This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Special:Diff/739337387 indicates confusion by one of the people who voted for the topic ban over whether it effects conversations I am already part of.
This makes it clear that your alleged consensus was not aware that they were voting to restrict all conversation. This was an aspect only elaborated upon when you handed out my sentence. KrakatoaKatie did not elaborate upon it when nominating me (thus WarMachine's confusion) so this and possibly other votes you tallied cannot necessarily be considered to be an informed consensus.
Special:Diff/739954487 relates to this concern. Crash has nominated a redirect I created (Extreme Giant) and only brought up the WWE.com reference I added for it, even though I aliased to 2 others in special:diff/738801626:
"Extreme giant prevails" 20 August 2006
"Team Cena topples the Extreme Giant" 26 Nov 2006
"said the Extreme Giant" 8 Dec 2006
Prohibiting me from making these defenses of my redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18 is allowing CrashUnderride's inaccuracies to go un-answered. As you can see, this falsehood has already generated positive votes from both CoffeeWithMarkets and LM2000 and WarMachineWildThing.
Given that you gave me a warning about enforcing a meaning for "broadly construed" which all voters were not aware of (evidence above) and given that you have already excluded Ryk72 from the consensus process, I think this is grounds for you to restrict the scope of this topic block in three respects to better reflect the consensus of the Wikipedia community:
limiting it to an area everyone agreed on, "professional wrestling" instead of "wrestling"
not limiting edits/creation of redirects unrelated to pro wrestling (there was no consensus to do this)
allowing me to take part in conversations I'm already a part of so I can defend my redirects on RfD
If I am not allowed to defend my Extreme Giant redirect then Crash's falsehoods will continue to go unquestioned. It appears people are allowed to participate in voting to delete redirects without being held accountable for not checking the claims of the nominator.
If this is deleted, then I am worried deletion of more of my redirects will be held against me in future consideration. "Oh look how many redirects we deleted" for example, even though it is being done so on clearly false reasoning, as you can see with Crash saying only ONE article on WWE.com says it when in fact THREE do, spaced months apart.
This is exactly the type of behavior which was overlooked in measuring the consensus, how claims being made about edits and sources are being taken at face value without investigation into their veracity. Ranze (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I've blocked Ranze for 48 hours. --NeilNtalk to me 10:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ongoing Lotus Carlton vandalism
Hello, thanks for protecting the Lotus Carlton article in the wake of last month's persistent vandalism. Unfortunately, more disruptive editors have returned. I suspect they're sockpuppets of Altimgamr or at least affiliated with the humans operating those accounts. I just wanted to alert you because we will likely need some more assistance soon. Thanks! --ColinMB (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@ColinMB: I've protected for another two months. Airplaneman ✈ 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
christian bale
Please be advised that chritian bale is british / WELSH and not english .pembrokeshire is part of wales not england — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.11.201 (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
@Michael Hardy: You're right, G1 isn't a valid deletion reason in this case. That's a mistake on my part. If I were to evaluate the page today, I would encourage moving it to the draft space and try and assist the author with sourcing. The information covered may very well have a place as part of the color blindness article or as a standalone list. I've restored content to User:JimFoit/Games Unfriendly to Red/Green Colorblind (deficit) People and will notify the author shortly. Thanks for bringing this up. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Fæ: pinging tagger as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Lyapunov Function
Myrocarcassonne (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)== Lyapunov function ==
Hi Airplaneman,
Why did you pp-protect the Lyapunov function content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrocarcassonne (talk • contribs) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
bender235, Boris Tsirelson, David Eppstein and I, we are all equal as Wikipedian contributors. But as to Lyapunov Function we are not equal. Why? Lyapunov function is a subject of Stability Theory, which, in its turn, is a branch of Nonlinear Dynamics in Mathematics. bender235 is even not a mathematician at all! Boris Tsirelson and David Eppstein are mathematicians but judging by their works they are not the experts on Nonlinear Dynamics and Stability Theory.
I am the expert on Nonlinear Dynamics and Stability Theory. My expertise is proved with:
1.4 zbMATH, a major international reviewing service providing reviews and abstracts for articles in pure and applied mathematics, which editors are the European Mathematical Society (EMS), FIZ Karlsruhe, the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences - https://zbmath.org/authors/?s=0&q=sparavalo
2. Four awards for the innovative aerospace applications of the theoretical discoveries in Nonlinear Dynamics, Stability and Control from Soviet Union, Ukraine and France.
