L'Aquatique

Home

Talk

Contribs

Awards

Monobook

Sandbox

E-Mail

This is L'Aquatique's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to L'Aquatique. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming If you leave a message here, I will reply here and leave the {{Talkback}} template on your page. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will watchlist it, so please reply there. You can also contact me on my IRC channel, ###LAquatique connect (yes, there are multiple pound signs) or via e-mail at fromjuneauwithlove at gmail dot com Reading Material! If I deleted your page and you want to know why... Q: Hey, you deleted my page! A: That's entirely possible. Q: So, what gives? I worked really hard on that. A: Well, it could be any number of things. Because I'm a new admin, for now I restricting my use of the delete button to really obvious cases only, which in Wiki-speak we call Candidates for Speedy Deletion. There are a ton load of things that might have qualified your article for speedy deletion, but the chances are relatively high that 1.it was an attack page, or 2. it was blatant advertisement, aka Spam. Q: What's an attack page? A: An attack page is a page which exists solely to degrade another person. Whether this person is your sister's ex-boyfriend, your mean old English teacher, or Tom Cruise. In fact the subject of an attack page doesn't even have to be real to qualify it for speedy deletion, because the fact remains that an encyclopedia has no need for an article that consists solely of "John Doe is gay." It serves no purpose. No one, except perhaps John Doe and his partner, gives one iota that he is gay. Q: Well, how do I know if my page was an attack page? A: Did you create a page about a person, real or fake, and write negative things about them? Q: I guess... A: Then it was an attack page. Q: But everything I wrote was true! A: It doesn't matter. For one thing, if your article was about a non-notable topic, it was going to be deleted no matter what. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, but we do have standards regarding what subjects are suitable, and there are requirements- we don't have an article about everything possible, just articles about subjects a reasonable amount of people would care about. This is why we have articles about William Shatner, but not That Guy Who is in the Theatre Troupe in your Hometown of Barrow, Alaska, and Did a Really Good Job as Hamlet that One Time, and Jackie Kennedy but not Barack Obama's Second Cousin's Ex Roomate's Illegitimate Daughter's Secret Lesbian Lover's Toy Poodle. Of course, by this measure we probably shouldn't have an article about Paris Hilton, but two out of three ain't bad. Q: What was the second thing? A: What? Q: You said "for one thing," doesn't that sort of imply that there's more? A: Oh, of course. I got off on a bit of a rant there, didn't I? Q: Yes, yes you did. A: Okay, the second thing is, if the person you wrote your attack about is real and whether he or she is notable or not, unless you have actual factual verifiable references with which to back up your sources, the page will immediately be deleted as a BLP concern, because we have strict rules governing articles about real people. The Wikimedia cabal Foundation could be held legally liable if the information contained within said articles could be construed as libel. Q: Oi vey, big Words... A: Just be careful when you're writing about living people. Q: Sounds fair enough. What about spam pages, what's that? A: Spam could be one of two things: a mystery meat that I am quite sure is not Kosher, or blatant advertisement that no one wants to read. You know, the stuff that clogs your inbox day in and day out with offers for natural male enhancement, even though you are most definitely a female? Anyway,we get a lot of that on Wikipedia too, and most of the time it is immediately deleted, often by myself. It's one of my pet peeves. Q: One of my pages was deleted as spam, but I didn't intentionally write it as an advertisement. Why was it deleted? A: Most of the spammy pages are written by someone within the company trying to use Wikipedia as the free directory that everyone can advertise [in]. But sometimes, editors who have no ties to the company or product just get a little over-excited and forget to adhere to our neutral point of view. It happens from time to time, especially in a world where we are taught to write as flowery as possible. You might consider reading some of our policies and you can always ask questions if you are unsure. Q: I'm pretty sure my page was not an attack page, or an advertisement. Why else might you have deleted it? A: It might have been any of the other criteria for speedy deletion, including patent nonsense (no salvageable content), copyright infringement, test pages, and word-for-word recreation of material deleted per a deletion discussion. To be sure, check the logs. Follow this link: Special:Log, select "Deletion Log" in the drop down menu, and then type the name of the page. The admin who deleted the page will have left a short note explaining why the page was deleted. Q: I really think that the article could be improved, but when I recreate it, it only gets deleted again. What do I do? A: In many (but not all) cases, I can restore it for you and move it to your userspace where you can improve upon it at your own pace. For instructions, check out the next section. Hopiakuta Hi - I think Hopiakuta is asking to have a phone consultation - several of his comments have obliquely talked about that, and I think that's what he's referring to when he points to your sig - the "talk to me" part. I saw him saying something similar somewhere else, and I'm finally