User talk:Colonel Warden/Archive 4

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sphilbrick[edit]

Thought you might like to see that I changed my vote on this one: [1] You were right, my reasoning made no sense. Thanks for pointing it out. Robofish (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft design[edit]

I know we've been bumping heads lately, but I have a question. Rather than going to one of the noticeboards, I thought I'd try to get you to clear things up. Aircraft design process is nominated for deletion. You moved that article to Aircraft design during the deletion discussion. You then started a new article at Aircraft design process. Which article is being debated at the AfD? Is it Aircraft design where the tag currently is or is it Aircraft design process which is the name of the original article? This is quite confusing. AniMate 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both titles are under discussion there and the history of the matter is explained though, if you're coming to it late, the discussion may seem too long, alas. It is not unusual for multiple article titles to be bundled together. I'll check the links and presentation to see if this can be made clearer. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Colonel, you and I have disagreed plenty in AfD discussions, and if I dig deeply enough I can find an AfD where, if I am not mistaken, you moved or renamed an article (some theological thing) under discussion (but not with the results of the Aircraft affair, fortunately). I didn't see the ANI discussion until just now, but I wanted to tell you that I think this was a good answer. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That earlier case was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistemics of Divine Reality (2nd nomination). That move was reverted by DGG and the blue link I had created, which was certainly a notable topic, was deleted. That reversion and deletion was disruptive in the proper sense of the wiki-concept: "disrupting progress toward improving an article". The precedents are now clear and I may return to the matter but not right now as I have a dinner engagement... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you enjoy. Regards, Drmies (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanwell Park[edit]

CW, After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London was closed, I moved the article to Hanwell Park. It could do with some of your attention from the sources you say you have, if you'd be so kind? Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I observed your edits following the AFD. I applaud your initiative but thought it best to leave you to it as I had had a good run at the topic. If you have now run dry then we can perhaps wait upon another editor to take it forward. Myself, I have been working on adjacent articles which have been suggested by consideration of the same sources, such as Cuckoo Schools. There is much to be said about the area and I find it best to let the work develop slowly and steadily as one reads around the topic(s). If one tries to force the pace, then one may overreach. See WP:DEADLINE. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have / can't find the sources to define what Hanwell Park actually was/is, whilst you mentioned you had the London Encyclopedia or somesuch tome, which would probably help with this matter. I get a bit antsy when I leave an article which, even if short, doesn't do a decent job of at least defining its content, which I feel is the case here. But no worries, if you have other things to be getting on with I shall leave you to your cuckoos, aircraft and whatever other oddments you have come across! Bigger digger (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, it seems I am under attack by the Admin force of Wikipedia, well actually just a few of them. I am obviously stupid because I am not an admin. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of jive talk[edit]

Please be aware that footnotes are expected. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a low priority - work for gnomes. It is more important to settle the fact of the article's existence, its title and scope. Several of my followers are now in attendance and I have flagged it for a couple of projects. Many hands make light work...
Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Coster[edit]

Colonel Warden, I've been working through unreferenced BLPs, and ran across the article on Keith Coster. Do you think being a recipient of the OBE makes him notable? I know little about it. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being commander of a national army seems to be an even bigger deal. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help, much appreciated, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Green restarants[edit]

