User talk:Biscuittin

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

My talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Biscuittin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Gwernol 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PeaceOffering

Since you think I'm trying to intimidate you, instead of help you, I propose we each write a short description of our perspective of the problem, and then seek input from someone else at WP:Third opinion. Would that help? Note this is similar to the advice you received in response to your query to an admin who commented in your "bullying" ANI complaint against me and others..... FYI, "3O"=WP:Third opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

As you are now being more co-operative, this is not necessary. Biscuittin (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You confuse my neutral evaluation of article text for backing off my complaint about your behavior. You had no RS in mind when you initiated that thread, so at the time of your posting it was SOAP. The only reason I'm not continuing to complain is because I performed an indepedent analysis and am more concerned with improving the article than I am with buggering anybody. In fact, the only reason I care about your persistent soap is that it disrupts everyone else's efforts at article improvement. So your perception of us getting along better is wrong. That said, I guess 3O is soley for content disputes and I'd characterize our conflict as a conduct dispute. If you agree, I'd be willing to pursue outside input from any other venue of your choice. But I don't know of any. I have asked about this at AN and am waiting for replies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your edit summary says "wrong, again". You are obviously determined to insult me. Take a look at your own behaviour. Biscuittin (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So.... you don't think any outside input would be helpful? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Outside input about what? I thought we'd finished the discussion at Talk:Climate change denial. Biscuittin (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You have used words about my behavior such as "insult", "slur", and "intimidate". Probably more. Generally, these have been made in response to my criticisms about how you receive feedback about various things, including but not limited to your persistent posting of personal opinion comments (WP:SOAP and/or WP:FORUM) without RSs. I'd say the alternative, if you keep it up, is for me or other editor to file an anti-SOAP complaint at ANI/AE, but since that's the sort of thing you previously called "a threat", I'm in a quandry. I'm trying to invite you to think together how we can reduce friction between us on these topics. These are BEHAVIOR/CONDUCT issues that span the days and venues. At any one moment, there is usually just one or two content disputes... those are moving targets. The interpersonal friction between us seems pretty consistent. If you based your commnets on logical analysis of available RSs, we'd have no trouble even if I vigorously disagree about your analysis. At least it wouldn't be just your opinion. That would be a large step forward and greatly reduce the disruption created by persistent SOAP/FORUM. As an added bonus I would not be criticizing the lack of RSs, thus you would have less reason to think I'm doing "insult", "slur", and "intimidate". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What you call SOAP/FORUM is simply my attempt to improve articles in the face of constant Wikilawyering by you. Biscuittin (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So as to the original question in this thread, I'll take this as a rejection of any form of third party DR between us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Climate change

Some people will be pleased to hear that I'm giving up editing Climate change articles for a while. The cabal obviously has no intention of allowing me to introduce a genuine neutral point of view (as opposed to a WP:NPOV) to climate change articles so Wikipedia will just have to stay biassed and lose credibility as a result. Biscuittin (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing warning

Admins frown on canvassing of this sort. I would have had no problem with your dropping a note at Wikipedia_talk:Consensus for all eds at that venue to see. Instead you only pinged one person who you thought would help your cause. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not canvassing. I am trying to improve Wikipedia. What is your ping to User:NeilN if it isn't canvassing? Biscuittin (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the admin who closed your "bullying" ANI against me and others, with the instruction to stop using drama boards when you have content disputes. I pinged him because I thought he'd be interested in how well you are complying with those closing instructions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. It is about Wikipedia policy. Biscuittin (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I screwed up

FYI

If you just don't mention me, all should be well. If you decide to complain about my conduct even though I'm going back to climate retirement, I'll probably respond.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PS I consider possible implicit mentions just as troubling as explicit ones. For example, dots could be connected from VPump to todays DIFFS at your user page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats

While I agree cyberbullying should not be tolerated, in light of todays DIFFS at your user page you may wish to carefully review WP:LEGALTHREAT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not making a legal threat against you, personally. I am just reminding Wikipedia that it has a duty of care towards its users. Biscuittin (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh huh NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your complaints

You said at WP:AN:

As usual, whenever I criticise Wikipedia, the immediate response is for somebody to attack me. It seems that Wikipedia has an institutional culture of bullying which is condoned by administrators. My complaints are always interpreted as "he didn't get his own way so he is throwing a hissy fit" but this is not the case. I do not always expect to get my own way but I do expect to be treated fairly and Wikipedia's administrators are not doing this. My complaint is about bullying and nothing else.

Have you considered for a minute why your complaints are intepreted in that way? (You may also want to consider that not everyone responding to you is an administrator.)

