User talk:FloNight

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6

---

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report

Hello, FloNight. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:

1. Please update your information at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
2. There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to "No Special Protections" in AttackSites Arbcom

FloNight, hope it's not inappropriate to comment here-- the talk pages are sufficently active that I wouldn't expect this message to find its way to you promptly if I posted it there.

I was confused by your opposition [1] to the principle that editors and non-editors have equal protection. I think, if I may, that Paul's proposal was intended to apply only to wikipedia ARTICLES-- essentially restating NPOV. On the other hand, by your objections, I think you you're interpreting it to be applying to all on-wiki related behavior. Do you agree that Wikipedia editors shouldn't have any special protection when it comes to articles? --Alecmconroy 17:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alecmconroy, :) Comments are always welcome.

It is proper for us to establish stricter policies for user conduct than what might be considered real world harassment. Our policy on WP:NPA is to promote collaborative editing so we can have well written articles. Per this policy, our threshold for what is an attack that is harassment is lower than what would be considered real world harassment. If an editor researches another editor and adds content to articles with the intent to intimidate or retaliate it should be promptly removed because it breaches our NPA policy. This includes external links. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure how much you want to have this discussion with me, since I'm sure there are parallel discussions going on with more important persons than me. But, insofar as you have the interest-- it's true that we wouldn't want people to edit article content to harass other editors-- but would it be okay to edit article content for the purpose of harassing non-editors?? I'm just having a hard time reconciling a "Neutral Point of View" and any article-related policies that treat information about editors and information about non-editors differently. Behavior regulation, I can understand. Talk/Project page I can understand, but articles I don't really get how your objection works.

It will be interestint to see how the vote on this goes. If your object ultimately carries the majority, I will have to re-read NPOV very closely and try to figure out how my conception of it is flawed. --Alecmconroy 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Be clear, I do not think it is ever acceptable to add material to articles to harass someone. Around this time last year I was spending a large chunk of my editing time removing articles or content about notable people created by a banned user to harass these people. Often, I had to spend a good bit of time explaining my action to uninvolved editors. A few of them never accepted my explanation and left our encounter believing I was wrong since I was removing sourced, well written content. As long as the content was well sourced, they had no problem with it, irrespective of the fact that this banned user was using it to taunt his victims by email.

Also, I consistently vote in Afd discussions to delete articles of non public people where we can not write a well balanced article because the only verifiable reliable sources discuss a narrow aspect of a persons life. I feel quite strongly about it when the content is about a narrow NEGATIVE aspect of a person's life or if it primarily includes content about people that are only notable because of their relationship with a more famous family member.

I feel that my prior actions well support the removal of content that harms people. My votes in this case elevates the standard even higher about content that is intended to intimidate or retaliate against our editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But that statement, "I do not think it is ever acceptable to add material to articles to harass someone", means you don't differ between editors and non-editors in that regard. Do you? You're voting as if you think it is more OK to harass non-editors, in opposition to your stated belief. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that my threshold for what constitutes harassment is lower for conduct aimed at our editors based on our NPA policy. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) That's really worrisome, then. John Smith writes to an arbitrator, saying that article X is harassing him. The arbitrator writes back, saying no, that's actually within our threshold, since he's not one of us, but if he joins us, we'll lower that threshold? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AnonMouse, you are misinterpreting my statement. All people should be protected from harassment at the level established in real world laws. Wikipedia editors are additionally protected from personal attacks and other user conduct that attempts to intimidate them into leaving the project. This is because we need our articles to not be written by just bullies but anyone that will work collaboratively. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

RfArb

If you guys really think the case is necessary, then ok, but given how infrequent I even cross paths with Cat I'm really confused as to how it even got proposed as an arbcom case. The only thing listed as an attempt to settle the dispute was an RfC on myself, and that did resolve at least part of the issue. I still don't believe I crossed the line in listing an article for deletion (but I did cross the line in being down right rude to him), and it's already apparent that the evaluation of any given admin regarding Cat and I, is enough to block either of us. Aside from a finding like "Ned and Cat should try to stay away from each other" I fail to see what starting up an entire arbcom case is going to achieve. As I said in my statement on the request page, I also think this will fuel the drama more than it would help. I'm open to mediation of some kind, and hearing how others suggest we handle such situations (although I already know what went wrong this last time). There are many other ways to resolve this dispute, lessen the drama, and take up a lot less of our time. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hello. I lost my admin rights in May, I think, following my Arbitration case. In the ruling of ArbCom it was stated I could gain these rights back through the Arbitration Committee. How can I do that and do you think it is the right time to ask for it again? Thank you. - Darwinek 09:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative solution to the Dalmatia issue