adding it up. It's all very bizarre. I don't have the time, nor the needed background, to sort through his technical issues, but I wonder if someone might be able to step up for this. He has something to say - it's just not getting to us. Nice to meet you, by the way. Tvoz |talk 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Hi, it's nice to meet you too. I would agree that he is asking for a phone conversation... but I'm young and not all that well spoken, and I don't feel comfortable with talking to someone I don't know over the phone. Add that to the fact that I don't really feel qualified. I have experience w/ autistic and developmentally disabled people but this is, well it's very different. Parts of it do seem autistic, the problem with taking things out of context is almost aspergers-like... but I'm not getting that vibe otherwise. I just don't think I could do it justice, but I don't really know anyone who could. Maybe someone at the accessibility project? It seems that the person he connected with the most is Graham, but he seems to have stopped paying attention to the page. Maybe if we brought this back to his attention he could lend some ideas. Frankly, I'm at a loss, but I don't want to give up on this guy yet. L'Aquatique talktome 05:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC) That's how I feel too - you probably saw I brought this to AN/I initially because I just couldn't make any sense out of it and had a feeling it wasn't garden-variety vandalism, although it looked like it. I really am not the right person either - I don't have any experience and wouldn't know how to approach it - but there must be people here who can. Graham is a good idea - maybe he knows people at the accessibility project. Tvoz |talk 06:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Oooh - how come the color continued? Looks nice! Tvoz |talk 06:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC) It's pretty! Okay, I'm going to bop over to Graham's talk page and tell him there's a party going on over at L'Aquatique's talk page and he better get in on it before I get too goofy (as often happens at parties, particularly Christmas ones). I am kidding of course. I just finished a six page paper for a sociology class and I'm feeling QUITE goofy already! 'Nee way... L'Aquatique talktome Done! I think I managed to keep the goofiness to a minimum. I try hard not to freak out people I am just meeting! : ) 'Kay, we'll see if he responds. (By the way, your signature matches this odd purpleness that has engulfed our conversation quite nicely.) L'Aquatique talktome 06:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC) (After edit conflict): Hmmm - I'm not sure how well I'd do at this - I'm a bit shy in voice communication and one of the reasons I like this place is that communication is all in text. I've been able to talk to other blind people who others considered really hard to talk to ... just saying "yep", "uh-huh", and so on did the trick as well as providing some good advice. But I'm not sure how I'd go with Hopiakuta ... he/she seems very talkative. The only person from Wikipedia:accessibility who I think might be able to do this is User:Rick Block. User:Theresa knott is a teacher assistant at a school who I find always has a knack of explaining things well - perhaps some of the editors at Talk:Autism maybe? I know people in RL who are good at that sort of thing but don't edit here... I wouldn't give the duty to any of them otherwise they probably wouldn't be my friends. In summary I could do it, but I'd prefer someone who is more quallified in working with developmentally disabled people. I have this page on my watchlist so reply here to keep the conversation in one place. Graham87 06:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Holy cow, that was fast. Superhero fast... hey you're not a superhero are you? That would be cool. I could tell people I met a superhero on Wikipedia! But alas... they would never believe me! Anyway; I hope that you have not misinterpreted my original message- in no way am I asking you to telephone him yourself! I would not ask you to do something I wouldn't do- and I know how you feel. I'm horrible at telephone conversations... I stutter all over the place and can never think of the right thing to say! (until an hour or so afterward, that is) I am much better at typing out my thoughts. Anyway, I was just hoping you might have some insight that we are missing, since he seemed to react in more a positive manner to you than others. It's late where I am and I'm just up working on this and writing to blow off steam, so I'll try to get in touch with Rick tomorrow morning and try to get his advice on the subject. Thanks for the quick reply! L'Aquatique talktome 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC) LOL no I was browsing WP:ANI and followed a link ... then I found I had new messages. I'd love to be a superhero ... 'twould be cool to be able to fly around. Anyways, as a last idea, have a look at my advice about a similar situation at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch19 #AnnieTigerChucky - I was probably a bit pesamistic in that message but it is true, unless someone reaches out to him and teaches him about Wikipedia, he will eventually be banned. I don't want that to happen. And I always think of a comeback far too late - what in French is called L'esprit de l'escalier (stairway wit) - I wish there was a concise English term for that. Graham87 07:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Yeah, flying would definitely rock muchly. However, I think I'd prefer to be able to breathe underwater. Still, being a superhero would be scary. I don't think I have to guts to go fighting evildoers... I have trouble enough on vandal patrol! Then again, you can't move as fast underwater, so any epic battles would be pretty boring. Hee hee... 