Please give me a good, reasonable explanation why this was a remotely good idea, in light of everything else that has happened over the last week or two. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I expect that my post at WP:ANI#Colonel Warden blocked should give you insight into both my reasoning and the community's reactions. I'm truly sorry it's come to this. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. While I've already noted the block in text on this page, it occurred to me that the boilerplate text on unblock requests might be useful. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reaction seems puzzling. The article was tagged for reference improvement. In the edit in question, I added a couple of citations to encyclopedic sources and, in the past, would have regarded this as sufficient reason to remove the cleanup tags. In the light of recent warnings, it seemed more prudent to retain the tags so that the corresponding categories remained. But the top of the article was getting cluttered with too many large banner tags so I moved the ones which had been addressed to some extent down to the foot of the article, placing them in the References section, which seemed an appropriate place for them. This does not seem disruptive as I was improving the article in good faith.
Note also that I have placed numerous citations of other good and relevant sources in the corresponding AFD discussion. Today, I was browsing for some more sources and found some more good ones such as this article in The Times. I have not yet found time to do some major editing of the article but was preparing the ground as I seem to be the only editor who is exerting himself in support of this notable topic. But, as I have already found and cited 7 sources on top of the 35 citations which the article already contained, why is this not sufficient? Just how many sources have to be added before you will permit a tag to be touched?
Colonel Warden (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, the problem was not with the quantity of the sources, but with their quality. Almost all of the citations are from non-reliable sources, like websites that are promoting their own products and agenda (i.e. residentialsolarpanels.org, greenfloors.com, greenconcepts.com, greenrestaurants.org, indigogreenstore.com, mrtakeoutbags.com, etc). There are a few sources that are reliable, but the majority of the text in the article is supported by unreliable sources. This should be obvious to anyone who is as experienced as you are on Wikipedia. The fact that it is not obvious to you is likely the cause of the problem which the proposed topic ban would resolve. SnottyWong comment 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 8 sources which I have identified so far all seem quite satisfactory. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand the purpose of cleanup tags. The majority of the material that is currently in the article is based on unreliable sources. This is what the {{refimprove}} cleanup tag is intended to point out. The fact that you pointed out valid sources in a deletion discussion doesn't change the fact that the article needs cleanup. You only added two sources to the actual article, and the only content they purport to verify is the lead. Do you truly believe that the sourcing in the article, as it currently stands, does not require a very major cleanup? SnottyWong converse 03:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Do you understand that WP:TC specifies that tags are to be placed at the top of an article? Is there some mystery consensus for article-wide tags to be placed on the bottom of an article which I'm otherwise unaware?
No, I have never heard of WP:TC. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to refresh your memory: you commented on the talk page in 2008. Hmm. The version of that page at the time you wrote your comment on the corresponding talk page specified that tags go at the top of the page. Has your opinion of cleanup templates changed since you wrote that edit? Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall the details of that occasion. The shortcut WP:TC is not familiar to me nor are all its details. I suppose I was responding to some centralised discussion on a particular point, as I sometimes do. The most recent discussion on this general issue that I attended was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags. There seemed to be a developing consensus there that maintenance tags should be less intrusive and I endorsed JzG's proposal which seemed quite sensible. I've seen other discussions like that at Village Pump but find them quite hard to find again once they are buried in the archives. My general impression is that there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction with large banner tags, such as can be seen at that discussion. And now I must really go to bed before the orange light flickers again. