Jump to content

User talk:Okip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnFromPinckney (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 8 March 2010 (Notice: Use preview button to avoid mistakes. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Unreferenced living persons contest
Please help us build this contest.
Your suggestions are warmly welcome.
>> Sign up now. <<
Click here to leave me a message

Category:All unreferenced BLPs

{{db-r2}} 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage/ABC&wpNewTitle=Thispage

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

RfC headcount

Saw your table, and posted a comment on statistics for this sort of polling. Just wanted to see if you had any thoughts. (Like I say, I think in this case, the point I raise is moot, but it might matter in other polls, like Phase I). -- Bfigura (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I also responded somewhere in the RfC to a comment you made about one of my !votes, but I forget exactly where. Best, -- Bfigura (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[]

UBLP flags

aerica beats conch republic. hope you don't mind my assigning flags to people, thought you would like the presidential one.

i was kinda responding to WTmitchell's not wanting to use unique flags per the WikiCup, you can pick any image to stand in for you, Vexillology, it is prettier than a list of names. Pohick2 (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[]

DASHBot

Re above: what information do you need for the bot to run? Answer on my talk page (unusually for me...). Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Answering self but need verification: I just add the project to the list by the looks of it (using the template provided if we need to specify the subpage or widen the seach terms). Correct? Answer here since the info may well help others!  ;) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Tim, who created the bot, still needs final approval. [4] I would suggest asking him for final approval. Okip 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Thanks. Will do --Jubilee♫clipman 15:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[]

The National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia

Hi Okip, I just noticed that the article on the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia was modified on February 20, 2010, at 16:00 by an editor VickyMa, deleting all my contributions with total disregard and without any comment, justification or reason; in my opinion, with total contempt. What should I do here to have my contributions inserted back into the article? I don’t want to do so just on my own initiative in order to avoid any argument or confrontation. Should I ask for comment RFC? Or what do you suggest I do? Please advice. Thanks,--Grancafé (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Hello, Okip. You have new messages at Grancafé's talk page.
Message added --Grancafé (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[]

BLP RfC

Thanks for the heads-up on the closing proposals -- Boing! said Zebedee 04:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[]

do you really think this is a jimbo whales problem? ain't he just going along with the Weltanschauung: i.e. it's not the individual, but the movement. ain't it the Peter Principle, they can't pull off Götterdämmerung, so the insurgents will make lemonade of the lemons. Pohick2 (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Articles for deletion nomination of Little Eichmanns

I have nominated Little Eichmanns, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Copied from user talk:Ikip (if you dont want me to keep doing this, let me know and I'll stop ... Im doing it for lots of other inactive/name0changed users too, not just you) —Soap— 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Talkback: SpikeToronto

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

Thanks!

Thanks very much for taking the time to recognize the good faith efforts of your fellow editors. That's very kind of you and help improve the editing environment by promoting collegiality and goodwill. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Userrights

Hey, just wanted to let you know I removed the flags from your Ikip account. Hope you don't mind. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[]

BLP debate

Hi Okip! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[]

BLP sticky PROD

Hi Okip!. Every attempt to rescue a Wikipedia article is a noble gesture. However, there may be occasions when, with the best will in the world, it is just not possible to accord even a minimum of notability to an article or stub, or find a proper source for it. Most regrettably, even the most dedicated inclusionists will have to concede that the article may have to go if the creator or major contributors cannot justify their work.
For new and recent unsourced BLPs, some users are now working at WT:BLP PROD TPL on the development of templates that are designed to encourage contributors to source new BLPs, without scaring away the newbies who might not be aware of the rules. This template is certainly not another a licence to kill for the deletionists, in fact the very idea of it is to ensure that you are not fighting a losing battle. It would be great if you could look in at the prgogress and maybe leave a word of encouragement. The workshop page is essentially a template development taskforce, and is not a place to engage in a hefty debate on incusion/deletion policy. See you at WT:BLP PROD TPL?--Kudpung (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]

