User talk:Belchfire/Archive 3

Pol pos Mitt discussion

I think my comments at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Trimming too much can be addressed now. The drama with Still-IP is over there (and moved on to other venues, apparently). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a reply for you there, I'm sure you'll find it. Really, when I was working on the article I was mainly concerned with the very worst of the messes. I totally understand that not everybody would fix them the same way I would. My beef was with somebody reverting my changes in bulk on flimsy grounds, and then demanding that I justify my own changes in fine detail (with no intention of accepting any explanation I offered, regardless of how detailed it was). Belchfire-TALK 02:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tacoma Speedway

On 8 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tacoma Speedway, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tacoma Speedway (pictured) had a dangerous reputation among drivers because of flying gravel and splinters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tacoma Speedway. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You lucky dog! 6631 pageviews! On your first time at bat you make it into DYKSTATS! Well done! Now that you've made DYKSTATS are you going to Disneyland?– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first barnstar--well deserved

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Congrats on the DYK for Tacoma Speedway! Let me also thank you for your hard work helping to keep Wikipedia neutral in the face of relentless POV pushing. Keep up the great work. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

It's my opinion that the minor-edit function is completely useless anyway because so many people misuse it to mark non-minor edits as minor, but I'll nevertheless inform you that your edit to Mitt Romney dog incident isn't minor, nor is it a "copy-edit"; you added text and information. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an awfully nit-picky complaint. I didn't mark it as a minor; you will notice the lack of an "m". I reworded some broken grammar. It didn't rise to the level of "expanding article" in my estimation. You're free to hold a different opinion, of course. Yes, the minor edit function is pretty useless. If Wikipedia wasn't running on Fred Flintstone software, these things would be detected and categorized automatically. Belchfire-TALK 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, I thought you had marked it as minor, and I was mistaken; nonetheless, I don't see how this can be described as "rewording broken grammar" or why you would describe it as copy-editing instead of "adding mention of Obama's book" or something. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did both. I fixed broken grammar AND added mention of Obama's book. I didn't misrepresent it as minor edit. An edit summary is just that: a summary. Yeah, I did leave something out inadvertently. It was originally a copy-edit (for grammar). I started out by fixing the awkward sentence, did a preview, decided more work was needed and added the book title, then did a save without updating the summary. My bad. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the regulars

This is exactly the type of thing that is referred to in the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. In addition, the template you used was meant for vandalism. Ryan Vesey 04:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to argue whether it was the correct template, I will say that no, that is definitely not a vandalism template. And also, see WP:TR. Belchfire-TALK 04:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that mixup. The disruption template is very similar to the old vandalism one. In either case, I meant that the warning in this case unambiguously qualified for don't template the regulars. In addition, notice that WP:TR says "Be prepared to stand behind your template". You hatted the discussion below. It may be appropriate to hat comments from an editor who you have asked to stay away; however, you should always be open to discussion of your edits. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Belchfire, you just reverted[1] an edit I made after days of discussion and with full consensus. This is bad. What's worse is your edit comment, which has some false accusations: "Again, there is no consensus to include this. Please do not edit disruptively." It's one thing to say you disagree, another to accuse me of editing disruptively, particularly given the extended discussion, the lack any response to my final comment, and the fact that I added citations. Even worse, you placed this[2] false notice, accusing me of unconstructive editing. Edits that restore material with citations are inherently constructive. For all of these reasons, I consider your notice to be false and counterproductive, so I am removing it. Do not repeat this error. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a highly selective understanding of the word "consensus". Now please stay off my Talk. Belchfire-TALK 04:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make this comment not knowing that Still had commented as well. Belchfire, you are really allowing your opinions and emotions to get the better of you here. I will agree that Still made a change that did not have consensus; however, upon review, I don't see consensus against it. Your comments against it had to do with the quality of the writing and the Colbert source. No offense meant to Still, I believe it could have been written better, but that is not a reason to remove material. The Colbert source was not included. Instead, a book (among other sources) was used that devoted an entire chapter to views of Jesus as a liberal. For now, I will restore the material so that it can be improved there, rather than talked about behind the scenes. Ryan Vesey 04:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tired of being followed around and harassed by this other editor, quite frankly, and when he behaves in a manner that disrupts Wikipedia, I think somebody needs to speak up about it. He shows up at an article, makes an absurdly POV edit, engages in discussion long enough to be told by 3-4-5-6 people that he's FOS, then he declares that consensus agrees with him, and acts indignant when he gets reverted. And now you've appointed yourself to be his latest enabler. Well that's just swell. When you have this guy showing up to edit articles purely because you have edited there recently, maybe you'll understand. Until then, you ought to think long and hard about butting in. Belchfire-TALK 05:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes me his enabler? I agreed with him on one issue. I will be clear that he is not my favorite editor and he has made his similar opinion of me clear. Ryan Vesey 12:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nomination

a heads up on refactoring talk page comments

Just as a note: per WP:TALK, refactoring of off-topic comments (e.g. those pertaining to the subject of an article rather than its treatment in the article itself), such as those at Talk:Chick-fil-a, IS allowed. While you're all correct in pointing out that this is not a forum, we do not have forum mods, etc., it is acceptable to remove comments from the talk page that are the author's personal views on the subject of the article with no relation to how that subject is presented on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't refactoring of off-topic comments. That was censorship of an opinion distasteful to the person(s) doing the removal. Belchfire-TALK 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Conservatism content dispute and relevant ANI post

Just wanted to notify you that I've posted a follow-up suggestion to the content dispute on the conservatism article at ANI and the article's talk page. Basically, I've opened the idea of a content RFC to try and get a clear and broad consensus on how best to proceed.

Oh, and a word of advice — when discussing the actions of other established editors, try to avoid referring to their edits as vandalism. Using terms like that can needlessly inflame a situation and alienate every side of a given dispute. Just something to bear in mind.

Anyways, hope my suggestion helps. Hopefully the issue can be resolved without any further conflicts. Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

aww, thank you! That was a nice thing to see when I logged in this morning. I think we've all done a reasonably good job of keeping the powder keg from lighting on that page. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden
In a certain way, writing Wikipedia is the same everywhere, in every language or culture. You have to stick to the facts, aiming for the most objective way of describing them, including everything relevant and leaving out all the everyday trivia that is not really necessary to understand the context. You have to use critical thinking, trying to be independent of your own preferences and biases. To some effect, that's all there is to it. Naturally, Wikipedians have their biases, some of which can never be cured. Most Wikipedians tend to like encyclopedias; but millions of people in the world don't share that bias, and we represent them rather poorly. I'm also quite sure that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedia co-authors are literate. Again, that's not true for everyone in this world. Yet we have other, less noticeable but barely less fundamental biases.

News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias
The Bangla language, also known as Bengali, is spoken by some 200 million people in Bangladesh and India. The Bangla Wikipedia has a very small active community of about ten to fifteen very active editors, with another 35–40 as less active editors. The project faces particular challenges in being a small Wikipedia, and Dhaka-based WMF community fellow User:Tanvir Rahman is working to understand these challenges and to develop strategies that can improve small wikis that have strong potential to expand their editing communities.

Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration
A request for arbitration was filed late last week, ending the three-week long absence of pending cases.

Featured content: On the road again
Six featured articles were promoted this week, including Business US Highway 41, which was a state trunkline highway that served as a business loop in Marquette in the US state of Michigan.

Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit
Three weeks into a month-long evaluation of code review tool Gerrit, a serious alternative has finally gained traction in the review process: Facebook-developed but now independently operated Phabricator and its sister command-line tool Arcanist.

WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution
This week, we interviewed the lively bunch at WikiProject Dispute Resolution. Started in November 2011 to study and discuss improvements to Wikipedia's resources for resolving disputes between editors, the young project has supplemented dispute resolution efforts currently handled at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation Committee, and other venues. Over 40 editors have signed up to provide feedback, a variety of ideas have been proposed, and a manual for dispute resolution has been created.

Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship
Current proposals and requests for comments include a competition to redesign the main page ...

