until he caught my attention by unilaterally deleting a page I created that I know doesn't fit

WP:CSD. Then when I went to warn him about it, my warning mysteriously disappears. It seems WarthogDemon (talk · contribs) now does all the dirty-work of removing things from his talk page that he doesn't like, at Lucky's direct request (example where WarthogDemon notes in the edit summary that he did so at Lucky's request), citing "personal attacks" for even the slightest criticism. Another recent example

.

It seems that instances of these complaints go back all the way before Lucky's RfA days, when his first one, two, three, RfA's went nowhere and his fourth succeeded only with people expressing concerns that he inappropriately tags material for speedy deletion, supporting only under the condition that he apparently would change. Well, guess what - it seems the problem rages on.

Clearly, whatever problems there are, are still going on and haven't simply settled themselves over time. Reswobslc 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply. I trust that you are trying to do the right thing, and if nothing else happens, my "gripe" has been handled better than I could have expected. I would like to make a couple comments for your consideration.

1. Let's assume that my article is a candidate for speedy due to no assertion of notability. In my opinion, that's not even why Lucky deleted in in the first place. After having been an administrator this long (!!!!) there is something wrong if he hasn't figured out that he should give a CSD reason if he is going to act on his own speedy-delete proposal. "This isn't the Urban Dictionary" doesn't mean "non-notable" to me - instead, it means "This article doesn't satisfy my personal criteria of what I think Wikipedia should include" - and with either interpretation, it's so open to interpretation that an administrator who has been one this long (!!!!) should know better than to wipe out others' work, and instead of a simple "nn" or

WP:N

tag, go to the effort of making a comment like this.

2. Also consider that

neologisms

- which are AfD/prod material, not speedy. This isn't an attempt to wikilawyer - as I'm not asking you to change your mind or even reply. But what I am suggesting is that the idea that Lucky "accidentally" even failed to provide this arguably inapplicable rationale isn't even his own omission and not one that should be claimed on his behalf. My article could have well been fodder for deletion, but I'd have appreciated hearing that from the community in AfD rather than for someone who still can't be bothered to follow the rules to simply decide on the community's behalf.

3. As much as I'd like to

WP:AGF

, there is no escaping that complaints of this guy deleting things that shouldn't or probably shouldn't be deleted are not only very disruptive to Wikipedia, and but so persistent over years to the point they predate his RfA that there's no good reason they should keep happening. AGF does not mean to tolerate and enabled persistent continued disruption, any more than a bank teller who embezzles only $1 every day for snacks should be given continued access to others' money. There is a problem that isn't going away on its own.

Thanks, and I am happy no matter what you finally determine. Reswobslc 23:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed it as needlessly harsh the first time so I removed it. When I saw it brought up again, rather than simply creating an edit war, I just struck out two sentences. Perhaps I have acted in bad faith here; it just seems to me that harrassment of Lucky 6.9 is starting to come in the form of arbitration threats. I am not biased (at least I hope not) and have been unsure if my helping out with Lucky is causing more problems than it is solving problems. I have recieved little feedback on this so I've decided to open up a Mediation Case on myself:

Still, I would like to have some feedback. I'm not sure if I know where I draw the line at abusive/acceptable. (For example I actually considered deleting the two aformentioned sentences but that would technically have been tpv). If it somehow does become a big messy problem, I'll simply stop helping out on Lucky's talk page. Aside from general Wikipedian disruption, it'll do no good if I'm doubling the conflict Lucky has to deal with. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten absolutely ridiculous as evidenced by the comment some user just left regarding my deletion of his "Hershey squirts" nonsense. I have about had it with this site eating its own. - Lucky 6.9 23:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Seeing as you did it for Wikinews, could you do it for Wikipedia? Please? =)

Technically, my bot is authorized to fix double redirects. It's just that there's a bunch of bots out there that beat me to it. I'm going to see if I can whip out my bot and sic it on some double redirects.