By the way, Yurii Mitropolskiy was awarded The Lyapunov Golden Medal for his works in Asymptotical Methods in Nonlinear Dynamics.
The deletion of my contribution, done without any preliminary discussions with me, and the following ban of me from editing Wikipedia articles can be without doubts interpreted as Wikipedia vandalism and the outrageous attempt to usurp the equal-for-all right to make contributions to Wikipedia in a typical communistic way.
What do you think now after reading my arguments?Myrocarcassonne (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
You delete my reply and accuse others of being "communistic". You claim no preliminary discussion, but only after deleting my reply that linked you to attempts at resolving this editing dispute. Credentials do not equal consensus. This isn't Academia, it's Wikipedia. Sure, credentials could mean something, but they do not unilaterally override editorial consensus nor do they take precedence over encyclopedia policy. Needless to say, I find your argument to be invalid and disruptive. Airplaneman ✈ 06:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Airplaneman,
First, yesterday I sent you the email where I told you that accidentally I deleted your reply of "Please see ...", while I was trying to sign my first post-question to you following the Mlpearc's advice to sign the posts. I said: "Sorry for that." Have you not yet check your email box or is it one of your wiles to communicate?
Second, if you find my arguments invalid and disruptive please be so kind as to show where and why they are specifically invalid and disruptive. Don't just pin them down with a label of "invalid and disruptive".
Third, I'd like to talk about your understanding of the credentials. You compare them to consensus and link them to "precedence over encyclopedia policy". According to you "credentials could mean something". In this context your "something" looks like something insignificant. Here where we differ since for me the credentials of the author of any encyclopedic article is a pivotal point. My logic is as follows.
1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Do you agree, yes or no?
2. The encyclopedic information must be reliable. Do you agree, yes or no?
3. The reliable encyclopedic information can come only from authoritative sources. Do you agree, yes or no?
4. The authority of the sources of information in any worthy encyclopedia can be proved by the credentials of the authors, first of all. Nor by consensus of the authors with doubtful credentials neither by encyclopedia policy. Because false information deserves nothing to be considered for use in any worthy encyclopedia. I mean "worthy" in the sense of "meant not for political propaganda". Do you agree, yes or no?
Am I mistaken? If yes, be so kind as to indicate the wrong point specifically in the chain of my reasoning.
P.S. Airplaneman,
The credentials of an author prove his/her competency. My point is that you considerably downplay the competency of the authors of Wikipedia articles saying "credentials could mean something". The factor of the competency is very important for Mathematics and Hard Sciences. How can the consensus between incompetent authors help their disagreement on the subject they do not understand? How can encyclopedia policy help a bunch of incompetent authors create a competent, intelligible and professionally adequate article in these branches? How can incompetent in some specific topic of Mathematics people decide what is right there and what is wrong? The common sense gives us the clear answer: No, it cannot and No, they cannot. That is why any editor who values his/her reputation will never say that my arguments are "invalid and disruptive". Myrocarcassonne (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've unfortunately not received an email. I have also checked my spam folder. I'll certainly look into that.
I acknowledge and understand your four points, as anyone who has (or hasn't!) taken an elementary course in logic is able to. Yet, I believe they misunderstand Wikipedia. It is incredibly hard to verify credentials, and one of the double-edged swords that comes with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that non-experts have a voice in editorial decisions. That is not to say that arguments made by more credentialed individuals are de facto discounted; rather, one cannot wave credentials around and expect immediate deference. For a more credential-centric project, see: Citizendium. Additionally, the arguments at the WikiProject Mathematics talk page explain, with basis in Wikipedia policy, why there were some problems with your edits. These are the problems that must be addressed, regardless of credentials. Airplaneman ✈ 19:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Airplaneman,
Are you serious? You propose me to discuss the topic of Lyapunov Function with the folks
1) who are not experts on Lyapunov Function;
2) who started “their so-called discussion” with me by destroying my work and debarring me from editing. Putting it bluntly, they gagged me and after it Bender235 was intended to “force me” (This is his exact expression) to talk (What is ludicrous after silencing me, isn't it!?) and do what they want. I call this attempt of violence "the communication rape”.