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignorance is no excuse. If you're not aware of the relevant guidelines and consensus regarding cleanup tags, then why would you delete/move them? I find it hard to AGF that an editor with 20,463 edits has never heard of WP:TC (despite having had a discussion on its talk page in the past), especially considering that you are particularly well-versed in almost every other policy/guideline/essay that exists. SnottyWong confer 03:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a random 2 cents, i've never heard of WP:TC, though there's lot of things i never look up. i do see articles in my sourcing work sometimes which have tags below the top of the article (usually down in the poor/empty reference section) and never move them up to the top.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, if anything, would you like copied into the ANI thread as your response? Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be my antagonist rather than my interlocutor. It is therefore not proper that you represent me. It is, in any case, simpler if I speak for myself. Interested parties can read my comments here, I suppose.
  • I'm going to bed now. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than willing to post anything you wish into the AN/I thread. I'll also unblock you, if the community is willing to allow it. Response seems divided at the moment, but perhaps a good word from you will sway them towards the positive end of things? I'll refrain from posting in the thread in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your interest. Here's a point which has not yet been made. The last incident at ANI was about a move/split of an article. In this new case of Green restaurants, I suggested in the discussion that the article be moved and invited comment. My words were:
"The article title would be better as Green restaurant per WP:SINGULAR. Any objections if I move it, as part of the process of clean up and improvement?"
This demonstrates that I sought consensus over this minor matter of an editing move in order to be compliant with the discontent expressed in the previous discussion. This matter of relocating tags within the article seems to be a new issue. If editors are going to make a federal case out of it then I shall likewise observe restraint and seek consensus for such action. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been brought up at the ANI thread. The ANI thread is about your behavior with respect to cleanup tags, not with moving articles during AfD. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further point which seems relevant is that the page WP:TC, which seems to be the basis for this action, is not stated to be policy or even a guideline. It therefore has no particular standing which should cause editors to treat it as law. The page was not mentioned in the previous ANI discussion nor do I recall anyone ever making a big deal about this before. I cannot be expected to anticipate new concerns of this kind when they come out of the blue like this and there is no reasonable warning. My editing actions are often intended to make substantial improvements to articles in the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:HEY. WP:BOLD is an official guideline and I had supposed it to be well established. The improvement templates, which WP:TC discusses, are invitations to be bold and WP:TC states, "editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed". Removal of the templates is therefore expected in such cases and it does not seem reasonable to complain when articles are improved and the templates are adjusted as a consequence. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a guideline, try Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes), which spells it out quite clearly. Surely you've heard of the Manual of Style? And, WP:BOLD has nothing to do with it. Removing or marginalizing cleanup tags is not "improvement". Actually addressing the issues that the cleanup tag is pointing out is improvement. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further point is about WP:DISRUPTION. This is another official guideline and defines the issue to be "disrupting progress toward improving an article". My actions were, in this case, directly intended to improve the article in question. I added two reasonable citations of Bruce E. Johansen (2009), The Encyclopedia of Global Warming Science and Technology, vol. 1 and Leslie A. Duram (2010), Encyclopedia of Organic, Sustainable, and Local Food. These works seemed to be better sources than what was there before and were a token of the further work to be expected. I went on to list more sources of a scholarly kind in discussion and this demonstrates my good faith in bringing forward reasonable improvements. As these actions were of an improving nature, I fail to see how they can be characterised as disruption. The editors who oppose my actions do not seem to want improvements made. Why is this opposition not characterised as disruption, as it seems to disrupt progress towards improvement of articles? It is hard to understand the reasoning here. Are we expected to sit on our hands when there is work to be done? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is chastising you for adding sources to an article, so there is no need to bring up this red herring. Again, deleting/moving cleanup tags is not improvement. When you perform actions that are in direct conflict with the MOS (after being warned multiple times), then you are being disruptive. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further point concerns the role of User:Jclemens. He has been soliciting complaints and hosting personal attacks against me on his talk page. For example, see User talk:Jclemens#Alan Cook in which it was suggested that I had engaged in outright fraud in the article Alan Cook. This was an absurd accusation which not true in any way and so the vexatious complaint was withdrawn. User:Jclemens did not reprove the opposing editor for failing to assume good faith, which is again another official guideline. User:Jclemens seems to be over-reacting by enforcing a non-guideline while soliciting and indulging breaches of our official behavioural guidelines. He therefore does not seem impartial and, instead, seems determined to impose one-sided and draconian sanctions which are out of all proportion to the supposed offense. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, Jclemens has given you more chances than he should have. He gave you warning after warning, and all you did was ignore them. And, this isn't about Jclemens. If you've read the ANI thread, then you've seen that there are quite a few more editors that have endorsed the block and agree with his take of the situation. SnottyWong babble 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, in summary, my behaviour has been intended to be restrained, responsive and directed towards improvement of this and other articles. It seems sad that my good faith should so readily be questioned and that I should be prevented from making further improvements.
Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to add this response to the AN/I thread? If so, I'm assuming you'd want me to take from "Here's a point which..." and on. I want to make sure this is your intention, rather than assuming what you wanted and making an ass out of myself. ;) BOZ (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks, it is a long statement with multiple paragraphs and seems likely to confuse if it is cut/paste elsewhere by another editor. I suggest that you post your own statement and views of the matter at WP:ANI#Reviews from uninvolved users. If there is any particular detail above which seems important to you then you might quote it with a link to the full statement. BTW, while we talk, is your account name a reference to Boz? I started an article on Dickens' London and you may be interested. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep out of this one for now, although I'll keep an eye on it - seems kind of hostile in there.  ;) "BOZ" is a spelling variant of my real name. :) BOZ (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a shame because we have had little interaction IIRC and so you properly fit the description of an "uninvolved user", as specified for that section. As it is, we have a parade of users there who have scores to settle. You may recall that User:Bali ultimate, for example, has recently been uncivil towards me, as detailed at User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden. Again, in this instance, our behavioural guideline was breached, but User:Jclemens chose to do nothing except advise me to "deal with it". Bali ultimate now turns up at ANI to harangue me again. He is clearly involved, would you not say? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There definitely is a loud chorus of "endorse block" from the crowd who are more likely to cry "delete" in an AFD, if that's what you mean, so no surprise there. Even without them, the respondents are pretty well split on what to do about you. I don't see this block sticking for long though, just in my opinion, and I don't think it was intended to be. You've got people yelling about "long-term disruption", however, and claims like that can sway uninvolved users into seeking a long-lasting block of some sort. I think the thing to do is to listen to the complaints, see if that requires any modification to your behavior, and then let the community decide how long the current block should last. If you keep butting heads with some of these people, they will eventually do an RFC/U (maybe much sooner than later), or maybe take you to ArbCom or try to get you banned at AN. I've seen it happen, and I know you've seen it too. Thinking you are right doesn't prevent others from judging you the other way; people like A Nobody, Asgardian, and Gavin.collins thought they were right, and look where they are now. I'd like to see you stick around, personally; we need more people who are willing to put the effort into fixing up borderline articles to counteract those who lazily request deletion rather than fixing the problem, and especially those who want to delete articles for their own personal reasons. BOZ (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being unblocked. Consensus at ANI is that an RFC/U is a better place to work out any particular sanctions. Again, I regret that it came to this, and that I was self-selected to be the bearer of news that your editing has consistently not been in accordance with community expectations. Please participate transparently in the forthcoming RFC/U; I think I shall skip it. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Johnson (footballer)[edit]