'Nee way, back to the subject at hand. I am not sure about this- I haven't been able to decipher a lot from his admittedly cryptic talk page (can't imagine what that page must sound like... maybe a very poorly tuned orchestra!) but I think he actually was banned at one point for a short time. Perhaps as an administrator you could confirm this? Frankly, while I see how it could work, I think that he may just react with the "handicappist, racist, etc" line. I'm afraid if we tried that we might push him away too far. Hmmm... By the way- love that phrase! It does seem to capture the sentiment perfectly, doesn't it? Je pense que les français comprendent l'idée de langue plus, plus mieux que nous... : ) L'Aquatique talktome 07:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC) This is his block log, which is accessible by everyone - it shows he was blocked for 24 hours and then unblocked. A link to a user's block log can be found at the top of their contributions, next to the talk page link; admins also get a block button. A block is not the same thing as a ban ... a ban is something given by the arbitration committee or by the whole community - see the banning policy. I don't actually know any French - I learnt that phrase from Chuck Palahniuk's short story "Guts", which is, um, interesting ... let's just say that the ability to breathe underwater would not have helped the main character at all to get out of his messy predicament! Graham87 08:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Hmm... It says he was blocked at around ten then unblocked at 16:00... that's only six hours, unless I'm reading it wrong. (which is completely possible- the whole 24 hour clock screws with my brain) Plus it happened almost a year ago. Looks like this guy's been a Wikipedian longer than me! Nevertheless, it seems like if he was going to learn from a block he would have learned his lesson a year ago. A ban on the other hand... I don't know. I'm not sure he would understand. Many editors have already asked him to "knock it off", making it formal probably isn't going to change things. The idea of a ban, in and of itself, isn't very concrete and I think that we need to be very clear with him or else more misunderstandings are likely to ensue. On the less serious side of this conversation, I've decided that in addition to being able to hold my breath under water and fly, I want to have a little usb port installed in my brain. Need to learn about Geological Oceanography? Easy! I just plug in this flash drive and BAM! Instant expertise! The practical applications are endless!! L'Aquatique talktome 08:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Yup he was blocked for only six hours then unblocked by the same admin. I think the problem is that everyone has been kinda afraid to deal with him ... and to be honest I don't blame them. If he is banned he will probably start creating sockpuppets - but they will be easily recognisable because of his distinct writing style and mannerisms. I'd love a USB port in my brain ... you could find out so much info so quickly. I would only like it if only *I* could decide what gets plugged in there ... I wouldn't like someone walking by and randomly plugging a USB vacuum cleaner into my brain. Graham87 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Yeah, I agree. I'm not afraid of him, but I'm a little intimidated. I'm a writer and I'm used to what I write making sense to people. He obviously isn't getting what I'm trying to tell him, and that really... I don't know what to word is. Frustrates me, I guess. Maybe that's why I don't want to give up on him. It irks me that there are so many idiots out there that will destroy without a though something other people have spent so much time working on, but here's someone who seems to have good faith, and some good ideas (if you can read past all the weirdness, he has a very dry with an is almost... poetic) and we cannot get him to understand. *Sigh*. The problem is, he will take any block or ban as an insult. Hmmm... Tvoz was talking earlier about him writing down everything that he wants to contribute in a subpage and then having that be translated into usable text by some volunteer. That's actually not a bad idea, but I'm not sure how I'd communicate that to him. Plus, we'd have to find someone to do it. Vacuum cleaner usb ports. Who knew? I cannot help wondering who sits at their desk all day and thinks these things up. Nevertheless, if someone did walk by and plug a vacuum into your head, you could just yank it out and...retaliate...hee hee... This reminds me of when I was a kid, I programmed my computer to "scream in pain" (I just recorded myself screaming) everytime someone unplugged something from it. Ahh, the memories! L'Aquatique talktome 18:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Hmmm - look at his his userpage on Anarchopedia where he seems to make a little more sense. I suspect he is autistic because of his perseveration on minor things - like the number of characters in his screen name. He seems to be unwilling to use the phone to talk to anyone outside the US - and I, personally, wouldn't call if I had to pay for it because the cost of international calls in Aussieland is ridiculous. Unless one of us could Skype him or something ... wasn't he using an ancient computer though? Hmmm ... on one level he makes no sense at all but on another he makes perfect sense in his own world, if you know what I mean. And lol at the USB missile launcher! Weapon of mass-distraction indeed ... Graham87 