These people behave like communistic or fascistic barbarians, whose prime policy has always been to intentionally destroy any bit of the knowledge challenging their ideas and prevent the information inconvenient for them from the free dissemination among the public. But it is not a free world. It is a totalitarian one in the information sphere.
This is my personal opinion about what is going on with Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it.
Myrocarcassonne (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Airplaneman. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
YGM
Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Got it. Try this: tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/index.php. It should break down edits in each namespace. Would prefer on-wiki communication for these sorts of things because I keep a separate email for Wikipedia and it's a little harder to log in and check my email for a short message like the one you sent. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 04:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Seema Mustafa
You have been too hasty in blocking Seema Mustafa. I have only this minute left a message on another user's page, please read it here because exactly the same thing needs to be urged upon you. I hope you will reconsider and revert your hasty action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.186.110 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
YGM!
Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for notifying me. Looks like a long-term problem. All linked pages semiprotected for 3 months. Airplaneman ✈ 03:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
WWS
He has been blocked now for edit warring somewhere else; his reaction has been to claim that the block is unfair and that people are ganging up on him. He very obviously does not understand WP:CONSENSUS. I thought he should have been blocked earlier for edit warring on the half dozen articles about the serial comma. Wikipedia would be chaos if editors were given the idea that it is ok to stalk other editors for the purpose of starting edit wars with them at articles frequently edited by those other editors over a point of style. There should be a general rule, analogous to WP:CITEVAR and WP:RETAIN, and stronger than WP:BROKE, that says that if an article has an established style with respect to optional MOS items, infoboxes, etc., then new editors should not change that style without first establishing a consensus to do so on the Talk page. I know some excellent, highly productive editors who have left the project due to harassment over such style matters on articles that they spent hundreds of hours bringing to FA or GA level. I hope you will advise him not to try to change the style again when his block wears off, unless he first established a consensus to do so on the relevant Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ssilvers: Thanks for the note; this is an unfortunate turn of events. I agree that the block should stand. I had tried my best to de-escalate the situation and provide many chances to disengage, but alas…
I am very aware of the retirement of editors due to style disagreements that often become excessively vitriolic. Every time I encounter disagreements, I feel for the editors in question; more often than not, they're disagreeing because they really want to do what's best for the encyclopedia. Disagreements on style have seemed to me the most dangerous and damaging (re: infoboxes). I am especially pained when I encounter editor(s) who have left over these sorts of disagreements. Based on the type of editor that Wikipedia attracts (this includes me), I am not surprised that style is very important to so many who dedicate so much of their time here. I often wonder if these disagreements would ever reach this timbre in real life, face-to-face scenarios… most times I wonder this, the answer is no.
I think you've said your piece in this matter here; may I ask that you not interact with WWS further for the next two days, at least? I fear that further interaction will not accomplish anything positive. I will be sure to check back in 48 hours from now to speak with WWS. I learned of their overall helpful edits and enthusiasm through my watchlist and wish them nothing but the best. Hopefully I will be able to work with them to find some sort of resolution. Airplaneman ✈ 06:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no interest in interacting with him ever again, but it depends on what he does, obviously. I never heard of him before, and if he does not go back to those articles, which are articles I have edited heavily for years, then I'm happy to never hear of him again. I think that if you want to help him, you don't need to wait two days and can try to explain WP:CONSENSUS to him asap [ADD:] whenever you think best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Cool; I don't have the time to adequately address policy issues right now, nor do I think more instruction, however well-meaning, will be beneficial at this time. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 06:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Protecting Sway (musician) wiki page
HI There,
I've been the one trying to edit Sway's wiki page and has since been protected to established users only. I am new to wiki and was trying to edit and work out as I went along, which i'm sure led you to believe there was vandalism. The main issue was referencing and subjective content which, with the latest edit, I feel I have managed to get rid of. I was wondering if you could kindly review the latest edit and to update the wiki page, should you not find any faults with it.
Made collapsible Airplaneman ✈ 21:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Biography
The Beginning
Derek Andrews Safo born September 5, 1982 known professionally as Sway (Dasafo) was born and raised in Hornsey[1], North London by Ghanaian parents Beatrice & Alhaji. He attended Campsbourne Junior School and then Highgate Wood Secondary School[2], where he would sacrifice many of his lunchtime breaks learning how to produce music in the schools 'backroom' music facility.