The most obvious problem is that you are insisting there is bullying going on, but have not provided evidence in the form of WP:diffs. Notably Sergecross73 specifically asked for this, but instead of providing them, you followed up with the above long rant. As Sergecross73 said, the discussions you referred to a fairly long, but there isn't any clear examples of bullying. Both me and Sergecross73 at least partially read those discussions, as I'm sure did people in the original thread and came to the same conclusion. AGFing that what you are complaining about is as widespread as you suggest, it should be trivial to present diffs demonstrating it, even if these aren't from the discussion of your original complaint.

Note this isn't unique to bullying allegations. Diffs are the lifeblood of complaints, particularly those to AN/ANI. Sometimes simply linking to a discussion is enough, but since we are volunteers we don't generally have time to read long discussions very carefully to try and work and what the problem is. Unless it clearly jumps out, without diffs whatever you are complaining about is often going to be missed.

You refered to real life, but things aren't that different in real life here. If someone goes to HR and says they're being bullied, and plays a 30 minute long conversation. Then at the end of it HR says "that conversation sounded like a fairly ordinary office place disagreement, can you explain why you feel there was bullying", and the complainer then goes "you're not treated me fairly and are condoning bullying". Well it's hardly surprising that HR are going to think the complainer is the one who's the problem. Although since HR in a company does actually have far greater legal responsibility than anyone on wikipedia has towards our fellow volunteers and HR are also paid for it, they will probably be a bit more circumspect and spend more time on it than people on wikipedia will be.

As I also pointed out, you also called something a policy which clearly describes itself as an essay, and appeared to misintepret what the essay was saying anyway, so I suggest more careful reading in future.

These things all matter because we do get tons of frivilous complaints all the time so when a complaint had obvious flaws it's hardly surprising if many people are going to assume it is without merit. Attention to detail and providing evidence is far better for your complaint than simply insisting everyone is wrong when they fail to see your POV.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, previously I tried to explain the importance of DIFFs to Biscuittin, as I and others have tried to explain many things. It never bears fruit. (S)he has explained that (s)he has ASD, and I've already opined I think there is a WP:CIR problem here that is not solveable. Anyway, here is how it went down

What is a diff? Biscuittin (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First, I have a hard time accepting this newbie question from someone with just under 70,000 edits since 2007 as genuine, but since the odds you really don't know are only slightly less than my winning the Powerball but still more than zero I'll answer it this way..... Anytime you have such a question, first attempt self education by typing WP:(whatever) in the search box thingie, in this case, type WP:DIFF and see what you get. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is more, of course, and its all in B's talk archive 9. That was 20 days ago. Still no diffs. Just one example of how attempts at mentoring B so (s)he can be effective in this environment are futile. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

70000 edits? On a a quick look I would class them as WP:WikiGnome and Wikipedia most definitely needs people like that. So I would say finding out what the problem is and resolving it is certainly worth an extra effort. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I attempted as much when I crossed paths with B. My experience suggests this is futile, as in CIR futile, but I will gratefully pass the torch to you, reserving the option of saying "ENOUGH!" in the appropriate venue, if I deem it best for Wikipedia. Which at the moment, I do, but I'll be glad to wait awhile to see how things shake out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably the wrong person too as I seem to rub him up the wrong way. On the Village Pump policy page after I gave what I thought was good advice he posted five messages in a row about bullying in reply. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was closed at 15.55 on 11 January 2016. Please do not continue it on my talk page. Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus

Usually bias or clueless editors claim consensus is working fine. Larry Sanger said admins should be retrained. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please put your suggestions at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia so that they can be discussed. Biscuittin (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a complaint about discussions in the new essay. If it is okay with you I would like to delete all the comments and make a major rewrite and convert it into an essay. The ideas can be discussed on the talk page. I will also move the page to Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, please go ahead. Biscuittin (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For the section "Users who have been hounded off Wikipedia" I think for an essay it would be better to have only general information without naming any specific accounts. If you can find specific articles on hounded off Wikipedia we can include them. It is going to take time to expand the page. After the page is moved you can start a RfC and start a Wikipedia:Village pump for others to expand the page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Biscuittin (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm done with the rewrite. You can start a discussion at Village pump for the essay when you are ready. A RfC can be started on the talk page too. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind doing it yourself? I'm unpopular enough already. Biscuittin (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If the page is userfied it can be moved to my userspace. I can handle an army of them. Is it okay with you if it is moved to my userspace? QuackGuru (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. Biscuittin (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for developing your ideas in user space. As you get specific ideas to propose, the V pump would be a good place to try again. In the meantime, the V Pump is also a good place to invite people to come to your draft in your user space, if you find yourself desiring feedback or help filling in the details. Good luck coming up with something that garners lots of constructive discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Boxgrove Primary School

The article Boxgrove Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notability - previously redirected to Guildford but earlier version restored

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Explanation

Dave souza put his reply immediately after my post to indicate that he was responding to me. I am sure that there was no intention to mislead, although I see how it reads as he left it. Best not to accuse editors of things in WP though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No criticism of you was intended. Sorry if it appeared that way. Biscuittin (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Climate change denial and Cosmology?