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

[ User talk:Tide rolls#Still-24-45-42-125 / Belchfire ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's rather striking when it's all laid out end-to-end as you have done. Belchfire-TALK 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how he threatened to take it to ANI, then later he accused you of being uncivil for doing the same thing? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Hi, I re-removed the phrase as RFC's are suppose to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue." I'm sure you would want any RFC to adhere to the same standards. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me the policy that allows you to unilaterally make this change? I see nothing non-neutral about the RfC wording, but I see plenty of neutrality problems with your edit of somebody else's Talk page comments. I'm going to revert your improper change (again), and we can take it up at AN/EW if you like. Belchfire-TALK 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFC; the sum total of what to put as a description states - "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it," I'm sure if someone slanted the question in a way you thought was non-neutral you would be concerned as well. Neutrality applies to all but we can ask at the that noticeboard to see if there is a standard that should be followed we may be missing. Insomesia (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion of the wording; you are NOT entitled to alter it, and you are definitely not entitled to edit-war over it. You are now at 3RR on an article talk page and the appropriate warning template has been delivered to your Talk page. The next revert will result in a report at AN/EW. Regrettable, but unavoidable if you will not stop trying to force your unwelcome changes. Belchfire-TALK 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war over the wording of RFCs. It's perfectly in order to tweak a statement of the issue for neutrality. It isn't in order for either of you to edit war. --TS 22:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard to clarify this, I'm sorry if you felt I was edit warring, I was really trying to ensure that the result of the RfC was strictly based on the case itself, not the wording of the question. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The time to worry about whether I thought you were edit-warring was 2 reverts ago. You are edit-warring, and your effort to discuss the issue, while welcome, is late. For my part, I have already engaged in discussion on the Talk page with another editor who also expressed a concern. Lack of discussion is not the problem here. You have a clear mandate in policy to avoid disturbing the Talk comments of other users, barring a small number of narrowly-defined exemptions. You do not have an exemption anywhere in policy to alter a RfC question on your own initiative, nor is there a 3RR exemption that applies in your favor here. NPOV/N is for article content; the place to discuss this issue is at the Talk page in question. Belchfire-TALK 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the concern at the talkpage itself and I think WP:NPOV overrides the talkpage comments being altered when they are part of a RfC statement. You didn't phrase the statement neutrally, that affects the appearance and possible outcome of the RfC. In any case we have a discussion started at the NPOV noticeboard and I asked as part of that if RfC comments can be reworded for neutrality. Hopefully this will prevent future misunderstandings from escalating. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the gesture but I'll consider this de-escalated when either my RfC is restored or re-worded per a consensus. It's really easy for you to say "OK, it's all good now," while your unilateral changes are still in place. As I've said already, I don't see any neutrality issue with my original wording, and in fact I feel pretty strongly that it amounts to a more accurate framing of the question that what you have substituted. Belchfire-TALK 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't substitute anything, I removed the phrase "one of their political opponents" as not neutral and false. In reading more on the issue it seems that the neutral wording should have been achieved through consensus of those first in disagreement rather than one person presenting their view. However two mistakes don't make things right but perhaps WP:BRD might apply? You boldly started the RfC, I reversed one phrase, and now there is discussion. Do you think that phrase would have survived if there was a consensus process to make the RfC happen? I'm not sure it would. I am sorry we are spending time on a sidelined area but I appreciate that you care about the article enough to argue for what you feel makes it better. Insomesia (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You substituted your own judgment in place of mine, and you are still asserting rather aggressively that my wording was non-neutral, in spite of my explanation to the contrary - a prima facie failure of AGF. Your reasoning regarding BRD holds no water.

Here's the basic issue: the assumption that SPLC is non-partisan and/or authoritative is faulty on both counts, and provably so. Nobody can point to even a single conservative in a position of governance at SPLC. Multiple conservative news sources are on-record pointing out their bias. Their own hate group listings exhibit visible differences in how they handle right-leaning vs. left-leaning groups. The listings themselves have exploded in size over the last decade, in proportion to the media attention given. There can be no credible claim that SPLC doesn't have a political dimension.

OTOH, blithely pretending that SPLC sits in God-like perfect judgment arguably creates considerably more bias in favor of their pronouncements than would be created if the reverse assessment turned out to be correct. So if we allow that it's not knowable who is right about this (which could be the fairest conclusion), erring on the side of caution argues in favor of the original wording.

Moreover, the hate group listings against groups like AFA and FRC is in response to those organizations' political activities, which makes the "political opponent" label generically correct, even if SPLC is indeed a creature of mythical God-like perfection. Belchfire-TALK 23:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on many of the facets here. Insomesia (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to offer in return besides "I think you're wrong because I feel it in my bones"? Belchfire-TALK 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the two of you agree, I can review the RfC and the above arguments and choose text that balances the intent of Belchfire and the concerns of Insomesia. BTW, as I write this I have no idea what the topic of the RfC is. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is just one phrase in disagreement and another editor has also agreed there was an issue how the statement was already written. Please feel free to have a look, my first edit was here. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy. Good of you to offer help. I'm open to any suggestion that might balance-out our concerns. Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Takes a look at the page history and a few revisions) Wow. A huge edit war, plus a serious question of policy. I am not touching that one with a ten foot pole. I am going to take the liberty of flagging this at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:American Family Association. BTW, has anyone who is editing that page ever heard of WP:BRD?

Southern Poverty Law Center article

If you go back in the history of the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center you'll find that it was once pretty much written by the Southern Poverty Law Center. One editor in particular had basically taken vast chunks of it right from SPLC publications. You'll find that our ol' pal the North Shoreman was protecting the article then just as he does now though I think that he pretty much had to concede that parts of it needed to be rewritten; not if it was up to him though. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2007! Good grief. And there's IP addresses in the history that trace to Huntsville, AL. Gee, what a surprise. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Dishonorable Disclosures

Hello! Your submission of Dishonorable Disclosures at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dishonorable Disclosures (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democrat Party

Freedom of religion in Yemen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to General People's Congress

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar

I really like what you did with the article (although when it comes to the cite template, I am solidly on Team Unbunch). Keep up the good work yourself! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am much less impressed with you now upon seeing you nominated Mitt Romney's tax returns for deletion. Are you unfamiliar with WP:CFORK? Do you really want to merge everything there back to Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign? Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speculate--and I could be wrong--that he feels the article should be deleted--not merged. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia Kirananils (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(channeling Elvis) Thank you, thankyouverahmuuuch. Belchfire-TALK 19:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRC Hate speech lead

I just made a comment on the RfC at the FRC article which I thought you might be of interest to you. My concerns about the current addition are summed up there, as well as a "starter source" which somewhat backs up my thoughts about if the hate group tag is to be added, then it needs to be added as a result of the controvsy of comparing the FRC to violent hate groups. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. My sense of it is that the shooting has raised some valid questions about SPLC's methods, and I favor adding verbiage about that in every case where SPLC has designated a hate group on political grounds (which pretty much covers most of their "anti-gay" listings). IMO, the hate group listings don't belong in any leads due to undue weight and because the information simply isn't needed for a "concise overview", but if that can't be averted, then balance requires that the criticisms be mentioned as well. Belchfire-TALK 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the SLPC methodology uses to give the moniker. The only supporting opinions of it being an RS that I'm aware of is that the FBI uses the data. Most newspapers just use "is a hate group according to the SLPC". In short, it appears to be the sole research group with no peer review (or do they use peer review?) that is used by many. I don't have sufficient interest at this point to delve into it any further. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see any actual evidence that FBI does anything besides piggy-back on to SPLC's notoriety, quite frankly. Yes, the FBI has a link on their website. Big deal. Can we show that is anything more than a P.R. stunt? The theory that's been proposed is that SPLC can gather intelligence that the FBI is unable to gather for itself because of legal restrictions. If that's truly the case, then SPLC is pure evil and should be shut down on those grounds alone.

You've hit the nail on the head, though: no review. No oversight. Nobody questions their judgment or methods. It's just wrong. Belchfire-TALK 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"SPLC is pure evil and should be shut down"--stop pussyfooting around and tell us what you really think! Why don't the 3 of us dress up as homosexuals and minorities (that would be fairly easy for me) and go down there and videotape what happens ala James O'Keefe, haha!!! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any negative judgment calls on the work SLPC has done over the years. In fact, I think the vast majority of their efforts are altruistic. I only question why they are considered a RS at face value. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 04:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were an altruistic organization up until some point in time after Potok took over. Then it got to be all about the money. They basically worked themselves out of a job by being successful at what they do, and it became necessary to expand their horizons to stay in business. You don't have to take my word for it, just follow the money. At one point in the mid-90s (this is from memory, so don't quote me) they had something like $55M in the bank, after being around for 25 years or so. Potok came on board in about '98-'99 or so. Then they started inventing new kinds of "hate groups", and now they have almost $300M. In the business they are in, you don't create that kind of wealth by working from purely altruistic motives. I'd love to be wrong, and maybe I am. But I doubt it. Belchfire-TALK 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Akin

Not trying to edit war. It was an adjustment. If you want to change it back, I won't 3r. Casprings (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let somebody else tackle it, as I don't want to keep wracking up reversions. You know, it would be a lot easier to edit if people would simply follow the rules once the rules have been pointed out to them. It's not difficult, and you were asked politely. Belchfire-TALK 03:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talking animals

Hi, I'm puzzled by this edit. Serpent (Bible) is about an animal that talked, and you did not remove it from Category:Christian mythology, so why take it out of the intersection category? Please explain... or perhaps finish what you intended. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary
The Wikimedia Foundation sometimes proposes new features that receive substantive criticism from Wikimedians, yet those criticisms may be dismissed on the basis that people are resistant to change—there's an unjustified view that the wikis have been overrun by vested contributors who hate all change. That view misses a lot of key details and insight because there are good reasons that Wikimedians are suspicious of features development, given past and present development of bad software, growing ties with the problematic Wikia, and a growing belief that it is acceptable to experiment on users.