I would like to second this sentiment. I honestly think that this initiative could improve the encyclopedia, and that it will likely not result in many unwarranted deletions. (Obviously, I could change my mind once it is actually implemented.) I think this is a good way to shift a bit of work back to contributors who know where the sources are, rather than other random contributors who will have to invest significant time to find them. I think a likely result from this initiative is that many or most of the tagged articles will be fixed by the creators within the time allotted, and that the worthy articles of the remainder will be fixed by other interested editors (say, from WP:ARS). I think it could be a good opportunity to educate new contributors about sourcing. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
We are talking about compromise. But do my comments show that we should have faith in the Wikipedia compromise process, that editors are really interested in fostering editor retention? See also my comments about compromise, after Wordsmith retracted portions of the BLP RFC.[5] Okip 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
I think that Wordsmith's change was correct - i don't see any consensus one way or the other for WP:BEFORE, because it wasn't actually discussed hardly at all. (Actually, this was unfortunate, because it will be hard to get consensus either way now, with people losing interest after this protracted discussion.) I think extremists on both sides are being a little bit ridiculous, with Septri... totally refusing to accept the legitimacy of the reasonable close, and deletionists threatening further out-of-process deletions. I think a lot of this partisanship was caused by the original ridiculous arbcom blessing of Scott Mac... and his gang, which put people at war and made people angry rather than thoughtful about this issue. (People feel powerless when one side with more power threatens to do what they want regardless of others' views.) Anyways, I think now there could be a good outcome from this whole mess. I'm cautiously optimistic, anyways. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
See also Wordsmith's new comments about the close, which seem thoughtful and fair. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
Wordsmith is a decent admin, who I would strongly support for arbitrator.
Without going through the entire sordid BLP Phase II history here again, I accept Wordsmith's conclusions as a pragmatic administrator who by the very nature of his position is supposed to help defuse immediate controversy, in the faith that the community will eventually defuse the long term costs of such detrimental decisions. I have no such faith.
"No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires." --Alexis de Tocqueville
People who stand up to the establishment always get silenced and sidetracked in a myriad of ways. By "caving", Wordsmith is taking the inevitable, only rational, least disruptive path. I don't blame Wordsmith for being pragmatic, he is only working within the narrow confines we are all forced to work in. Okip 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
Dear Okip, things have moved a very long way in the last 6 weeks, and I doubt if either of us could have predicted this outcome. The deletionists who were arguing that old unsourced BLPs were the number one problem are frankly routed to the point where the main debate is now over whether we change to my position of not allowing the creation of new unsourced BLPs. Please don't think of this as a railroad from on high, rather think of this as a triangle where our two positions which once seemed almost equally unacceptable to the deletionists are now the focus of disagreement. I can see the temptation you must feel to argue that 35 should be a blocking veto, but I would urge you to consider a compromise - if only because if this succeeds it is much more likely to settle the issue for the foreseeable future whilst a solution that doesn't work almost guarantees a fresh proposal in a few months time. I think you are in a position to seek concessions, such as making the sticky prod linger longer than 7 days, or not allowing it to be applied until an article is an hour old, or in no blocking of the creators of unsourced BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 20:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
Reason is the servant of the emotions; nor would I deny that, but you are arguing that reason is a useless servant. As WereSpiel argues just above, you have done much, and I would like to see what more can be done. If we can render this harmless, the wave of hysteria will pass, and it will go the way of several other enthusiasms which roiled Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]
Suggestions for the design of the PROD template and its functions are welcomed on WT:BLP PROD TPL where they will have more exposure, and where the template task force can experiment with the ideas.--Kudpung (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]

RE: "I can see the temptation you must feel to argue that 35 should be a blocking veto"

no, i will not, don't worry. Consensus is clear on balloonman's section one. Kind of burned out on this, as you may have noticed with my decreased activity the past few days. I will let others bicker.

Regardless Kudpung, thank you for your continued invitations.

Okip 04:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Think strategically.

I know you disagreed rather strongly with my CSD proposal. Consider, now, this result. Had the proposal never been made, that result would not have been possible. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]

I was more surprised and disappointed, your proposal only prepared me for many more disappointments though.
I am glad you took the time to comment here, and that you commented in the Arbcom.
As I write this, I am in the living room with no chair, typing on my knees, after just hooking up the computer on a temporary table, surrounded by boxes. We are closing on our house hopefully tomorrow or Tuesday, so I am packing and have no time to read your comments at length. I will though, thank you for your dedication. Okip 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]
The best of luck with your house move. - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]
Well that was nice, thank you point :) I appreciate it. Okip 03:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]
I hope your move goes well. A stressful, but exciting time! SilkTork *YES! 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption in Ghana

Thank you for your well thought out explanation, it makes me feel bad about what I wrote originally, therefore I struck the comments. Okip 19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[]

That's cool. Don't feel bad, your intentions were good, and your solution was elegant. SilkTork *YES! 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Barnstar

Thank you for stubifying Corruption_in_Ghana and closing the AFD keep for now. Please let me know if there is any efforts to revert unreferenced material back, and I will actively help you revert it.

Thank you. I always appreciate a star. I think we should support and thank each other more often - it creates a positive, warm atmosphere that aids in the building of Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]

March 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. I've seen a few of your recent contributions and I feel you (and your readers) would benefit from your use of the Preview function. Cheers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&oldid=348625095"