His witty punch lines, storytelling ability and fast flow influenced by his favorite rap group Bone Thugs N Harmony[3] and local drum and Bass MC’s such as Skibadee and Shabba D had him constantly stand out as a unique hybrid.
2000 – “Phynix Crew”
At age 14 Sway joined up with two sixth form students Ace and Mirage GG (Now known as Archer) to form the Phynix Crew. The group would record countless demo’s and entered Choice FM’s Rapology competition in 1998. [4]
2001 – “One”
Between ages 16 & 19 Sway played an instrumental role in the merging of rappers from three different schools to form the eleven member local super group called "One". Despite being one of the youngest members of the crew he was appointed as the Rza or Megaman of the collective with Wu-Tang & So Solid being their key Influences. The collective who mainly resided in Tottenham, Wood Green & Hornsey would independently release a hand to hand sold album entitled “Onederful World” which landed them a finalist position in a MOBO unsung competition [5] that would be televised and judged by the likes of Radio 1 DJ Tim Westwood.
2002 – On My Own
Sway continued to enter open mic competitions and landed a solo record on the first ever BBC 1Xtra playlist upon its launch in 2002. [6]
He then attended Westminster College to study sound engineering and then City & Islington College to study Music technology. In this time he had also become an honorary member of 5th Element hip hop/drum & bass collective put together by his cousin DJ Ink. Sway would take payment for his verses in exchange for the group manufacturing his own vinyl which he would then sell and distribute. In order to gain more contacts in the world of music he was introduced to the Sony Street Team by former fellow One member turned actor Alex Lanipekun, where he had met DJ Semtex and Tumai "Turkish" Salih.
Sway would hand out flyers, hang up posters but was keen on personally delivering promotional CD's to record shops and DJ's, as this way he could build relationships with all the key DJ's with a view of knowing who to go to when he had completed his own music.
Not wanting to be recognized as a 'the rapper' Sway would cover his face in pictures with a Union Jack bandana, this later became an iconic image in the world of UK urban Music.
It was at this point that Sway decided that he wanted to start his own record label. He wanted a name that sounded like his own (Dasafo) but meant something more over a period of time. Dcypha Productions was born out of this thought.
2003/ 2004 – Dcypha Productions, This is My Promo Success
Shortly after founding Dcypha http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/sway-little-dereks-doing-ok[7], Sway partnered up with his older cousin Junior Appiah to create Dcypha Studio's based in Hornsey where Sway would begin making of his first official solo releases "This Is My Promo" Volume 1 & Volume 2.[8]
The "This Is My Promo" mix-tape releases sold faster than any of the Dcypha Productions team could've predicted and the demand for more copies through the stores and on the streets became overwhelming. [9]
Sway would often take to the streets with Pyrelli to sell the CD's with some people having no clue that they were buying from the artist himself. His previous road trips to UK cities such as Manchester, Newcastle & Bristol as a member of the Defjam street team would inspire him to write a track entitled "Up Your Speed". He would also give CD's to his younger siblings to sell in their schools which included a then unknown UK rapper Chipmunk who was a close friend to Sway's younger brother Bubz.[10]
Throughout the years Sway has continued to perform across Europe, North & South America, the Middle East and Africa alongside the likes of Dizzee Rascal[11], Example, [12]The Streets[13] and legendary Hip Hop group Public Enemy[14] Sway was also the first UK rap act to perform at Austin Texas's world-famous SXSW festival in 2006 [15]
2005 – This Is My Promo Success
Sway was now gaining attention from many major record companies, but having worked so closely with one as a street team member he felt deterred to lose the freedom he was experiencing as an independent artist.