News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline
The Core Contest is a month-long competition among editors to improve Wikipedia's most important "core" articles—especially those that are in a relatively poor state. Core articles, such as Music, Computer, and Philosophy, tend to lie in the trunk of the tree of knowledge; by analogy, featured-and good-article processes generally attract more specialist topics out on the branches.

In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia
In the Utah Court of Appeals this week, the majority opinion in Fire Insurance Exchange v. Robert Allen Oltmanns and Brady Blackner relied on Wikipedia for the basic premise of their legal opinion, and included a concurring opinion devoted solely to the issue of citing Wikipedia in a legal opinion.

Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.
Thirteen featured articles were promoted this week, including pelicans, which are a genus of large water birds comprising the family Pelecanidae, characterised by a long beak and large throat-pouch. They have a fossil record dating back at least 30 million years and are most closely related to the Shoebill and Hammerkop. These fish-feeders have a patchy relationship with humans: the birds are sometimes persecuted and sometimes feature in mythology.

Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension
New embeddable scripting ("template replacement") language Lua received considerable scrutiny this week when it began its long road to widespread deployment, landing on the test2wiki test site on Wednesday (wikitech-l mailing list). ... the fourth in our series profiling participants in this year's Google Summer of Code (GSoC) programme.

WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Korea. Started in September 2006, WikiProject Korea covers the history and culture of the Korean people, including both countries that currently occupy the Korean peninsula. This task has proven difficult with North Koreans notably absent from the Wikipedia community due to tight control over access to external media. The project is home to over 16,000 pages, including 15 pieces of Featured material and 66 Good and A-class Articles.

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I know you must constantly feel like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the Hill but your Diligence to keep up with advocating N-POV is impressive, Keep pushing the boulder Sincerely John D. Rockerduck (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump WQA

FYI: I !voted at Village pump re WQA, and my vote went into the wrong subsection because the section titles were confusing I fixed mine, but it looks like you may also have placed your !vote in the incorrect subsection ... you may want to double check. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads-up, much appreciated. Belchfire-TALK 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring by Belchfire

Your recent edit violates WP:BRD and constitutes edit-warring. By deleting this message without comment, you are acknowledging that you have received it and declining to dispute it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Belchfire-TALK 06:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he's not wrong. You deleted cited, sourced material without consensus to do so. I've reverted your edits; please be more careful in the future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SWAT I suggest you review the talk page where you will see a consensus against inclusion consisting of amongst others Arthur Rubin and Jclemens. May I suggest self-revert. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree that it's a consensus (3 in favor of deleting, one in favor of keeping. I'm not counting myself because I have no real opinion on the substance) I'll self-revert since it's on the "losing side" of the discussion at this point. I'll leave this up so Belchfire sees it, and he can remove this section again as needed.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swat, if you don't think 3-1 is a sufficient consensus, I'm leaving this section in place purely for its comedic value. Belchfire-TALK 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RATIO of 3-1 could be; I don't think that 4 people is a sufficient sample size for the topic. Put it this way -- I didn't get involved in the discussion, but if I had, I probably would have made it 3-2. Is your consensus clear then, with just 1 additional !vote? Of course it isn't. But, do what you want with the section, it's your page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly notice

just in case you were not aware.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly heads-up. I did indeed miss the probation notice, so this reminder is quite helpful. Belchfire-TALK 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opsec

Why make it into a fight? Take a deep breath. There's no edit war; they just have to provide an NPOV RS cite like everyone else. guanxi (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no patience for somebody who performs 5 reverts in less than 20 minutes. You can discuss it on AN3. Belchfire-TALK 05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that. It's too bad we're wasting our time and energy on conflict where there is no need. I thought your earlier edits were very good. guanxi (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing about it. You're trying to push partisan cruft into the article using rapid-fire reverts while ignoring ongoing discussion. If you get away with it, consider yourself lucky. Belchfire-TALK 06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tags

As you may not be familiar with the guidelines, anyone other than the article creator may remove speedy deletion tags, whether or not justified. ~~Please only edit war in a good cause....~~ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Yet another goofy, nonsensical Wikipedia policy. Thanks for pointing it out, though. Message on edit-warring duly noted, but I'm pretty sure my edit should be viewed as the "R" in a BRD cycle. By the way, I was nominating the article for deletion but it edit-conflicted with your nom. Great minds think alike, I guess. Belchfire-TALK 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Arthur. Another admin just told me the same thing; that I was allowed to remove that tag. But he said sometimes an article creator will log out of their account and try to remove that tag. Just so you know, I didn't remove it until after I searched the Google News archives for stories about that group. There were numerous results. And I added a cite, which Belchfire also inexplicably removed. Btw, the admin also said, "I disagree with the tagging that page, being an SPLC designated hate group is surely in indication of importance." --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fate of the article is up to the wider community now, and that other admin has as much right to be wrong as anybody else. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground, etc.

Hi. I've come across your editing several times recently, and with a review of your edits, I believe you have a tendency to treat pages as a battleground. This may be a symptom of the multiple revert wars you continually find yourself in. Please consider this message an official warning, as 'official' as we get around here, that continuing down this road will lead to an enforced break from Wikipedia. My advice is to find a different, less contentious, topic area to concentrate in, as the naturally dramatic topics you frequent are dragging you into poor situations. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A picture for you!

~~I am not going to say exactly who/what the following reminds me of~~ ^{OK, it's Talk:2012 Republican National Convention#"Akin Plank" and commentary on the convention...} (hint: not you) but somehow it seems appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Belchfire (I think), I ran across one of your comments on the RNC Convention concerning the Akin Plank. After your comment against and other comments against and my own comment against, the proponent still reentered his statement about the Akin Plank in the middle of the night and well I protested and removed it and Lionel loved me. Not trying to tout my own horn but throughout the long night protecting the very essence of Republicans everywhere, I actually came across a lot of your comments on Talk Pages and Discussions along with Lionel and a few others (I'm guessing you are all members of WikiProject Conservatism, not actually a guess). And I found your comments to be straight to the point and reasonable (I said a long night) and that you were often up against the same person again and again. Finally to the point I had also been looking at the FRC, the FOTF, and the SPLC. I cracked on the FRC Talk Page after reading the RfC and primarily the claim that the SPLC is a resource for the FBI therefore it is of good character. I wind up here because after I eviscerated that premise on the FRC:Talk I check my Watchlist and see that you just got reverted on the FRC Article. So hi, how are you, hope we always keep it positive, and oh, the SPLC is in no way a resource for the FBI as I outlined on FRC:Talk. I hope this information finds you well. I am East Coast America and though daylight now blossoms my night dawns. Yendor (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violate of WP:TPG

Lowering the Cone of Silence

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit violates WP:TPG. I am free to redact myself, and you are not free to restore those words, especially the second time. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. But whatever. Belchfire-TALK 23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, StillStanding would be free to strike (cross out) his troubling post, but not to redact it, as Belchfire had already replied. StillStanding violated WP:TPG by deleting Belchfire's post. (Yet another point for an RfC against StillStanding....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, if you're going to weigh in, you need to do your research. Look at the diff's again and you'll see that I didn't delete Belchfire's post; I deleted my own, as nobody had responded to it. Your conclusion is therefore false, and it's yet another point against you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide
Wikimedia editors have been debating a community proposal for the adoption of a new project to host free travel-guide content. The debate reached a new stage when a three-month request for comment on Meta came to an end, with a decision to set up the first new type of Wikimedia project in half a decade. The original proposal for the travel guide unfolded during April on Meta and the Wikimedia-l mailing lists, centring around the wish of volunteer contributors to the WikiTravel project to work in a non-commercial environment.

Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, edited jointly with the Wikimedia Research Committee and republished as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?
Developers were left one step closer to an understanding of the code review outlook this week after the creation of a graph plotting "number changesets awaiting review" over time. The chart, which also shows the number of new changesets created on a daily basis, reveals a peak in the number of unreviewed changesets in mid-July, followed by a short drop. The current figure stands at approximately 219 unreviewed changesets.

Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten
This week the Signpost interviews Mark Arsten, who has written or contributed significantly to ten featured articles; most have related to new religious movements, and some have touched on other controversial or quirky topics. Mark gives us a rundown on how he keeps neutral and what drives him to write featured content; he also gives some hints for aspiring writers.

WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who
This week, we hopped in a little blue box with a batch of companions from WikiProject Doctor Who. Started in April 2005, the project has grown to include about 4,000 pages about the world's longest-running science fiction television show, its spinoffs, and various related material. The project is the parent of the Torchwood Taskforce and a child of WikiProject British TV and WikiProject Science Fiction. With new Doctor Who episodes airing this week and a 50th anniversary celebration around the corner, we thought now would be a good time to inquire about the famed Time Lord.

Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia.

BLP issues at Illinois Family Institute

I noticed you reverted an edit at Illinois Family Institute as a BLP violation. The material has been added back in, but significantly changed - do you think the BLP issues remain? St Anselm (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a BLP problem with the material re-added in this diff: [3]. Specifically, it's the same problem I have described elsewhere: SPLC is not a reliable source for contentious material on living persons because (1) SPLC lacks editorial oversight and (2) SPLC has a clear conflict of interest.