My first impulse upon seeing the proposed decision by the Arbitration Committee, was to protest by saying it is unfair to simplify matters thusly and equate User:Giovanni Giove with myself (because of my being on the "defensive" in the edit-warring, because of my numerous attempts at dicussion). I realised, though, that that kind of stuff is probably often heard in such situations, and that my protests will be disregarded (due to my obvious personal interest). This is why I tried a different approach.
User:Giovanni Giove and I have reached an agreement that should do the trick to first stop, and then finally "dismantle" the conflict (see Giovanni Giove's talkpage). Such attempts at discussion have been made before and have proven effective in resolving several issues with Users PIO and Brunodam (on the Albania Veneta, Istrian exodus and Foibe massacres articles, for example). Even though our previous record may lead someone to question the credibility of this effort, one must remeber that thanks to the Arbitration, we now face a very real possibility of severe restrictions lasting an entire year. This finally changed the overall situation in a way that finally lead to a lasting agreement. The question, of course, is would you support such a solution to the problem at hand? I, for one, truly hope so, since the proposed restriction would effectively put an end to my work on Wiki, something I'll do my best to prevent. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month

File:Chemistry-stub.png

As a regular contributor to Science Collaboration of the Month, we thought you might like to know that the current collaboration is . You are receiving this message because your username is listed on our list of regulars. To stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name!

NCurse _work 06:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For your numerous contributions of Kentucky-related images, I award you The Photographer's Barnstar. Keep up the great work! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I'm glad someone has noticed my efforts as well. It's a strange balance I'm trying to strike since I mostly edit articles that very few people read, but then I try to get them noticed! Anyway, you can probably tell that most of my recent work has been on governors of Kentucky, so any pictures of graves, homeplaces, or monuments are likely to be helpful. I notice you've done a few of these already, including GA and recent FT component George W. Johnson. Thanks for the reciprocal compliment. Perhaps we can eventually breathe some more life into WikiProject Kentucky; seems it's pretty inactive right now. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try to remember to inform you about the fair-use images.

Do you happen to have a shot of the grave of Luke P. Blackburn? Apparently, there is a unique bas relief of the Good Samaritan on the grave that would make a pretty cool addition to his article. I'd also like to get one of the Kentucky State Penitentiary for his article, since he was the one who secured funding for it, but that's closer to me than you. With those two images and a bit of cleanup on the sources, I think I might get that one from GA to FA.

I'll also check out your shots from Harrodsburg. I've got a pretty good article going on James Harrod, but apparently there are no portraits of him. If you've got anything you think would work as an alternate, let me know. Thanks again. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While the Blackburn Correctional Complex will be good to have, and is named for Governor Blackburn, I was referring to the Kentucky State Penitentiary in Eddyville, Kentucky, for which Blackburn secured funding. It's over by Kentucky Lake, so hopefully I can get over there sometime soon. Thanks for getting the grave photo. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice from a BLP hardliner needed. :-)

Hi, Flo. I'm coming to you for lots of inobvious reasons, including the fact that I have rarely or never been able to convince you of anything (so if we agree on this, it must be right. :-)) and for some more obvious reasons, such as your being an arbitrator, and listing yourself as being especially concerned with BLP issues on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members/Admin members, but finally, of course, that I respect your opinions.

Anyway, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable_sources." The latter says "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)."

That doesn't seem to make any exception for non-controversial information, or even for experts writing non-controversial information. Should it?

There are quite a few examples from Wikipedia:Featured articles:

• KaDee Strickland uses an interview with the subject published on the interviewer's 2-person site to reference 4 non-controversial points. ^ a b c d Davies Brown, Phil. "KaDee Strickland Interview". Horror Asylum. November 12, 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2005.
• Miranda Otto writes a film criticism referenced by the critic's personal site: Anderson, Jeffrey M. (April 2002), "To Err Is 'Human'", combustiblecelluloid.com. Retrieved April 11, 2007.
• Nellie Kim uses a b Whatever Happened to Nelli Kim?. GymnasticGreats.com. Retrieved on April 13, 2006.
• Jackie Chan uses several fan sites for non-controversial information

  • ^ Biography of Jackie Chan. Biography. Hong Kong Film.net. Retrieved on June 6, 2007.

  • ^ Jackie Chan. Biography. Ng Kwong Loong (JackieChanMovie.com). Retrieved on July 9, 2007.
  • ^ a b c Jackie Chan profile. Biography. JackieChanMovie.com. Retrieved on June 7, 2007.
  • ^ Armour of God. jackiechanmovie.com (2006). Retrieved on August 20, 2007.
• Austin Nichols cites a film review ^ Swietek, Frank. Day After Tomorrow, The. oneguysopinion.com. Retrieved November 11, 2006.

and so forth, I'm sure there are others, I didn't look very hard. Should self-published third party sources be allowed as references for non-controversial information? How about expert s-p3ps? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking :) FloNight♥♥♥ 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My Arbcom

You stated in this [2] edit that there is / was plenty of evidence to support a CU. Which of the 5 Checkusers do you feel had plenty of evidence? Your response was kind of vague. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)