He became the first unsigned rapper to win a MOBO Award beating US heavyweights 50 Cent and [[The Game][16]
The "This Is My Promo" series collectively sold close to 20,000 copies. Sway decided he would prefer to release his first album "This Is My Demo" independently, giving his demos directly to the people. Tracks such as "Flo Fashion", "Up Your Speed" and the Al Shux produced UK top 40 "Little Derek"[17] became genre-defining moments of this era. Despite being known as a UK Hip Hop artist Sway's versatile flow allowed him to be embraced by the newly born Grime scene collaborating with producers such as Terror Danjah and DJ Wonder[18]
2006 – This Is My Demo
Turkish would leave his job as a head of promotions manager at Def Jam UK to assist Sway in the making of his debut album “This Is My Demo”. Dcypha teamed up with local entrepreneurs Tayo aka "Puffy", Olu and Former XFM Radio DJ Dan Greenpeace to form Dcypha Alliance. 2006 saw the release of Sway's highly anticipated album "This Is My Demo" via Dcypha Alliance/ All City Records, One of the most critically acclaimed UK Rap albums of all time.
I closed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 1#Penny (Inspector Gadget) as retarget this morning. The RfD notice was not applied until two days after the discussion. I thought the nominator (Ranze) simply forgot to apply it. I now believe there was more to it than that. I was considering leaving a note about converting the redirect to an article on Ranze's talk page stating that it could be done without prejudice. I then notice this comment (which I overlooked this morning), Talk:Penny (Inspector Gadget)#Requested move 1 October 2016, and User talk:Ranze#Notice of topic ban. They seemingly didn't technically violate their topic ban. In my opinion however, if you are not permitted to do one of the steps in the RfD nomination process, you shouldn't start discussions there. I would personally suggest clarifying that since they cannot complete RfD nominations without violating there ban, they are disallowed from making them under the ban. I thought this particular nomination itself was reasonable, if only the retargeting suggestion; probably not the part where they advocate converting the redirect to an article, as that goes against the spirit of their topic ban. I'd also suggest disallowing them from editing the talk pages of redirects under the ban, as the only thing I think allowing them to do so does is entice them to break their topic ban (see Talk:Penny (Inspector Gadget)#Requested move 1 October 2016 and Talk:Penny (Inspector Gadget)#Reliable sources). Pinging NeilN due to their heavy participation in the section in which Ranze was notified about their topic ban and other involvement (all seemingly in a purely administrative capacity), and Ranze themself, as I'm basically making a clarification request about the scope of their topic ban.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Godsy, thank you for the note. As per the logic at WP:TBAN, which emphasizes that topic bans are to be interpreted "broadly," I agree with your suggestion to disallow Ranze from making RfD nominations (or, indeed, participating in RfD at all) because they cannot edit redirects, which is required to complete RfD nominations. I would like to reiterate your argument that suggesting changes to redirects on talk pages violates the spirit of the topic ban and lands us in a problematic gray area as to what constitutes edits to a page (pages, in this case, being redirects). Along this same line of thinking, discussing changes to redirects at RfD is also problematic. To quote WP:TBAN: a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
As I state in my first long response in this clarification request, it would be best for Ranze to stay away from redirects in general; this would include the talk pages of redirects. I have zero intention of overly restricting Ranze. I certainly think that they have made many valuable contributions to many areas of this encyclopedia, and that their participation in the maintenance of redirects is often productive and congenial. As you mention, Godsy, Ranze can and does make meritorious arguments at RfD. Yet, as I also mention in the clarification request I linked, broadly stepping away from the matter is a crucial step for moving forward. I will clarify on Ranze's talk page, in the interest of delineating unambiguous boundaries, that the topic ban includes:
Participating in RfD
Editing the talk pages of redirects
Again, I mean no ill will towards Ranze. I only hope to promote an editing environment that is free of unnecessary or overblown conflict. I acknowledge Ranze's useful contributions elsewhere on the site and encourage them to continue with those. Furthermore, I would encourage a topic ban appeal at WP:AN in about half a years' time, when hopefully the dust of conflict has settled, everyone involved has learned a thing or two, and things can be reassessed more clearly. Airplaneman ✈ 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Responding to special:diff/743278008 it seems you are taking it upon yourself to add additional restrictions not present in the original request to which people agreed. What KrakatoaKatie proposed and what people replied to was "a indefinite topic ban from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects"
KK never proposed I be banned from discussing redirects. She never proposed I be blocked from editing the talk pages of redirects or from participating in RFD.
That kind of restriction would only apply to RFD discussions / talk pages for wrestling redirects, which Inspector Gadget isn't.