Biscuittin, I encourage you to read up on some of the subjects relevant to climate change. It is a real stretch to suggest, as you are doing here: [1], that Climate change denial is relevant to cosmology. Just saying, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't the sun and the earth part of the cosmos? Biscuittin (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply to wrong person

Your comment lease be more specific, Sphilbrick. In what way is the article "very problematic"? on Talk:Climate change denial#RfC: Is this article encyclopedic and does it comply with NPOV? follows Connolley's comment, not S Philbrick's comment. Jim1138 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So what? It was clear I was addressing Sphilbrick. Biscuittin (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved to: User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Welsbach

Is the surname Welsbach or von Welsbach?Xx236 (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think "von" means "from" so I would say the surname is Welsbach. Compare, for example, John of Gaunt. However, I'm not a German scholar so I could be wrong. Biscuittin (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Request advice

Hi Biscuittin. I hope you don't mind this request for advice. I'm an identified editor (real name) who, in the past, directly edited COI pages, under my real name and openly. The WP article about my recent book has been slated for fast-track deletion. I put some suggested sources in the Talk. As I see it, the book passes the WP book-notability test. I don't want the article to be deleted in fast track. I would prefer a more careful consideration to be made. The editor who slated it for deletion also removed much content that was sourced and that was descriptive of the subject of the book. As a result, the article is now a shell awaiting deletion. Should I remove the deletion tag myself? Deadline is tomorrow. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, so this editor "JzG" who has been showing spectacular objectivity in this little editing war about a list of global warming "deniers" has gone and immediately deleted the page about my book, prior to the tag expiration. Does JzG follow your Talk page? What a coincidence. What can one do now? Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if JzG follows my talk page. I think his behaviour over the past few months has shown that he is unfitted to be an administrator because of his incivility and bias. The problem is that there seems to be no way to dismiss an administrator. You could try making a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but JzG would probably get off scott-free as usual because no other administrator dares to stand up to him. Biscuittin (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not looked on the inside much but I did recently note a high degree of deference, to the point of folks being silent on obviously nasty behaviour, which is not healthy. Vicious with newbies and silent with big-boys/girls. It's like the courtroom. So JzG is allowing himself this egregious behaviour on the climate page (overt/express/insistent advocacy, and making it personal rather than about the content) because he is some sort of an admin? I guess that would explain why nobody has cut him down? I thought they were simply being silent because it was so obviously off. Maybe some of that too? What a zoo. Houaaa. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

JzG is not the only one. There is not much I agree with on Conservapedia but it has done us a service with this expose.[2] Biscuittin (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Great read. Rings true to me, from my limited experience. I think a lot of it is driven by a "need" to play "primate hierarchy", since that game is high risk in the real world. One idea would be to force admins to give their identities and to be reviewed regularly by a committee of editors chosen at random? Whatever. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru is trying to get some reforms discussed. See User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jiří Vacek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Observer and Mystic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Restoring of the page Jiří Vacek

Hi Biscuittin, I thank You so much for Your help! Best regards--BlueKarel (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Aspersions

I tried leaving you a simple note about this but you seemed to respond by suggesting I was telling you what to think. I will be more clear.

If you want to accuse @Jytdog: or others of being part of some secret cabal then you need to provide evidence first. Accusations against editors must be backed up with evidence. Accusations without evidence are considered personal attacks and may result in a block. More information can be found at our no personal attacks policy and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

You are welcome to think anything you want, we are only concerned with what you choose to post on Wikipedia. HighInBC 15:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attack. You can post again without resorting to baseless accusations. Please do not repeat the personal attack. HighInBC 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Noted. I would have more respect for these warnings if they were applied consistently. For example, User talk:Claudioalv has been accused of sockpuppetry on very thin evidence. Are you going to admonish his/her accusers as you have admonished me? If not, why not? Biscuittin (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice

Please acquaint yourself with the user page guideline referenced at WP:POLEMIC. I will watchlist this page if you should have questions or require clarification. Tiderolls 18:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And I'm going to reinstate it. A bit of criticism which doesn't go on about specific editors is perfectly in order. This is not North Korea where everybody has to smile all the time about the system. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I am gobsmacked. Thank you Dmcq. Biscuittin (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Allusions to North Korea being just as à propos as stating the project is run by a small group of editors with a political agenda. I can not see how either statement is reasonable. Tiderolls 19:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have modified the message and I hope you will now find it reasonable. Biscuittin (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)