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I've read through some of his posts and nearly all of them could be considered disruptive. His account history goes back to June 2006 (which is a continuation of earlier postings from an IP address). He seems to be the same user at http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/User:hopiakuta, and may not be fully comprehending the difference between wikipedia and anarchopedia. He's been tolerated here quite a long time, despite being nearly obviously disruptive. I don't have any particularly good suggestions. I've seen much less disruptive folks end up banned. He seems to at least think he has a disability of some kind, but I don't have much of clue what it might be. Harsh though it may sound, if he can't communicate through writing this might not be the best place for him. BTW - can you fix your sig? Each "start font" (font) needs a matching "close font" (/font). This is why the font color continues after your sig. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Fixed. That's never been a problem before... Anyway, I'm disappointed to hear your response, but unfortunately I have to admit that you are probably right. Both of my parents are autism specialists and I spent my childhood dealing with this stuff. I guess I was just pushing for a victory here because they are so rare with this disease. I do think it's interesting that he seems so much more coherant at Anarchopedia. I don't have any good explanations for this. Perhaps it is just a better environment for him and we should encourage him to remain there instead? As for weapons of mass destruction distraction, I know that I would be distracted all day by that! I'd be sitting here, twiddling my thumbs and considering working... then someone would walk by I would bomb the daylights out of them! The good news is, if they were carrying something I could vacuum any messes up ASAP! : ) L'Aquatique talktome 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC) It seems a shame, because it would appear that disruption may not be his intent, and he has made positive contributions, if you can sort through the maze. I do think it might work in a partnering arrangement, but I don't know why anyone would volunteer for such a task. From a practical standpoint, do we just sit back and put up with it? Mentoring might be an answer - at least a mentor (or adopt-a-user, whatever it's called) might talk to him by phone and maybe get some insight into what the problem is, and perhaps recommend that this isn't the best place for him to get satisfaction from his work. This may indeed not be the best place for him, but are we going to just wait until someone blocks him for disruption? Doesn't feel right to me, but I don't have any answers either. Tvoz |talk 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Well, I suppose a next step could be to contact the folks over at Adopt a User and see if we could find someone with experience in these situations. There are a lot of mentors out there, I'd bet there's a least one who would be willing to take it on. L'Aquatique talktome 19:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC) I wish I was able to contribute more here than I really can. I do note that we do have two editors, User:Smartyshoe and User:Gameguider, who have both expressed interest in a proposed Autism project and who both use the {{User aspie}}. One of them, or maybe one of the other editors who use that template here might be able to help. I would have no objections to trying maybe to do some work on this editor's contributions, but am more than a bit awkward on the phone myself. By the way, any way to bring back the violet print above? I wish I saw that color a lot more often around here. John Carter 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, perhaps we could create some sort of network of people who could sift through his contributions and make them more "wikipropriate" (<- new word!). Of course we'd need to run this by him first or he'll see it as being followed around by people intent on changing his edits! I'm going to pop over to Smartyshoe and Gameguiders' talk pages and ask them to join this conversation and lend some first hand experience and advice. L'Aquatique talktome 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Accessibility. John Carter 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Hmmm... too bad you are the only person on the list. : ( L'Aquatique talktome 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Hey, I only added that section at 14:50 today. It'll take awhile for people to even know it's there. John Carter 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Oh, I didn't know that! Hee hee... I'll have to go add my name. L'Aquatique talktome 21:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I don't feel comfortable talking to strangers on the phone. Sorry. Smartyllama 23:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (formerly smartyshoe) I know how you feel! But would you be willing to perhaps examine the case and lend some advice? Also, you may be interested in User:Warlordjohncarter/WikiProject Accessibility... Thanks, L'Aquatique talktome 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Sure, I will look into it. Smartyllama 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Good deal. Welcome to the Wikiproject! L'Aquatique talktome 00:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Hi - I just saw your "talkback" was put on my user page again on Oct 9 - I saw it once that day - didn't see that it went back up (not sure why you put it back actually) - would probably be more useful, at least for me, if you put it on User Talk instead, so the "new