If you wish to expand the grounds of my topic ban to include all redirect talk pages and any RFD participation whatsoever I request that you open a new request on ANI and get fresh input on that expansion. Ranze (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
a modest proposal
I have been reviewing WP:RFD#HOWTO regarding the concern of my having been unable to complete step 1 since substituting the template via {{subst:rfd|content=}} would have involved editing and breaking the restriction.
I noticed it does say this though:
this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
I know now I should have done that. I guess I just figured since I wasn't nominating to delete the redirect, just discuss pointing it somewhere more appropriate (which is what ended up happening) that it wasn't of major importance.
If I take that step of requesting someone else add the RFD template on the talk page, could I then continue to make RFD nominations, participate in RFD and participate in talk pages on redirects, so long as these are non-wrestling?
The "broadly contrued" comment by KrakatoaKatie is clearly only applied to "wrestling articles" while 'redirects' is instead specifically "creatoing or editing" so I do not believe the nomination made which people supported included the concept of preventing me from discussing redirects.
In this same vein, would I be permitted to use Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect to propose redirects which would require other users' approval? In that case I would not be creating or editing a redirect, only discussing them, the actual creating/editing would have to be done by a user who approves of my proposed reasoning. In this way I hope to show I am able to provide sound reasoning for redirects' existence to prove competency over a few months so maybe next year I could request that aspect of the ban be revised and it be restricted to just a wrestling ban. Ranze (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ranze: I've been busy the past few days, or else I would have responded sooner. Apologies for the delay. If you don't mind, I'm going to subsume this proposal under the section "Penny (Inspector Gadget) and Ranze," as I believe it has stemmed from that request. When I next had free time (which is right about now), I had been preparing to create an Administrator's Noticeboard thread regarding your topic ban in order to clarify it. In my planned AN thread, I wanted to highlight the potential ambiguity of my initial decision, realizing that it did not necessarily minimize unnecessary strife (and thereby maximize productivity and quality of life) for all parties. Yet, your proposal seems to have precluded the need for that. I'm happy to conditionally accept this proposal. Some specifics:
Background
The primary reason for your topic ban "from wrestling articles, broadly construed, and from creating or editing redirects" stems from the nature of your editing, specifically your communication with other editors, mainly regarding wrestling articles. Please see this comment from Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that elucidates this issue. Regardless of FIM's previous involvement with you, I agree with the general argument given in their post—and the consensus throughout the ANI thread—that your continuing lack of effective and collaborative communication was detrimental in the areas mentioned in the topic ban proposal. This includes your continued editing patterns regarding nicknames (not confined to wrestling articles, e.g. Donald Trump's nicknames). This latter point on redirects and nicknames is why I clarified your topic ban the way I did to Godsy. I saw potential pitfalls in your editing even non-wrestling redirects.
This reasoning is the basis of my ANI close and all of my further clarifications of your topic ban. I've spent countless hours digging through the history of this dispute to try and serve the Wikipedia community as fairly as I possibly can; this includes not only the ANI thread and the evidence provided there, but also numerous talk page and user talk page posts. What I have found from this research is general consensus supporting your topic ban.
Your proposal
The "broadly construed" part of your topic ban does grammatically refer to only the wrestling articles; yet, as I've stated above, your edits in the redirect space, outside of the the topic of wrestling, have not been without controversy. I took this controversy to stem from the same problems with communication and collaboration that I outlined earlier. This is the basis for my clarification of your topic ban on 8 October 2016.
All things considered, I think a request to demonstrate competence is reasonable enough. Your interpretation of WP:RFD#HOWTO is plausible to me.
Mostly quoting your words, you may indeed ask someone else add the RFD template on the talk page; you may also continue to make RFD nominations, participate in RFD and participate in talk pages on redirects, so long as these are non-wrestling.
Also as per your wording, you may use Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirect to propose redirects which would require other users' approval, iff you log such proposals in a user subpage (e.g. User:Ranze/Redirects). I would suggest logging not only your proposals, but also all redirect-related edits here (e.g. RFD contributions) The preceding clause was added 23:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC). Such a log will reassure other editors who have pointed out problems in the past that you are not repeating those problems; additionally, this evidence, if positive, will make it easier for you to appeal the topic ban in the future, as you aspire to. If, at my or any other administrator's discretion, the evidence of your editing is poor (that is, indicative of past behavior), I or any other administrator may revert to my earlier clarification of your topic ban.