ROCKER★ 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

^μιλώ 04:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Messedrocker, I started to write an essay about Esperanza, but my participation within it was relatively brief. You're welcome to use any of what I wrote. I do believe that the essay will have to include input from people who wanted to keep it, those who wanted to delete it, and especially those who know its history. If I can be of any help with writing it, please tell me. --Kyoko 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what I had planned was intended to be much longer, but I wanted to get down at least an introductory sentence. Primarily I wanted to explain how the group developed, how it apparently had a debate about leadership in 2005, the various initiatives (stress alerts, coffee lounge, userpage award, etc.), and how it eventually (in the eyes of many) became a community within a community rather than its original intent. Or something like that. --Kyoko 17:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Messedrocker, if you thinking of including any history about it, it was always interesting how the creation of the logo came about; the info is on the image's page (Image:Esperanza.svg). I'm sure it's too detailed to talk about specifically, but it might give you some background information. -- Natalya 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to include the new locations of Esperanza's surviving programs, so as to allow the community/ex-members to migrate accordingly. -
  Mailer Diablo 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where are you writing your essay? Can we see any of it?--CJ King 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with that, Messedrocker. You've written up the positive and negative aspects of the entire thing in a nicely non-biased manner. Thanks for doing that. -- Natalya 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - they are deserved! -- Natalya 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the two and a bit years, that's pretty exciting. -- Natalya 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the essay! I hope my edits to it haven't detracted to what you wrote. --Kyoko 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice. One small nitpick: the essay says Stressbusters was deleted, but it's still around:
  Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikidemia/Stressbusters. >Radiant< 08:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 1	2 January 2007	About the Signpost

Effort to modify fair use policy aborted	Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

• Alabama Senate http://www.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senate.html
• Alaska House of Representatives http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/house/24/house.htm
• Alaska Senate http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/senate/24/senate.htm
• Arizona House of Representatives http://www.azhouse.gov/
• Arizona Senate http://www.azsenate.gov/
• Tennessee House of Representatives http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/house/members/hmembers.htm

Your suggestion is a good idea, is technically possible, and I would be quite willing to do it. Unfortunately, as I will be studying for exams for the next few weeks, I will likely not finish this task for quite some time. If a month or so is too long for you, I will be willing to supply the source code so you can make the modifications.

(One problem is that Yahoo allows a number of queries per IP address, so all accounts on the toolserver are restricted to a certain amount of searches. Perhaps this problem could be circumvented by using the web interface, but I will have to look into whether this conflicts with Yahoo's Terms of Service.) -- Where 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your understanding :). The bot can run fine under Windows or Mac OS, although it probably will take some effort to set up. -- Where 02:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi messedrocker. You asked me to let you know if we have any more problems with vandalism to this article. We do. Somebody keeps adding mythical characters to the article, like fairies or mimes. 68.37.205.18 did it, and I issued him a final warning, as he has already been blocked for one month for vandalizing this article, and others. Then, very shortly afterward, a new user called Ronnuhel showed up with the very same vandalism. I issued him a first level warning. Please keep your eye on this page for awhile. We need help from admin. Thank you. -- Elaich 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Hi. If I move a page with lots of incoming links, do I have to ask your bot to help fix the redirects that develop, or will it take care of the problem eventually? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks! Xiner (talk, email) 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Someone finally protected it. But you did so at the wrong time, right after a certain user whose name i won't mention due to fear of being lashed out at, added the following and twisted some peoples words around, (As well as literally cutting out chunks of certain viewpoints in order to decrease validity) Places of concern (Which i found on a quick scan through of ONLY the first three or so paragraphs... are below.

In the United States most teenage sexual encounters today take place outside the context of romantic relationships

Increasingly, teenage sexual encounters in the United States do not occur in the context of a romantic relationship

These are two instances, one is sourced from Leonard Sax, the other is a paraphrase Which i presume was used as an excuse to put in a qoute TWO times.

Most experts agree that "teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior. Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents. All "teens have sexual lives, whether with others or through fantasies."[1] Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives. ... The question is whether they are going to have healthy experiences, at any or every level of sexual activity."[2] Both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."[3]

Obviously POV, the orginial citation (AS admitted by this user, was a sweeping geenralization that said ALL teenagers are too young. That in itself caused me to engage in an edit war due to it's POV, but now the quote itself has been twisted into a weasel-word so that it says MOST experts) And there are PLENTY of experts on the subject who don't share that view AT ALL. The ALL part was removed, but just so it could be twisted more. I don't think Lynn Ponton, the person who said this quote even said All teens, just teens)

The lead has been filled with THIS despite my best efforts.

Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents. All "teens have sexual lives, whether with others or through fantasies."[1] Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives. ... The question is whether they are going to have healthy experiences, at any or every level of sexual activity."[2] Both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."[3]

Although I had proposed (This was one of the earlier leads as posted by someone) this NPOV statement in order to try and stop the disputes.... the user reverted it multiple times.

do you mind if i fix these so that they're in their true states of citation and so that the lead is at least GLOBALLY applicable (Not just a united states 'experts' opinion?, it Would greatly reduce misunderstandings by visitors to the page while major disputes are resolved and I can't stand to think that things like THAT will be left unfixed for... who knows how long. I hope you understand and can meet my requests. Nateland 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i hope it gets sorted out sometime soon.

Thanks for the advice though.

Nateland 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support on

Not of any general interest, but FYI, "the" is not generally used before "Western Sahara" as a country/territory name. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you are the admin who protected the adolescent sexuality article. It seems to me that the lead section seems to be the biggest sticking point here, so I want you to know that I have a proposal for moving forward in a peaceable manner. You are welcome to participate. --Illuminato 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Below i'll give you the text from a response I put on the talk page of adolescent sexuality, Although I just realized that hwta I suggested might be a GREAT way to settle edit wars etc. (Although server strain might become an issue) If you think it's good then perhaps we should suggest it to an admin or someone?

BELOW is my response BELOW THAT is my idea summary: Bare bones?, i'm not suggesting the lead be bare bones OH NO SIREE!. I'm saying that your proposed additions are a barebones start to improving the article, not to brag but when compared to the PAGES of proposals i've made (Look further up this discussion for my most recent proposal with list of fixes a etc. etc.)

And the opening is simply a NPOV summary of what adolescent sexuality IS, and a brief summary of what cultures think of it etc. and possible norms affecting it.

It mentions homosexuality as an example of cultural prohibitions on sex, if you go by that then we shouldn't include ANY mention of sex before marriage in a negative way OR positive because that not 'connected' to the article.

Explanations of sexual diversity are VERY USEFUL in my opinion in an article all ABOUT adolescent sexuality, due to most adolescents, unless you are lina medina discovering their own orientations etc.

And do you REALLY think that simply summary I proposed contributes to a 'structure'?, now i'm not saying that structure is BAD, but to go by your words and take them to their logical 'logicity' (so as to say), ONE or TWO paragraphs briefly explaining WHAT adolescent sexuality IS. NOT the views of it, this is about adolescent sexuality in itself, I think that over the edit wars we've lost that the Whole POINT of the article is to explain what adolescent sexuality IS.

NOT just the views, and If we include them, NOT to give them precedence over all the other topics and issues related to this.

Judith levine, Leonard Sax, and Lynn Ponton's views are not part of adolescent sexuality in itself.

It should be in a seperate article (And it would settle a LOT of these conflicts and allow for the progression of a MAIN informational article in itself).

I think that this branching off would also allow the various parts of a subject to be less subject to edit wars, and we can simply include linksd to the in dividual topics from the main page.

Waddaya say?

SUMMARY: This article IS about adolescence, and YES I know that saying it should just be a detailed reference for info on adolescent sexuality, orientation, and contraception.

It would EASILY get rid of the problems presented by respresenting Major points of view in the article.

Instead, they could branch off to a seperatere subarticle WHICH was ALL ABOUT individual opninions worldwide.

Plus I think that it would cut down on article length over time as more countries were added.

This could also be applied to other articles of particular debate, however without opinions in the main articles themselves, but easily accessible with plentiful links to the articles CONTAINING THOSE.

It would probably ease off the load of edit warring and disputes that plague wikipedia to this day?

Think it's a good idea? Nateland 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

(That is to say, if you could work to discourage pages like that, it would be much appreciated) --Yamla 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]