you may note you were the only one to !vote keep. simply trying to argue on policy is going to address notability. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your first sentence is counter-factual as multiple editors voted to keep. I do not understand what the second sentence means. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how about trying to argue how something is notable instead of recycling your usual policy trumps guidelines and we should not be trying to harm Wikipedia argument. clearly the football player in question did not pass notability. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry 2 others voted keep but dream focus withdraw his keep vote. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er... Anyone trying to do something constructive here, or are we just pointlessly arguing? LibStar, I'm sure it's thoughtful of you to point out that CW's vote was against the eventual consensus, and some of his arguments might have been weak, but having a go at him for this position won't change it.
CW, I think some of your editing is odd, but I can see you also do a lot of positive work, so am happy to rub alongside you, but don't take the bait in circumstances like this, there must be articles requiring your attention withering while you're reading this..! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my point is the constant recycling of the same old policy trumps notability argument. we have established criterion for notability. turning up and voting keep for the sake of it is not constructive. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the way to address that would be to address his arguments, not berate him for being on the wrong side of consensus. For example, WP:PAPER is not relevant to that keep !vote as it is an argument about space. No-one was arguing that the article should have been deleted as it was taking up too much space, or that the article was too big, which is what WP:PAPER addresses. It explicitly states that this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. CW's use of it in this argument was therefore a red-herring, and despite pointing it out here, I am sure it has been mentioned before and will probably be used again. Anyway, enough from me. Bigger digger (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was not a red herring. My position was that there was a constructive alternative to deletion. This was to redirect the article to the list of Aston Villa players. This would have addressed the weak notability of the topic while preserving the edit history which seems likely to be needed in future as this player starts to play for the first team. He is currently the captain of the youth team, has been selected for the first team roster and so his future seems assured and is already documented by national newspapers. The counter-argument was that the list of players has been restricted to those with 100+ appearances. My response was that this was an arbitrary limit and that this is where WP:PAPER comes in - we have no need to limit such a list for reasons of size - we have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries. This logic still seems sound.
  • As for our wasting time on this post mortem, you have a point but it applies to you too. My position is somewhat different in that I am currently the subject of numerous personal attacks on account of my editing of articles. This has always been intended to be constructive and to improve the articles but other editors dispute this. They seek to find fault with everything I do, examining every edit in minute detail to see how it may be criticised. It therefore seems safer to occupy myself with non-article work such as discussions about policy. This may indeed be less productive but so it goes...
  • Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, ok, got that a bit skeewhiff, I'll leave you in peace now. I just didn't think the way LibStar brought this to your page was appropriate. And I won't object to you editing Hanwell Park with the sources you have..! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reading about the Zeigarnik effect recently. This is due to the anxiety which develops when a task is incomplete and so leads to the conclusion that the best way to finish some large task is to start it. It is interesting to observe that this effect seems so strong in you. This effect provides a good scientific basis for our editing policy which encourages us to create and nuture faltering starts. The countervailing sentiment that we should instead delete incomplete work, so that the task seems not to be started, is thus shown to be unscientific and demotivating. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, I "suffer" from that, it helps explain why I was good at exams: I never finished my revision! But I don't find that a compelling argument to keep articles that aren't notable, it's just an argument to keep the ropey ones, which I fully agree with. Now stop luring me back here... Bigger digger (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it odd LibStar is criticizing you for voting against consensus in one article, when he has done that many times before, even renominating the same articles again after he failed to get them deleted in his previous attempt. And this seems to be nonconstructive, just a personal attack against an editor he disagrees with. Seen that happen before. Dream Focus 14:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus as someone who votes keep 100% of the time, the fact that even you withdrew your keep vote says something about notability of the subject. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just taken another look at this and now see the obvious solution for this case - merger into Aston Villa F.C. Reserves and Academy which already lists this person. I know little about this football club but seem to have no difficulty in finding a constructive solution which everyone else seems to have missed. The nominator's motto is So little done, so much to do. How true. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cubby-hole[edit]