Does that make sense? If you object, I point you towards WP:AN. I decline to invest a substantial amount of time to this particular conflict going forward because I believe that I (and many others) have already spent a generous amount of time on it, given its scope. I would therefore not actively participate in such an AN discussion if it should occur anytime soon. I will, however, be happy to review your contributions to redirects in order to have that part of your editing restriction lifted in a couple months' time. Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 23:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the time you spent on this. Will keep in mind to log talk and RFD and wizard contribs at user:ranze/redirects in future. Guess I should begin this this Penny one as if I went back further I would have to skip logging PW stuff. Should I also include the Daddy Donald stuff? No plans this year to try ANI. This has made me lose my smile for that topic matter for a time and other areas deserve the attention. Your advice I think will help me show my good will when an eventual attempt to amend is made. Ranze (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ranze: I'm really glad we've worked out something. I agree with your choice to start your log with the Penny one. This log of yours certainly reminds me of Foucault's panopticon, but I suppose that's just the nature of the internet as a whole. I believe this panoptic environment, coupled with the (ironically) anonymity that the internet provides as well as the exceptional passion of many editors, makes conflict particularly difficult to navigate. I can empathize to some extent with your thought on ANI; there's a reason I've tried not to go there too often. I had some free time in early September, and I noticed a backlog there, which led me to the wrestling case. I think we could agree that both of us have learned things from this process. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm back
jubileeclipman here with a new account! Hope all is well? Long time... lot to do... Iadmc (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Dropping a Line
Nice User page. It's hard to find Wikipedias who love airplanes as much as I do. I'm only twelve, but I've been learning about them since I was 2.
Cheers, Jak474 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Airplaneman.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Airplaneman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
for your prompt and hopefully definitive treatment at Karl Blossfeldt. And I swear that I did try to wade through the instructions but I was in over my head after two sentences and it did not let up. As more supportive information for the need to protect that article I did find the following entry on the talk page. "WHY is this page in particular vandalized so much? Theinfo (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2008 " My theory is that Blossfeldt is mentioned in a 6th or 7th grade textbook and that just steers the little buggers to us. I have a theory on everything and am not concerned with abandoning them should a better theory come along. One of the 27 Rules that I live my life by. Carptrash (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Carptrash: My pleasure, and thanks for reporting it. The "mentioned in a textbook" theory is very plausible. I'll put the page on my watchlist and apply a more longstanding or restrictive protection if need be (as you mention, hopefully we don't need to go down that route). As for the instructions, yes, I know the feeling of being overwhelmed by a wall of text, especially around these parts. I suppose I have a small advantage in this regard, having grown up with the internet (dial up—with a cable attached to my belly button) and all this digital code. Though, I suppose the wall of text at RFPP and other places around here is better than the instruction/troubleshooting manual I once received for a set of bluetooth speakers, which read: Speakers too loud? Adjust volume. Speakers too quiet? Adjust volume. Low on battery? Change battery. Bluetooth controller not on? Turn on. (etc.) Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm the old geezer in the back. User:Airplaneman is one of the other two. I think it is so amazing that two old time-lost friends meet quite independently and their friendly nature just shines thru....Smile! Buster Seven Talk 02:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
2016 michigan ohio summary
Hi
why are you not letting the world know about the truth.
The truth is not that it is speculation.
The referees during the game were not giving penalties to OSU and that is the truth.
Why are you naming it as vandalism.
How is it vandalsim?
vandalsim means - action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property.
There is no destruction to public or private property.
The truth is that penalties were not called when they needed to be.
There is no indication that referees were biased or that OSU won becasue of penalties.
I stated the truth that penalties against OSU were not given.
Thanks for agreeing that officiating could have been better.
Now yes questionable officiating is an opinion, however the missed penalties are a truth.
The definition of holding is below
"
DEFENSIVE HOLDING. It is defensive holding if a player grasps an eligible offensive player (or his jersey) with his hands, or extends an arm or arms to cut off or encircle him. See 12-1-6. Penalty: For holding by the defense:
A penalty called when an offense player grabs onto a defensive player in order to impede his progress or gain an advantage. Holding is called when the player does not use a proper open-handed blocking technique. The 10-yard penalty is assessed from the previous line of scrimmage, and the down is replayed.