Other editors will argue that the matter has been settle at RS/N, and they are wrong, because RS/N simply does not have the authority to change and/or ignore our BLP policy. Belchfire-TALK 04:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These "other editors" would seem to be wrong about consensus at RSN, as well. There is now an asserted prior consensus which certainly didn't exist prior to this month. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your approved HighBeam code failed to deliver: please email Ocaasi

Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:

Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Los Angeles Motordrome

On 31 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Los Angeles Motordrome, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the wooden racing surface of the Los Angeles Motordrome (pictured) was treated with crushed sea shells to improve traction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Los Angeles Motordrome. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal
Some of Wikimedia's most valuable photographs have been shot and uploaded under free licenses as a direct result of the annual Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) event each September. Last year, the project was conducted on a European level, resulting in the submission of an extraordinary 168,208 free images of cultural heritage sites ("monuments") from 18 countries, making it the world's largest photographic competition. Organising the 2012 event—which has just opened and will run for the full month of September—has required input from chapters and volunteers in 35 countries.

Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?
Developers are currently discussing the possibility of a MediaWiki Foundation to oversee those aspects of MediaWiki development that relate to non-Wikimedia wikis. The proposal was generated after a discussion on the wikitech-l mailing list about generalising Wikimedia's CentralAuth system.

Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror
Five featured pictures were promoted this week, including a video explaining the recent landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars. NASA called the final minutes of the complicated landing procedure "the seven minutes of terror".

Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing
Since May 2012 I've been a Wikimedia Foundation community fellow with the task of researching and improving dispute resolution on English Wikipedia. Surveying members of the community has revealed much about their thoughts on and experiences with dispute resolution. I've analysed processes to determine their use and effectiveness, and have presented ideas that I hope will improve the future of dispute resolution.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Belchfire. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC tag

I'd like to resolve the loggerheads on this article. Please send me an email, as I'm afraid a conversation on the talk page or here will get hijacked by the usual supect(s). little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just as soon do it out in the open. I'm not worried about the discussion getting hijacked, as this is my Talk page and I don't allow that sort of horseshit here.

That article has NPOV problems due to censorship - period, end of story. I doubt if it can be fixed without imposing some richly-deserved topic bans on at least 3-4 users (including, sadly, at least one admin), but I'll listen to reason if somebody has another idea. Belchfire-TALK 18:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list the sources in question regarding SPLC critiscm here? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For openers, I suggest looking at the material added in this string of edits: [4], subsequently (and tendentiously) reverted with a bullshit excuse here: [5]. That's my baseline, as far as I'm concerned the article will remain defective without at least the majority of that material. Belchfire-TALK 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally like to see specific diffs and the rational for exclusion. There does appear to some cause for concern about ownership issues which might need to be raised after the current RfC ends. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at KillerChihuahua's revert for the rationale, which basically amounted to, "Oh fuck no, I'm not gonna let you put that stuff in my article." Belchfire-TALK 06:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring over Dishonerable Disclosures

Just to remind you, with this edit, you're at 3RR. You need to stop and accept consensus. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Looks like 2RR to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm at the "B" in BRD. Or if you prefer, 1RR, since 216.81.94.73 is a sock. But the real question is, "Why is Still-24 inserting irrelevant bullshit into the article?" And that doesn't even approach the really obvious question: "Why are you edit-warring, Still-24?" Belchfire-TALK 04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're not aware: a discussion is going on to resolve the edit war: Talk:Dishonorable Disclosures#Resolving the edit war of 8 September 2012. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing at Christianity and homosexuality. Restoring inappropriate material without consensus and with a false edit summary, and tag-bombing adequately cited statements because you personally dislike them, are not behaviors conducive to building an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make one preposterous claim after another. But whatever. Belchfire-TALK 04:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my Talk page, if there's any hatting to be done here, I'll do it.

Your argument is ridiculous. A single revert doesn't constitute edit-warring, ever. Belchfire-TALK 15:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BP edit warring

Stop edit warring at BP as you did here. You summarized the reversion in as "removing unsourced material and obvious original research" but of course the text you removed was fully cited to very high quality news articles. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good friggin' grief. How in the fucking hell am I "edit-warring" if I've only edited the article ONE time, ever? Perhaps you should learn what edit-warring actually means before you post this crap on somebody's talk page. Belchfire-TALK 05:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit warring by reverting perfectly good cited text with a misleading reason. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't edit-warring. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Again, ONE revert is not edit-warring. ONE revert is never edit-warring, ever. You're just butt-hurt because your coatrack got reverted. Maybe you shouldn't build coatracks? Just a thought. Belchfire-TALK 05:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can be edit warring with a single revert. "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is ridiculous. A single revert doesn't constitute edit-warring, ever. Belchfire-TALK 15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are expected to justify inclusions into an article on the talk page and not edit war. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are also expected to refrain from making retaliatory reverts, no? Just askin'. Belchfire-TALK 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Wikipedia have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Wikipedia as a battleground to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times uncivil, and make personal attacks in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.

Examples: Reverting a listing in a deletion debate, reverting large amounts of validly sourced edits, personal attacks and incivility personal attacks on an administrator, incivility and personal attacks, edit-warring back in a valid removal of a non-free image with questionable justification, while accusing a good faith editor of wikistalking, incivility, incivility, removal of sourced material, including sources from Department of Justice, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, etc. with the argument "removing unsourced material and obvious original research", claiming other people's edits are "nonsense", sarcastic comments suggesting another editor you are in a dispute with should be topic banned, incivility, inappropriate removal of sourced content, inappropriate removal of sourced content, incivility, clearly misleading edit summaries to justify removing validily sourced material.

And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.

Claiming information sourced to Britannica.com was "unsourced", removal of large amounts of sourced information, in an edit war, without consensus, incivility, personal attakcs, accusing others of bad faith because they oppose you in a content dispute, incivility and personal attacks, accusing opponents in a content dispute of tendentiousness, and again, admin aboose, calling other editors revisions "bullshit", accusations of bad faith, bad faith removal of content, blatant incivility ("nonsensical horseshit"), accusations of "wikihounding", incivility, bad faith categorization of opposing arguments, POV removal of content to significantly "weaken" the "pro-obama" side, incivility "irrelevant bullshit", categorizing New York Times sourced material as "original research", removal of sourced content, justifying edit warring because of "some hack at NYT", snarky response when called on the previous diff, blaming Wikipedia, "Bilge", personal attacks, blatant incivility

And that's just from the next 50 edits.

Now, I'm sure you'll dispute some of the above and go off on how X was unreliably sourced, or Y edit was just sarcastic, and not incivil, or Z edit was "sourced but not relevant". In many cases, your arguments are spurious, misleading, and outright incorrect. In some cases, some of the above diffs may have been justified.The fact that I can pick out that many of your above edits as being problematic, out of your most recent 100, indicates major problems with your editing style. Just to be clear, your overall tone of editing is the issue here, not any one specific diff above. The fact that so many of your edits are disruptive, tendentious, or otherwise causing drama indicates that the problem more likely lies with your perspective and that you simply don't see your edits as being a problem. That is a major, major issue here.

Simply put, your conduct has been massively disruptive. Note I'm referring to conduct, not content -- I actually commend you for attempting to NPOV-ize articles, but what you're doing is driving away editors, creating a disruptive editing environment, and whitewashing articles to your own point of view by removing validly sourced content, then fighting people over the explanation.

It is time for it to stop. The next time you violate Wikipedia policies, whether that's civility, NPOV, edit warring, tendentious editing, removal of content, personal attacks, or any other applicable policy, you will be immediately blocked without further warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are well-taken. There is no question about it, I need an attitude adjustment.

That being said, you need to take another run through your examples and do a more honest analysis. If you do so, I'm pretty sure you will discover there are a couple of other editors whose names crop up continually. And I note with interest that you haven't warned either. How come? Belchfire-TALK 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a reference to Still Standing, because there's already an AN/I going on about imposing sanctions him (or at least there was last I checked). There's definitely others but you and Still Standing are the two most noticeable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in light of your point above, I've asked another administrator for some assistance taking a look at the conduct of various other editors involved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement with SWAT here. I've been watching this go on for some time and participating in many discussions, to which you have been less than receptive. I've been working a little with Still (and there has been some improvement) because he has been receptive, but it appears I need to join SWAT and get more involved in this disputed area. Belchfire, you are correct that there are others that are also, shall we say "problematic", but while that explains bad behavior, that doesn't excuse it. It is very difficult to deal with 6 people at one time, so we do it one at a time, and chip away at the problem, working with (or issues sanctions to) the most obvious participants. You would fit in that category. ANI discussions aren't working, so I'm less inclined to use them and just make the call myself in these types of cases. What we need from you (and everyone else in time) is a clear understanding of the problem, and a willingness to overlook the perceived faults of others moving forward. Your comments here are certainly a step in the right direction, but we need more. We need to know that you will redouble to your efforts to be more honest and straightforward in your actions (even if others aren't) and that you are trying to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem. Otherwise, we run out of options, it is that simple. Leaving this issue alone is no longer a viable option. You have to be able to set aside some emotional baggage and personal bias, and focus on building the encyclopedia. We all have our own biases, that is human, but I've seen you around enough to know you are capable of participating at a higher level of integrity if you so choose, and I asking that you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Dennis, and thank you for the clarification. As I stated earlier, I am highly receptive to constructive criticism when it is fair; but I am much less receptive to being singled-out unfairly.