message" announcement would be delivered. My watchlist is too huge and I'd prefer not having things put on my user page - I don't always notice them. Anyway - I did see the discussion continuing here, and wish you all well with the project - this is not my expertise, but I saw an editor who seemed to be struggling, and tried to make some sense out of it. Unfortunately it seems there are no real resources for this type of thing, and there continues to be a communication problem with this user. It may be beyond our ability to address - if anyone has any contacts at the Foundation, perhaps they would be interested in this. I'm overbooked as it is and can't do much more than an occasional interpretation if I happen to see one of his edits being misunderstood. I'll keep him on my watchlist, but can't promise more than that. Tvoz |talk 05:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (unindent)Whoa, sorry I didn't notice your post until now. God, I'm such a space cadet at times. 'Nee way , thanks for your help and input. I understand being overbooked! Been there, done that, keep doing it. --(L'Aquatique: Bringing chaos & general mayhem to the Wiki for One Year!) 08:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Absolutely no problem!! All best Tvoz |talk 16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC) He's baaaack... Oh L'Aquatique, the IP claiming to be Julianna Rose Mauriello's brother is back. Can you help keep an eye on this? Not only is there a definite conflict of interest, by continually saying "don't change my sister's page" he's definitely violating WP:OWN. RainbowOfLight Talk 06:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Palin, Biden, Obama, McCain Hi. I agree with continuing the lockdown of these four article thru November 5. However, the huge tag at the top of each of the articles is hideous. The small padlock symbol would work just as well, and anyone would understand what's happening from reading the tag at the top of each of the talk pages. The McCain article has already been locked up for a couple days without using the huge tag at the top of the article. This issue arose previously, and it was decided to keep the Palin article frozen but get rid of the huge tag at the top.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Why are these pages fully protected? I skimmed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_on_Obama_talk_page, and I don't see vandalism or edit warring coming from established users. What's the deal? I also read your Biden post, and I want more details as to why these pages are fully protected. CTJF83Talk 08:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC) There's a discussion about the whole thing right now at WP:ANI. I can't speak for all four of the lock-ups, but the McCain article was subject to some pretty intense bickering the past few days. I think there's a general recognition that things will inevitably get much worse over the next few days, until the election.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, I'll have to look at the in about 9 hrs when I wake up. L'Aquatique, if you could respond also, on here, that'd be great! CTJF83Talk 08:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC) [outdent] Well, if you don't mind I'm going to copypaste my recent response from an/i which gives a fairly good explanation of my decision. It's rather early and I just got up, so I don't be surprised if I come back and add more when my brain is functioning! When I decided to protect my decision was based on a wide variety of things- firstly common sense that these articles would be under incredible dispute considering the current climate in the US and indeed the world. I also had reports from vandal fighters on the page that it was getting overwhelming, they couldn't handle it, and that was in many ways the straw that broke the camels back. Wikipedia is a big deal, I think sometimes people forget that we have a ton load of presence in the greater world and it's important that we show a good face. We're the third hit on google for search string "Barack Obama" and the first that is not run by him. I'm sure the situation is similar for the other three. People are coming here for information about the candidates, information that they may use to make an extremely important decision in a few days and it's up to us to make sure that they get the best quality information they can get. If that means restricting editing on these pages, so be it. There's so much more at stake here than editing priveledges. Also, as an aside [I did not write this on an/i] I happen to agree with Ferrylodge above about the protection templates. Someone on the an/i thread has devised some specialty templates which are only about a sentence long and should do nicely. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Ya, but was the vandalism coming just from IPs and new users, or established users also? CTJF83Talk 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC) The vandalism was coming from autoconfirmed users, the pages had been semi-protected ages ago so the problem was not ips and very new editors, unfortunately. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC) What exactly are "autoconfirmed" users? CTJF83Talk 18:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, sorry. It's wikispeak. This page This page explains it better than I could. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, ok CTJF83Talk 18:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Arbitrary Section Break Jeez what a repellent color. "...reports from vandal fighters on the page that it was getting overwhelming, they couldn't handle it, and that was in many ways the straw that broke the camels back." What "reports"? What "vandal fighters"? More bullshit. At McCain there was an extremely low level of vandalism, lower than on countless WP articles that don't suffer lock-down by overzealous admins who, throwing their weight around without the slightest regard for the facts of the matter, heavy-handedly protect the interests of the article owners. And if your fictional "vandals" were to materialize in a savage assault on the McCain and Palin hagiographies, there are McCain campaign sentries on duty 24/7 ready to nuke them. The whole vandalism issue is bogus. As for lockdown as an instrument of some unilaterally-decided policy of preemptive strike, that's no less a crock. Neither is the Bickerer-in-Chief's complaint of talk-page "bickering" grounds for lockdown. Any administrator worthy of such, er, lofty bureaucratic office would have (a) checked for vandalism (b) found there was little to none (c) decided on a policy of wait and see and (d) reserved lock-down for if and when "overwhelming" vandalism proved a real threat to the article. — Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I think I might agree that admins are abusing their power, with this protection, not specifically saying you, L'Aquatique, but there are enough people with all 4 pages on a watchlist, that vandalism won't last more than a few minutes, let alone a few seconds. CTJF83Talk 18:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Writegeist, please attempt to be civil, disagreeing with my decision does not give you an excuse to be rude. Also, I would strongly recommend that you read the an/i thread, towards the beginning was the report by the vandal fighters who were growing wearing of doing nothing but protecting these pages. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I am not sure if this protection falls within our regular methods, but I think it might not be such a bad idea. The protection policy does discourage protecting pages just because they might become a problem, but I think that in this case where the articles are so important and widely viewed (Sarah Palin was getting 823.5k page views a day a while ago) that a BLP violation --of the kind that are not obvious vandalism and are not reverted speedily-- could theoretically affect thousands of people and, while I am not usually a proponent of a socially proactive Wikipedia, we probably shouldn't be sending hundreds of people to the polls with biased information. Icewedge (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC) This colour IS repellent. And it works against legibility. I also stand by my statement that any decent administrator would have (a) checked for vandalism (b) found there was little to none (c) decided on a policy of wait and see and (d) reserved lock-down for if and when "overwhelming" vandalism proved a real threat to the article. — Writegeist (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC) What color exactly are you talking about? If you're having trouble reading my posts, I'd like to find out why. As for your opinion about my qualifications as an admin, I believe you have the right to state your opinion. I think you're wrong, obviously, but you're allowed to state your opinion. However, as yet you have not provided, in my mind, a sufficient counter argument to justify my going against consensus to unprotect the page. If you believe I have acted with the willful intent to harm the encyclopedia, you may open an WP:RFC regarding my actions. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC) ←The background color here, L'A, makes it a little hard to read on my screen too - not enough contrast between it and the type, especially the blue links. Could you change to a lighter shade for background? As for the overall point - I am generally opposed to full protection, and think this pre-emptive move sets a bad precedent. But I am very aware of the level of partisan editing that has gone on all over the political articles, so maybe a few days of protection is not the end of the world. More discussion might have been wise, however, as there are a lot of editors on these pages who do watch them 24/7, and what feels like a unilateral decree never goes down all that well. I,for one, would have liked to be notified of any RFPP to give my opinion, and am not sure you would have had consensus if more involved editors had been consulted. However..... this is where we are, and I do see some merit to it given the intensity of the election and the very few days remaining, so what I'll say now is I hope the intention is to return to semi-protection promptly after Tuesday's results so that we can fend off IP and new vandals, but all of the rest of us have equal access to the texts. I am not happy with edits having to go through random admins, who are not necessarily more objective than us civilians. But thank you for what I think was your reasoned assessment of a difficult situation, and your even-handed response to it. I also think the election template is the way to go so that everyone understands what's up on these pages - with a revert to the small lock on top when we go back to sprot. Cheers... Tvoz/talk 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I also have a BIG problem with the improper "cloak of silence" that has desceded from above over these 4 articles. These articles have been, and would have continued to be, instantaneously protected by the legion of good faith editors that have worked dillegently to create quality. This act is an afront to every editor involved and should be reverted ASAP. It is a clear case of aggressive over-reaction and censorship and calls into question the good faith qualities and abilities of those same editors. As the quote at the top of the "editing User talk" page requests, I will not assume malice on your part, L'A. However, that seems to leave only one other choice. What should have happened was a conversation with everyone involved. As soon as you revert...that conversation can begin. The counter argument that you request is that there was never a consensus to protect. The request of a very few fringe editors is NOT consensus. BTW...I also agree that your color choice for this page is problematic for visitors. But, I think you have already been told that.