"
By the rule of what a holding penalty is there were 3 holds in the video posted.
The referees did not call it on that day.
Now that is the truth and there should be no reason not to post that.
I know you feel I am dissappointed, but when teams play away this can tend to happen.
The world of OSU is trashing Michigan and they have the right to do that.
Even things on the page like "Michigan could only muster a field goal" or "Michigan has lost 5 cons straight" are stinging to a fan.
If that level of sting is allowed, why can a matter of truth be posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion on the article's talk page and JohnInDC (talk·contribs)'s latest message regarding opinion. I live in the US; I know more about football than I care to, and I've played quite a bit of it myself. I understand that rules are rules, but that doesn't mean that they can be synthesized without reliable sourcing to say more than they actually do. I actually have good friends both at Michigan and OSU who are happy/sad and would certainly not want the article to "sting" them—or anyone—as fans. That's not my intention. I simply restricted editing access to the article because there has been long-term evidence of disruption. Airplaneman ✈ 02:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Request for clarification on topic ban
ZH8000 recently notified me of redirects nominated for deletion:
In all 4, the cited reason is "Misuse for selfpromotion."
Would it be a violation of the topic ban to reply to these to clarify that I am not the person who is the subject of the article to which those redirects were made?
I have never been involved in any form of sports entertainment or employed by any of the companies that man has worked for.
I know I shouldn't get involved in the argument beyond that, User:Thryduulf already has that covered for Sensation/Superman.
When a clear libel is being spread both against myself and the article topic (claiming I am self-promoting, claiming he is self-promoting) it seems like there should be some kind of exception where I can dispute that claim.
If it would constitute one, then I would like to prepare to be able to address it in the future and eventually seek repercussions against that editor. Rather than seeking an entire lift of the topic ban in 6 months I am wondering if I could do an early appeal to only lift it in respect to RFD but still keep it in place for article editing, talk pages and wikiprojects.
As best I can recall, the disputes which preceded the topic ban were based around those 3 areas and not RFD, so lifting it in respect to RFD would seem like a good testing ground for demonstrating responsible editing. Ranze (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ranze: Based on my reading of the October 2016 clarification of your topic ban you are not permitted to edit RfD regarding wrestling articles at all. However, I do see a legitimate reason for you to respond to the nomination statements made regarding these redirects, so I will make this statement on your behalf on those nominations, linking to this thread. If someone asks you a direct question regarding these redirects then you may respond (please include a link to this thread) on your userpage, and I or another admin may, at our sole discretion, copy that response to the relevant discussion(s). You will need to alert me by ping if you want me to do this. If any other redirects you created or retargetted are nominated while you are topic banned and you wish to respond to the nomination statement then the same will apply - i.e. respond on your talk page and an admin will copy it to RfD at their discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey Airplaneman! You left me a message on my page over a year ago now. So this might be the slowest response ever. However, I just wanted to let you know I saw your message and appreciate you reaching out. It'd be awesome to be a part of the larger Wikipedia community rather than just wandering around on my own. Hope to talk to you more often :)
@Huangdaniel30: Awesome to hear from you! With Wikipedia being volunteer-driven, it makes complete sense that one would take time to respond to messages. Just leave me a message here or send me an email—you don't really need a "reason" to. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 16:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Single by 30: I really think Wikipedia is way more counterintuitive than it should ideally be. Anyways, WP:MOVE details how to change article titles. Airplaneman ✈ 16:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Airplaneman. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Could you please re-protect this article? The sockpuppets are showing up once again. Though, I see that you are currently offline, so either another admin may get to it or the protection may not be needed. Thanks. 73.96.114.238 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@73.96.114.238: Thank you for letting me know. Looks like there's only been one instance of disruption recently, so I don't think I'll protect it right away, but I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 15:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Peace, Success, and Happiness!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!
Hello Airplaneman, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing, I JethroBTdrop me a line 02:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Done for one month. Airplaneman ✈ 13:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm the old geezer in the back. User:Airplaneman is one of the other two. I think it is so amazing that two old time-lost friends meet quite independently and their friendly nature just shines thru....Smile! Buster Seven Talk 02:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