I offer to you both that if Still-24's involvement were to be subtracted from the mix, Swatjester's laundry list of fouls would shrink to trivial proportions and we would not be having this conversation at all. Thus you should be able to imagine why there was a bit of consternation on my part when Swat comes here to read me the Riot Act without so much as mentioning the antagonist who provided him with so much of his ammunition. Spin it how you will, that was wrong.

All that being said, I own the portion of this problem that I myself have created.

I think now I will resume my previous focus on making contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of motorsports history, but I'll be watching carefully to see how the other side of this problem is dealt with. Belchfire-TALK 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Still has a very different political stance than the others, so sure if he wasn't around, there would be more agreement, but that doesn't diminish his contributions or perspective. Sometimes, it takes people with radically different ideas in order to force an article into neutrality. It isn't always pretty, which is why I'm very tolerant of heated but constructive discussion. And as for Still, I've been active with him for a while, well before coming here, so I completely understand the frustration, but he hasn't gone without scrutiny or sanction. I posted there before here by a day, and I have more than a couple times in the past as well. It might look like I've singled him out, if someone were to honestly look at it. He was being more disruptive, but is getting the point. And I'm glad your attitude is one of cooperation here. I have no interest in telling someone what the content should be, only in insuring the playing field is fair, and the end result is as well. And yes, editing a variety of topics is probably good for all editors, so we don't get too absorbed into a topic. Your contributions are wanted, we just have to work on keeping it honest and fair for everyone, and by everyone. Honestly, for us admins, we just want people to figure out how to work things out themselves without us having to get involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes
Thanks to the initiative of Yuvi Panda and Notnarayan, the Signpost now has an Android app, free for download on Google Play. ... but would readers be interested in an iOS app for Apple devices?

Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention
Much like article content, the English Wikipedia's help pages have grown organically over the years. Although this has produced a great deal of useful documentation, with time many of the pages have become poorly maintained or have grown overwhelmingly complicated.

In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal
Philip Roth, a widely known and acclaimed American author, wrote an open letter in the New Yorker addressed to Wikipedia this week, alleging severe inaccuracies in the article on his The Human Stain (2000).

Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'
Three hip hop discographies were promoted this week, alongside seven other lists.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi
After a week's hiatus, the WikiProject Report returns with an interview featuring WikiProject Fungi. Started in March 2006, the project has grown to include over 9,000 pages, including 47 Featured Articles and 176 Good Articles. The project maintains a list of high priority missing articles and stubs that need expansion.

Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial
In dramatic events that came to light last week, two English Wikipedia volunteers—Doc James (James Heilman) and Wrh2 (Ryan Holliday)—are being sued in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by Internet Brands, the owner of Wikitravel.com. Both Wikipedians have also been volunteer Wikitravel editors (and in Holliday's case, a volunteer administrator). IB's complaints focus on both editors' encouragement of their fellow Wikitravel volunteers to migrate to a proposed non-commercial travel guidance site that would be under the umbrella of the WMF.

News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"
In its September issue, the peer-reviewed journal First Monday published The readability of Wikipedia, reporting research which shows that the English Wikipedia is struggling to meet Flesch reading ease test criteria, while the Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus".

Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...
The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for August 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project, phase 1 of which is edging its way towards its first deployment).

Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia.

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--v/r - T P 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

Please do not remove sourced content as you did from Parents Action League. The source linked to this section of the article clearly supports the words that you removed. Your edit summary "removing unsourced original research" is both patently false, and potentially a breach of good faith.

Notably, your contributions to this article have consisted almost entirely of deleting content, in spite of the multiple, reliable sources in the article and in spite of protests from other editors. If you continue to engage in this type of disruptive editing, you may be blocked from editing. – MrX 23:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was erroneous, my bad. I'm not sure what went wrong there.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the edit itself. Belchfire-TALK 23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it removes important context from the section. I suggest we continue the content discussion on the article talk page and try to reach consensus about whether or not to keep the content. – MrX 00:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

This is your final warning. Articles relating to the 2012 Presidential Campaign are on article probation. Hcobb boldly inserted material and then you removed it, it was restored, and then you removed it again. You need to discuss disputed material on the talk page. Please practice WP:BRD so I'm not forced to issue a topic ban.--v/r - T P 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook
We now have a Facebook page at facebook.com/wikisignpost. We invite you to "like" the page and join the discussion there.

WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force
This week, we shine the spotlight on the Indian Cinema Task Force, a subproject that seeks to improve the quality and quantity of articles about Indian cinema. As a child of WikiProject Film and WikiProject India, the Indian Cinema Task Force shares a variety of templates, resources, and members with its parent projects. The task force works on a to-do list, maintains the Bollywood Portal, and ensures articles follow the film style guidelines. With Indian cinema celebrating its 100th year of existence in 2013, we asked Karthik Nadar (Karthikndr), Secret of success, Ankit Bhatt, Dwaipayan, and AnimeshKulkarni what is in store for the Indian Cinema Task Force.

Featured content: Go into the light
Eight featured articles, six featured lists, ten featured pictures, and one featured topic were promoted this week.

News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced
The world's largest photo competition, Wiki Loves Monuments, is entering its final two weeks. The month-long event, of Dutch origin, is being held globally for the first time after the success of its European-level predecessor last year. During September 2011 more than 5000 volunteers from 18 countries took part and uploaded 168,208 free images. This year, volunteers and chapters from 35 countries around the world have organised the event. The best photographs will be determined by juries at the national and finally the global level.

Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6
1.20wmf12, the 12th release to Wikimedia wikis from the 1.20 branch, was deployed to its first wikis on September 17; if things go well, it will be deployed to all wikis by September 26. Its 200 or so changes – 111 to WMF-deployed extensions plus 98 to core MediaWiki code – include support for links with mixed-case protocols (e.g. Http://example.com) and the removal of the "No higher resolution available" message on the file description pages of SVG images.

Nomination of Dishonorable Disclosures for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dishonorable Disclosures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dishonorable Disclosures until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Kerfuffler harass
stalk 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Belchfire. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nothing that requires your attention, but I feel what I said there is accurate. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Christian Right

Can I urge you to be careful with wording choices, even if those you are responding to aren't always as courteous? I don't want to assume too much, but I have seen editors whose actions (whether intended or not) goaded respondents into strong language. This has the effect of changing the subject from the content to the participants. I've watched many such situation end up at ANI, and I can tell you from experience that it is hard to sanction only the instigator, when the respondents, out of frustration, share unfiltered opinions of the other party.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks were directed at content, not at any editor. It really shouldn't be necessary to explain this. Belchfire-TALK 14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of Edit Warring

You have been mentioned as having edit warred. There is a discussion concerning you on User Talk:TParis VViking_TalkEdits 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention
Oliver Keyes' (User:Ironholds) defense of Wikipedia against the recent Philip Roth controversy has drawn a significant amount of attention over the last week. The problems between Roth, a widely known and acclaimed American author, and Wikipedia arose from an open letter he penned for the American magazine New Yorker, and were covered by the Signpost two weeks ago. Keyes—who wrote the piece as a prominent Wikipedian but is also a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation—wrote a blog post on the topic, lamenting the factual errors in Roth's letter and criticizing the media for not investigating his claims: "[they took] Roth’s explanation as the truth and launched into a lengthy discussion of how we [Wikipedia] handle primary sourcing."

Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012
A paper to appear in a special issue of American Behavioral Scientist (summarized in the research index) sheds new light on the English Wikipedia's declining editor growth and retention trends. The paper describes how "several changes that the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have lead to a more restrictive environment for newcomers". The number of active Wikipedia editors has been declining since 2007 and research examining data up to September 2009 has shown that the root of the problem has been the declining retention of new editors. The authors show this decline is mainly due to a decline among desirable, good-faith newcomers, and point to three factors contributing to the increasingly "restrictive environment" they face.

WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011
This week, we tinkered with WikiProject Robotics. From the project's inception in December 2007, it has served as Wikipedia's hub for building and improving articles about robots and robotics, accumulating two Featured Articles and seven Good Articles along the way. The project covers both fictitious and real-life robots, the technology that powers them, and many of the brains behind the robotics field

News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal
In the second controversy to engulf Wikimedia UK in two months, its immediate past chair Roger Bamkin has resigned from the board of the chapter. The resignation last Wednesday followed a growing furore over the conflict of interest between two of Roger's roles outside the chapter and his close involvement in the UK board's decision-making process, including the access to private mailing lists that board members in all chapters need. But the irony surrounding Roger's resignation is its connection with efforts by Wikimedians and collaborators to strengthen the reach of Wikimedia projects through technical innovation.

Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times
Late last month, the "Technology report" included a story using code review backlog figures – the only code review figures then available – to construct a rough narrative about the average experience of code contributors. This week, we hope to go one better, by looking directly at code review wait times, and, in particular, median code review times

Featured content: Dead as...
Fourteen featured articles were promoted this week, including Dodo, along with six featured lists and five featured pictures.

Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
Does Wikipedia Pay? is a Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues by speaking openly with the people involved. This week, a scandal centering around Roger Bamkin's work with Wikimedia UK and Gibraltarpedia erupted ... In light of these events, opinions on how to avoid future controversy are as important as ever. ... The Signpost spoke with Jimmy Wales to better understand how he views the paid editing environment and what he thinks is needed to improve it.

News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners
Following considerable online and media reportage on the Gibraltar controversy and a Signpost report last week, the Wikimedia UK chapter and the foundation published a joint statement on September 28: "To better understand the facts and details of these allegations and to ensure that governance arrangements commensurate with the standing of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK and the worldwide Wikimedia movement, Wikimedia UK's trustees and the Wikimedia Foundation will jointly appoint an independent expert advisor to objectively review both Wikimedia UK's governance arrangements and its handling of the conflict of interest."

Featured content: Mooned
Five articles, three lists, and nine images were promoted to "featured" this week.

Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty
The Toolserver is an external service hosting the hundreds of webpages and scripts (collectively known as "tools") that assist Wikimedia communities in dozens of mostly menial tasks. Few people think that it has been operating well recently; the problems, which include high database replication lag and periods of total downtime, have caused considerable disruption to the Toolserver's usual functions. Those functions are highly valued by many Wikimedia communities ... In 2011, the Foundation announced the creation of Wikimedia Labs, a much better funded project that among other things aimed to mimic the Toolserver's functionality by mid-2013. At the same time, Erik Möller, the WMF's director of engineering, announced that the Foundation would no longer be supporting the Toolserver financially, but would continue to provide the same in-kind support as it had done previously.

WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond
In celebration of the 50th anniversary of the James Bond film series, we spent some time bonding with WikiProject James Bond. The project is in the unique position of having already pushed all of its primary content to Good and Featured status, including all of Ian Fleming's novels, short stories, and every film that has been released. Work has begun in earnest on the article Skyfall for the release of the new Bond film later this month. The project could still use help improving articles about Bond actors, characters, gadgets, music, video games, and related topics

Bite?

Hi Belchfire

Would you be so kind as to help me understand how you think I bit a new editor here, in light of my edit summary: "rv - removal of inline cites and addition of POV content to lede by a new editor." and the welcome that I placed on the editors talk page? I hope that I haven't breached any etiquette, but it seems as if you think I may have. Many thanks – MrX 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of general sanctions

Your recent reversion to a SPA IP on Political positions of Mitt Romney violates the spirit of the 2012 Presidential Campaign general sanctions, of which you were previously notified about on September 11, 2012.[6] I wanted to take a moment to notify you of this issue in case you weren't aware of it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted to another SPA account today on a completely different article![7] What are the odds of you reverting to the version of two different accounts on two different articles, one IP used to violate general sanctions and another account created to make one single controversial edit? This deserves admin escalation, I'm afraid. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, check out WinShape Foundation. After a moderate edit, found 4 consecutive throw-away, sock, or proxy accounts revert/vandalize. These new accounts also seem (especially for "new" editors) very interested in your ANI.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance
Wikipedia in education is far from a new idea: years of news stories, op-eds, and editorials have focused on the topic; and on Wikipedia itself, the Schools and universities projects page has existed in various forms since 2003. Over the next six years, the page was rarely developed, and when it did advance there was no clear goal in mind.

WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography
On this day five years ago, the WikiProject Report debuted as a new Signpost column with an overview of WikiProject Biography. Today, we're celebrating two milestone: five years of the WikiProject Report and the tenth birthday of our first featured project. WikiProject Biography is by far the largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, with over one million articles under the project's scope. As a comparison, WikiProject Biography is three times larger than Wikipedia's second largest project, and if WikiProject Biography were split into its 14 subprojects and work groups, it would still make the list of the 20 largest WikiProjects... four times.

Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk
This week the Signpost interviews Arsenikk, an editor of six years who has brought sixteen lists through our featured list process, mostly regarding transportation in Norway but also about the 1952 Winter Olympics and World Heritage Sites in Africa. Arsenikk tells us about why he joined the project, what moves him, and how editors can join the sometimes daunting world of featured lists.

Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis
The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for September 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month (as well as brief coverage of progress on Wikimedia Deutschland's Wikidata project, phase 1 of which is edging its way towards its first deployment). Three of the seven headline items in the report have already been covered in the Signpost: problems with the corruption of several Gerrit (code) repositories, the introduction of widespread translation memory across Wikimedia wikis, and the launch of the "Page Curation" tool on the English Wikipedia, with development work on that project now winding down. The report also drew attention to the end of Google Summer of Code 2012, the deployment to the English Wikipedia of a new ePUB (electronic book) export feature, and improvements to the WLM app aimed at more serious photographers.

Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include ...

War on Women rape issue

I did participate in that discussion but it was for "redefining" rape when I put "defining" in the lead. That aside, the issue of rape itself is what was omitted from the lead when its a major issue for the topic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is salient to the article, just not in the way that you falsely represented. Since you were a participant in the discussion, you know full well that nobody "redefined rape" or attempted to redefine rape. So why the lie? Belchfire-TALK 13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should be more clear, there's a difference between re-defining and defining rape and the latter is mentioned throughout the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We fixed this once. Why un-fix it, unless you're trying to push POV and false info? Belchfire-TALK 23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins
There is wide agreement among English Wikipedians that the administrator system is in some ways broken—but no consensus on how to fix it. Most suggestions have been relatively small in scope, and could at best produce small improvements. I would like to make a proposal to fundamentally restructure the administrator system, in a way that I believe would make it more effective and responsive. The proposal is to create an elected Administration Committee ("AdminCom") which would select, oversee, and deselect administrators.

In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page
This week saw a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on editorial debates in Wikipedia. The story focused on the title-naming dispute surrounding the Beatles article, and specifically the RfC on whether the 'the' in the band's name should be capitalized or not.

Featured content: Second star to the left
On the English Wikipedia, five featured articles, ten featured lists, and four featured pictures were promoted, including USS Lexington, a ship built for the United States Navy that, although ordered in 1916 as a battlecruiser, was converted to an aircraft carrier. It was sunk in the Battle of the Coral Sea during the Second World War.

News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks
The volunteer-led Wikimedia Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and interested community members are looking at Wikimedia organization applications worth about US$10.4 million out of the committee's first full year's operation, in just the inaugural round one of two that have been planned for the year with a planned budget of US$11.4M.

Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost
A trial of the first phase of Wikimedia Deutschland's "Wikidata" project–implementing the first ever interwiki repository—may soon get underway following the successful passage of much of its code through MediaWiki's review processes this week.

WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals
This week, we experimented with WikiProject Chemicals. Started in August 2004, WikiProject Chemicals has grown to include over 10,000 articles about chemical compounds. The project has a unique assessment system that omits C-class, Good, and Featured Articles. As a result, the project's 11 GAs and 9 FAs are treated as A-class articles. WikiProject Chemicals is a child of WikiProject Chemistry (interviewed in 2009) and a parent of WikiProject Polymers.

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at War on Women. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 05:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have kittens

Don't sweat the block it happens to the best of us, they're itching to block you some more so don't lose your cool, take a week off, hell you derserve it. As Richard Nixon would say you gave them a sword and they used it. Your the best editor I know; your fan

John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective
Unlike the long-running disputes that have characterised attempts to reform the RfA process on the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia's tradition of making decisions not by consensus but knife-edged 50% + 1 votes has led to a fundamentally different outcome. In 2009, the project managed to largely settle the RfA mode issue in 2009 indirectly.

Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule
One clarification request concerns the civility enforcement case – specifically, Malleus Fatuorum's perceived circumvention of his topic ban. It has resulted in thousands of bytes spent in vitriolic discussions, multiple blocks, and "no confidence" motions against the Arbitration Committee and one arbitrator, among other ramifications.

Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced
Planning for Wikivoyage's migration into the WMF fold built up steam this week following a statement by WMF Deputy Director Erik Möller about what the technical side of the migration will involve. Wikivoyage, which split from sister site Wikitravel in 2006, is hoping to migrate its own not-inconsiderable user base to Wikimedia, as well as much of its content, presenting novel challenges for Wikimedia developers

Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science
It is well known that women are underrepresented in the sciences, and that high-achieving female scientists have often been excluded from authorship lists and passed over for awards and honours solely on the basis of gender. Also significant has been the underplaying in the academic literature, news reporting, and online, of women's current and historical contributions to science.

WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?
The WikiProject Report normally brings tidings from Wikipedia's most active, inventive, and unique WikiProjects. This week, we're trying something new by focusing on Wikipedia's dark side: the various regional and national WikiProjects that are dead or dying. How can some tiny municipalities and exclaves generate highly active, cross-language, multimedia platforms be successful while the projects representing many sovereign countries and entire continents wallow in obscurity? Today, we'll search for answers among geographic projects large and small, highly active and barely functioning, enthusiastic about the future and mired in past conflicts.

Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?
Eleven articles, including one on Franz Kafka, three lists, one image, and one portal were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs
The first round of the Wikimedia Foundation's new financial arrangements has proceeded as planned, with the publication of scores and feedback by Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) staff on applications for funding by 11 entities—10 chapters, independent membership organisations supporting the WMF's mission in different countries, and the foundation itself. The results are preliminary assessments that will soon be put to the FDC's seven voting members and two non-voting board representatives. The FDC in turn will send its recommendations to the board of trustees on 15 November, which will announce its decision by 15 December. Funding applications have been on-wiki since 1 October, and the talk pages of applications were open for community comment and discussion from 2 to 22 October, though apart from queries by FDC staff, there was little activity.

WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History
This week, we're checking out ways to motivate editors and recognize valuable contributions by focusing on the awards and rewards of WikiProject Military History. Anyone unfamiliar with WikiProject Military History is encouraged to start at the report's first article about the project and make your way forward. While many WikiProjects provide a barnstar that can be awarded to helpful contributors, WikiProject Military History has gone a step further by creating a variety of awards with different criteria ranging from the all-purpose WikiChevrons to rewards for participating in drives and improving special topics to medals for improving articles up to A-class status to the coveted "Military Historian of the Year" award.

Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live
The TimedMediaHandler extension (TMH), which brings dramatic improvements to MediaWiki's video handling capabilities, will go live to the English Wikipedia this week following a long and turbulent development, WMF Director of Platform Engineering Rob Lanphier announced on Monday ... Wikidata.org, a new repository designed to host interwiki links, launched this week and will begin accepting links shortly. The site, which is one half of the forthcoming Wikidata trial (the other half being the Wikidata client, which will be deployed to the Hungarian Wikipedia shortly) will also act as a testing area for phase 2 of Wikidata (centralised data storage). The longer term plan is for Wikidata.org to become a "Wikimedia Commons for data" as phases 2 and 3 (dynamic lists) are developed, project managers say.

Featured content: On the road again
Thirteen articles, ten lists, nine images, one topic, and one portal were promoted to featured after peer reviews.

Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news
A paper in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, coming from the social control perspective and employing the repertory grid technique, has contributed interesting observations about the governance of Wikipedia.

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end
J Milburn is a British editor who has been on the site since 2006. He is one of two judges of the WikiCup. Here, he uses an op-ed to explain the way the WikiCup works and to review this year's competition, which ended recently.

News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments
The results of most of the national heats for Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) have been published on Commons. A maximum of 10 images have been submitted by all but eight of the 34 participating countries, and the international jury for what is the largest competition of its type in the world is set to announce the global winner in four weeks' time.

In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?
Hurricane Sandy was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record and has caused millions of dollars in damage. Naturally, Wikipedia covered it. But was Wikipedia's coverage unbiased?

Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks
The Signpost's weekly roundup of topics for discussion on the English Wikipedia.

Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads
This week, the Signpost interviewed two editors. The first, PumpkinSky, collaborated with Gerda Arendt in writing the recently featured article on Franz Kafka and won second prize in the Core contest last August. The second, Cwmhiraeth, collaborated with Thompsma in promoting the article Frog, which was featured last week. We asked them about the special challenges faced while writing Core content and things to watch out for.

Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka
The Wikimedia Foundation's engineering report for October 2012 was published this week on the Wikimedia Techblog and on the MediaWiki wiki, giving an overview of all Foundation-sponsored technical operations in that month. TimedMediaHandler also went live.

WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs
This week, The Signpost sings along with WikiProject Songs which focuses on articles about songs of every generation and genre. The project initially began as a rough outline in October 2002 and was reimagined in March 2004 using its parent WikiProject Albums as a template.

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
Last week, media outlets reported a ruling by a German court on the problem of businesses using Wikipedia for marketing purposes. The issue goes beyond the direct management of marketing-related edits by Wikipedians; it involves cross-monitoring and interacting among market competitors themselves on Wikipedia. A company that sells dietary supplements made from frankincense had taken a competitor to court. The recently published judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Munich, in dealing with the German Wikipedia article on frankincense products, was handed down in May and is based on European competition law.

Featured content: The table has turned
Thirteen articles, six lists, and five images were promoted to 'featured' status last week.

Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly
In late September, the Technology report published its findings about (particularly median) code review times. To the 23,900 changesets analysed the first time (the data for which has been updated), the Signpost added data from the 9,000 or so changesets contributed between September 17 and November 9 to a total of 93,000 reviews across 45,000 patchsets. Bots and self-reviews were also discarded, but reviews made by a different user in the form of a superseding patch were retained. Finally, users were categorised by hand according to whether they would be best regarded as staff or volunteers. The new analyses were consistent with the predictions of the previous analysis.

WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil
As promised, we're expanding our horizons by featuring projects that cover underrepresented areas of the globe. This week, we headed to WikiProject Brazil which keeps track of articles about the world's largest Portuguese-speaking country. The project has shown spurts of activity and continues to serve as a hub for discussions, despite the project's collaborations, peer reviews, and outreach activities being largely inactive.

DYK for Dishonorable Disclosures

On 17 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dishonorable Disclosures, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Barack Obama re-election campaign compared the film Dishonorable Disclosures to the "Swift Boat" attacks against John Kerry in 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dishonorable Disclosures. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in
The WMF's Funds Dissemination Committee has published its recommendations for the inaugural round 1 of funding. Requests totalled US$10.4M, nearly all of the FDC's budget for both first and second rounds. The seven-member committee of community volunteers appointed in September advises the WMF board on the distribution of grant funds among applying Wikimedia organizations. The committee, which has a separate operating budget of $276k for salaries and expenses, considered 12 applications for funds, from 11 chapters and from the WMF itself for its non-core activities. The decision-making process included community and FDC staff input after October 1, the closing date for submissions. Taken together, the volunteers decided to endorse an average of 81% of the funding sought—a total of $8.43M, which went to 11 of the 12 applicants. This leaves $2.71M to be distributed in round 2, for which applications are due in little more than three months' time.

WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Turtles. The young project started in January 2011 and has accumulated 5 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, and 6 Featured Pictures. The project maintains a combined to-do list and hot articles meter, a popular pages ranking, and a collection of resources for turtle articles. We interviewed Faendalimas and NYMFan69-86.

Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"
WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner was forced to clarify this week that proposed structural changes to the Foundation's Engineering and Product Development Department were not a "done deal" and that it was "important that you [particularly affected staff] realise that ... your input is wanted". The reorganisation, announced on November 5 and planned for the middle of next year, will see its two components split off into their own departments.

Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect
Seven featured articles, four featured lists and ten featured pictures – including the photograph that spawned the Streisand effect – were promoted this week.

Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include the question of ticker symbol placement and the notability of various types of creative performer.

Interaction ban

I regret to have to inform you, but the community has saw fit to impose an interaction ban on you. I've closed the thread, the exact text is:

Belchfire is no longer allowed to interact with, comment about, or edit in contradiction with User:Roscelese on any page, talk page, or other space on Wikipedia with the exception of appealing this decision (which does not include more complaining about Roscelese) or engaging in dispute resolution or Arbcom (of course). Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this WP:IBAN with the normal progressive actions starting with 1 day blocks (at the uninvolved administrator's discretion)

Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any help.--v/r - T P 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain
On November 24, a general assembly of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) voted on the fate of the Wikimedia Toolserver, a central external piece of technical infrastructure supporting the editing communities with volunteer-developed scripts and webpages of various kinds that are assisting in performing mostly menial tasks.

Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons
An open-access preprint presents the results from a study attempting to predict early box office revenues from Wikipedia traffic and activity data. The authors – a team of computational social scientists from Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Aalto University and the Central European University – submit that behavioral patterns on Wikipedia can be used for accurate forecasting, matching and in some cases outperforming the use of social media data for predictive modeling. The results, based on a corpus of 312 English Wikipedia articles on movies released in 2010, indicate that the joint editing activity and traffic measures on Wikipedia are strong predictors of box office revenue for highly successful movies.

Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation
Six articles, one list, and six images were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries
Wikidata, the new "Wikimedia Commons for data" and the first new Wikimedia project since 2006, reached 100,000 entries this week. The project aims to be a single, human- and machine-readable database for common data, spanning across all Wikipedia projects, which will "lead to a higher consistency and quality within Wikipedia articles, as well as increased availability of information in the smaller language editions" while lowering the burden on Wikipedia's volunteer editors—whose numbers have stalled overall, and continue to dwindle on the English Wikipedia.

WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting
This week, we uncovered WikiProject Deletion Sorting, Wikipedia's most active project by number of edits to all the project's pages. This special project seeks to increase participation in Articles for Deletion nominations by categorizing the AfD discussions by various topic areas that may draw the attention of editors. The project was started in August 2005 with manual processes that are continued today by a bevy of bots, categories, and transclusions. The project took inspiration from WikiProject Stub Sorting and some historical discussions on deletion reform. As the sheer number of AfDs continues to grow, the project is seeking better tools to manage the deletion sorting process and attract editors to comment on these deletion discussions.

Paternity Fraud Talk

I replied to your post on the talk page of Paternity fraud. I rambled on for the benefit of a 3rd party reader that might not know the "what was there before" and the "why what is there now" or may not even know what paternity fraud is to begin with, not to talk down or sound haughty. Reply there or my talk page, either/or.

I can try some rewrites of any conflicts you might find, what is there on the first sentence is the fourth one so I have practice doing so. :) --West Horizon (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT* forgot to add also can't use "Mother" in the definition. I can think of at least one case off the top of my head where the male paternity fraud victim is paying support to the child's biological father who has custody from the mother. Douglas M. Richardson, television news broadcasts are available online. --West Horizon (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we most definitely can and must use "mother" in the definition. Your example is an extreme outlier - so far from mainstream experience as to not warrant inclusion in the article, let alone is it a reason to foist a phony definition on readers. For all intents and purposes, paternity fraud is a situation that exclusively involves a female actor and a male victim, and the article should reflect that.

The article itself is in need of a major re-work, as it erroneously attempts to restrict itself to instances that are legally actionable, and wrongly ignores the vast majority of cases, many of which are never even discovered. Just as no reasonable person would claim that a crime wasn't committed just because it went unreported, we aren't going to push a phony definition that pretends paternity fraud doesn't happen unless it winds up in court. Belchfire-TALK 09:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with your edit because in the sentence it uses the word "Usually", which is an accurate summation.

Mother cannot be used as an overall general definition which is what you posted up on the talk page, (1) because it's illegal, civil courts cannot issue judgements based solely on gender, which is why "parent" is used through the article, (2) sexist, which is an obvious POV issue (3) incorrect as a blanket term because cases are not always against a mother and (4) it violates constitutional protections of being innocent until proven guilty by assigning a predetermined guilt, so could not possibly be an acceptable definition for a wiki law page.

"Richardson" was just one example for context, from the main paternity fraud page, County of Los Angeles v Navarro, not the mother. As a Ref the case of Doe vs. Alberta, again, Governemnt of Canada is the defendant, the mother signed an affidavit that the boyfriend was not the father. It goes on and on. An overall definition should explain ALL cases, not just pick ones against a mother and call it good.

Twice now you have tried to say that the page, "restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable" which is false. Can you explain please where you are getting that from so I can try and address it? I seriously do not see what you are seeing here. Nowhere does the page say as an overall definition "legally actionable" or any variation of such. thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: QUOTE - Just as no reasonable person would claim that a crime wasn't committed just because it went unreported, we aren't going to push a phony definition that pretends paternity fraud doesn't happen unless it winds up in court. END QUOTE

Defining paternity fraud as a "Cause of Action" addresses your concern already. A cause of action means a set of facts that justify a right to sue, it does not mean you have the ability to do so. Can you raise a good point? yes. Can you show a DNA test that you are not a child's father? yes. Does that mean you have a cause of action? yes. Does that mean you can persue that action in a court? no. --West Horizon (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your reasoning is simply preposterous. OF COURSE 100% of paternity fraud is committed by mothers. If it is sexist to say that paternity fraud is an act committed by a mothers, then the very term "paternity fraud" is itself sexist, since it explicitly points to fathers as the victims. This is not a gender-neutral issue; "paternity fraud" is not a gender-neutral term; and it is dishonest and ridiculous to try to make Wikipedia's article on the subject pretend that there is anything gender-neutral about the topic.

Your legalistic sophistry is equally nonsensical. Our goal is to define and explain the subject matter - hopefully without any artificial constraints. You seem to be saying that no paternity fraud can exist unless the victim has standing to sue, and if that's the case it's a bunch of baloney. Belchfire-TALK 20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doe vs. Alberta, So lets see here. The Mother signs a contract and affidavit with her live-in boyfried that he is not the father and not responsible as such. She goes to the doctors for an IVF treatment to get pregnant. The Canadian Government, oddly enough apparently citing Australian law, says nope, any male living in the same location as a female can be found the father regardless of what the mother says. So, if 100% of paternity fraud is by mothers, where is the fraud here by the mother? While you are at it explain the fraud by the mother's in the other two examples also since it's 100% always a mother committing the fraud.

"Standing to Sue", this is now the third time you have tried to say the page, "restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable" which is false. You still have not yet exlplained yourself, can you please? Nowhere does the page say as an overall definition "legally actionable" or any variation of such, including "Standing to Sue". A wronged person might be "justified" to sue, but that is a far cry from "allowed" to do so. Thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That example isn't paternity fraud. It's something else entirely, and outside the scope of the article under discussion. Belchfire-TALK 23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Establiment of paternity to commit a willful deception. Fits exactly within the page definition of when it occurs. If it isn't paternity fraud then what would you call it? Also if you do a search for Doe v Alberta and Paternity Fraud you will find sites that list it so as well.

So, what about the other two examples if it is 100% always the mother.

Can you also please explain your continued insistence that the page restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable? --West Horizon (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doe v. Alberta is not an example of willful deception (an essential element of fraud). It's a case where the government has -knowingly- assigned paternity by default to a man who is not the biological father. Happens all the time. It's unjust in many cases, but it isn't fraud.

Perhaps this definition will be helpful for you:

"The term “paternity fraud” defines the action of a mother who names a man to be the biological father of a child, often for the purpose of collecting child support, when she suspects or knows he is not the biological father. Victims of paternity fraud are numerous and include the non-biological father; the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, as well as the biological father."

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=121502

Note the absence of any mention that paternity fraud needs to be legally actionable in order to exist.

Note the absence of any mention that paternity fraud needs to be legally actionable in order to exist. I have been saying that four times now. For the fifth time, can you explain how you have reached that conclusion? Nowhere on the page does it, "restrict itself to instances that are legally actionable". You seem to be making that up for no other reason to justify other baseless claims.

Still waiting for you to explain the fraud by the mother in the other examples. If not then your claim that it is 100% by the mother is in fact false. --West Horizon (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to bother looking at your other examples, since you've demonstrated that you lack understanding of the basic concept and everything you've come up with so far is irrelevant gobbledygook. Belchfire-TALK 00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I removed your post as being sexist original research that seems to be pushing some sort of anti-woman hate message than trying to offer a general definition. Also note you have no definition of what it is, only when it occurs. Go ahead and start the grievence procedure if you like. Your claims that paternity fraud is only commited by a mother is false, as shown above. --West Horizon (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown anything above concerning paternity fraud. You're just grasping at straws and making things up. You nonsense about sexism is vapid piffle. Belchfire-TALK 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "i can't hear you" over and over again doesn't help. You do realize in Doe v Alberta your saying a live in boyfriend who is not a childs father and is stuck paying for someone else's kid is not paternity fraud right? Only if it fits into your restrictive narrow minded anti-woman point of view by being commited only by a mother do you consider it paternity fraud. Wrong on many levels. --West Horizon (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is sorta funny. Where is the deception in Doe? How can you have fraud without deception? WHO is sticking their finger in their ears?

I'm done arguing with you, so please stop posting here. Feel free to make your case on the article Talk page if you like, but be sure to gain consensus before removing relevant, sourced material from the article. Belchfire-TALK 06:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just posted on my talk page to post here, so which is it? If supreme court opinions, newspapers, television news broadcasts and legal dictionaries aren't good enough, then what is? --West Horizon (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the template, but I think I've made it sufficiently clear: take your argument to the article Talk page and get consensus there. Bring your sources, you're going to need them. Belchfire-TALK 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner
The global jury of Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM), the world’s largest photo contest, announced its results on 3 December.

Featured content: The play's the thing
Three articles, two lists, and four images were promoted to 'featured' status this week.

Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables
Current discussions on the English Wikipedia include...

Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability
Deployments of MediaWiki 1.21wmf5 cause widespread problems for users across wikis when HTML and CSS updates came temporarily out of sync. On the first wikis targeted for deployment, this was caused by the different cache invalidation rates for HTML (typically one month) and CSS (typically five minutes). The retrospective on the problem highlighted the fact that that the test wiki – the WMF's answer to a production environment that individual developers can no longer practically emulate themselves – actually demonstrated the exact problem that would later manifest itself on production wikis. It went unnoticed.

WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire
This week, we went searching for white roses in the lands of WikiProject Yorkshire. The project began in May 2007 as a way to improve articles about the historic English county of Yorkshire and its modern-day administrative divisions and cities. Since then, the project has accumulated 31 Featured Articles, 14 Featured Lists, 91 Good Articles, and a monstrous list of Did You Know entries. Despite all of the effort improving Yorkshire articles, the project has experienced waning participation in the last few years. The project still publishes a newsletter each month, monitors the popularity of and recent changes to its articles, maintains a portal, and collects resources for contributors to use.