--Buster7 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have been told that and if you look in the history of this page you will see that I actually adjusted the contrast of the page quite a bit. I will assume by your post that it wasn't enough, so in this edit I am also changing the color scheme of the page. In response to your post, I can only repeat what I have said before: I don't agree, and current consensus at the an/i thread appears to be with me. I thank you for not assuming malice on my part, but I'd like to remind you that sometimes something is neither malice nor stupidity- merely a difference of opinion. I've done stupid things in my life, I've don't mean things in my life, but I'm quite certain that this does not fall under either of those. In protecting this page, and in continuing to stand behind my decision, I am doing what I feel is necessary to protect Wikipedia and all her editors. Did I do the right thing? I really think so, but I'll be the first to admit that there's a distinct possibility that I may have been wrong- a sentiment I believe all people should consider all the time. However, I think the likelihood that I was wrong is low enough that I will not unprotect the pages at this time. I urge you to voice your opinion at the an/i thread, which I am watching. If consensus shows that the community wants the pages unprotected, I will do it, you have my promise, scouts honor. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Tvoz: yes, I fully intend to return the articles to semi-protection after the election is over, and I believe that is community consensus. I also intend to party like it's 1999 and potentially drink heavily to celebrate it all being over. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 00:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Won'tcha be glad when this is over? ;-) SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC) More than you will ever know... My d-day counter on my phone is set to count down the days, so everytime I look at my phone I know how many days until I can sleep soundly again. *sigh* ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC) For what it's worth, Writegeist is equally obnoxious to everyone, so don't take that aspect of this personally. I don't agree with your decision, but I respect your competence and motivations in doing so. And Tvoz is right, it's not the end of the world; I was mostly upset by the original warning tags that were on, which were fortunately changed. And your background color's fine with me :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) New background color is AOK. Thanks for changing it - the different perceptions may be a question of Firefox vs Explorer vs anything Mac, but now it's fine for me. And I'm glad to know we'll be back to sprot in a few days at least when this is over. I'll take a look at AN/I, but I do hope you'll take into consideration the comments by some editors who have spent a lot of time on these four articles, working together to maintain quality and neutrality, but preferring to deal with the admitted difficulties in a more open system than full protection. But in any case we're down to 5 days and I'm hoping to be in a good mood by the time Wednesday morning rolls around. Tvoz/talk 02:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Please unprotect these articles and seek consensus for protection rather than the other way around. The default state of articles is to be editable, and if you want to protect in mass certain articles, you ought to ask first if there is such a need. IMO, there is no need for such a draconian measure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Your template says While normally any wikipedia article is open for editing by anyone, we've been forced to restrict these pages until after the election. Well, no. We have not been forced, rather, you have taken it upon yourself to do it alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 1.) It's not my template, I had no hand in its creation. 2.)I did not take it upon myself, it was decided during a discussion and I was the one who implemented it. In case you haven't noticed, consensus appears to currently favor protection. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 02:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Where? There is no such a thing and you have made an in mass protection of articles. Where is the evidence of vamdalism that could not have been managed by us admins and other editors? Please re-read WP:PROTECTION ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC) At the AN/I thread, haven't I said that at least three times? Look, I'm gonna be real honest with you here- I fully support your right to have an opinion and express it (and here I am addressing all the folks who have been writing to me). But don't come here, ignore every word I say, and act like I owe you something. I have spent an incredible amount of time explaining my actions, time that I really should be spending doing stuff in real life, and half the time I'm repeating myself because no one seems to actually pay attention to what I write. Seriously. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)