I wonder why... you took it upon yourself to remove references to the situation in Australia and SA in the Wendy house article without removing the redirects or perhaps creating a new article? Silent Billy (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I noticed that when taking stock but forgot it when chasing down all the different names. I have attended to it now, thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

  • This edit is unacceptable - I'm pretty sure that you don't need me to explain why a wikilink comparing other editors to Nazis isn't welcome here. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practise of stifling open discussion is common to authoritarian regimes of all sorts. Just the other day, I read an interesting obituary of Emilio Massera who specialised in making political opponents disappear by use of force majeure. The common theme here is that of making things disappear without due process and debate. My comments are of a general nature — indicating that this is bad and that we should proceed otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en.WP doesn't kidnap human beings and kill them, nor anything even close to that. This website has no police powers at all, only some software tools for controlling access to a database. Analogies such as those you've made are not only mistaken, they're sickening, disruptive and wholly lacking in any shred of WP:AGF. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BK, instead of blocking CW instead of ignoring that comment (or citing Godwin's law and then ignoring it), you could have fixed Abdurrahim Hojibayev, one of the blanking victims this week, instead of redirecting it to an article that did not mention him. Will you self block for that error?--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one category of people, who could be safely compared to nazi. See here. According to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism, but guess what the user who made such a comparison got... (surprise, surprise) only a friendly warning. It is what is sickening, Gwen Gale.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same thing as comparing an editor on this website to killers. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe there are no editors on this site, who are Israelis, and who will and do take it personally?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what I believe about that. Nor does the fairness or the unfairness of how some other attack may have been handled have sway here. Editors here mustn't compare other editors to killers, even through analogy, it harms the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Colonel Warden and others like myself have been called "ARSholes" and members of the "inclusionist Taliban" for supporting inclusionist viewpoints and no one is ever blocked for that. Calling someone is a nazi is also very poor taste, but treating it like saying "Voldemort" in Harry Potter is too much.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Namecalling of any kind is not on. I'd say anything like that is wholly untowards and should/can be redacted on sight. If it keeps up, the namecalling editor should most likely be blocked. I wouldn't have blocked CW for this, civility blocks don't have overwhelming consensus on en.WP these days unless there have been straightforward slurs, but I wouldn't unblock unless he said he won't make personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone a Nazi is "in very poor taste"? Well there's a contender for understatement of the month. Frankly, if you're actually defending CW saying that (and since on ANI you called the block "stupid" I presume you are), I think you probably need to have a really good think about what you're actually implying here. Meanwhile, the only thing I had to think about was whether the block length was too lenient. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do stand by what I said, I thought the comment was sickening. Wholly unfit for a volunteer encyclopedia project. It's ok to go back and forth about sources and policies, there is no need to smear volunteer editors, it only does harm and Colonel, it will not get you what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CW did not call anyone a nazi, he made an analogy to tactics being nazilike. but even so, this is the internet, and people get called nazis every 5 seconds. my opinion is that someone should have asked for the comment to be "refactored" if it was so offensive instead of applying an immediate block, which is typically how I see such stuff treated. The nazi epithet is just as bad as other epithets that get used and not immediately blocked such as "inclusionist taliban".--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was as bad and quite as harmful. Throwing smears because someone else has done won't help. en.WP is not USENET. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've unblocked, that block was wholly without merit and I've told Black Kite exactly that. Fences&Windows 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, civility blocks don't have overwhelming consensus on en.WP. CW, please don't comment on other editors, stick to policy and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I love it when admins unilaterally reverse the actions of others. They are doubly special when the blockee never even made a request to be unblocked, and triply so when it is done not following a discussion with admin #1 but with a crass "Your block of Colonel Warden was ridiculous, I've unblocked him. Find something useful to do with your tools instead of posturing" message. Good show. Tarc (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There were other admins on this page and ANI supporting the basis for the block, so the unblock could not be justified as reversing a rogue block. It is about time that Arbcom took on the issue of unilateral unblocks. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Perhaps Fences should have a gander at WP:NPA, both for themselves and on the topic of this block? Perhaps Fences should have looked into consensus first? Or, is it ok to call editors here killers and ridiculous to think otherwise? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not. Taken to WP:ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeebus christmas people, go improve some articles please.--Milowent • talkblp-r 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "The alternative conception - that we should quietly do away with substantial topics - seems neither proper nor efficient and brings to mind disreputable tactics" is an analogy which relates people to Nazis only in relation to "substantial topics." It is like someone saying to another "you murdered the truth" which is not at all the same as calling any one person a "killer" and should hardly! be a reason to block someone. But I guess if you want to do away with substantial topics and also with substantial editors, to define this analogy as a personal attack is one way to do it. 172.190.87.241 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NPA and its ugly sister WP:CIV have long been subverted into becoming convenient tools for the expulsion of editors who have become unpopular in the admin's corridors of power. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might think that; I couldn't possibly comment. You nicely parsed what was actually said at ANI though. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome. Don't let the block get you down; as a wise editor once said to me, just think of it as a battle scar. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making Pumpkin Pie[edit]

Colonel Warden. I noticed your comment on the presidential scandals discussion, right below mine. Your reasoning is precise and laudable. Would you mind taking a look at the discussion above that one, the "Making Pumpkin Pie" article, and let me know what you think? I am interested in learning how things are here. Mwywy (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I'm going to check out your "Article Rescue Squadron" that I saw listed on your profile page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwywy (talk • contribs) 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll take a look. Note that article rescue is a more fractious business than you might expect. Take care. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making Pumpkin Pie lacked a good source. I looked for one and then summarised it in the main article. This is the best way of proceeding - to find and use a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Many thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent, and gracious notes and bon mots on my talkpage and elsewhere. Especially coming from an editor I can't recall ever dealing with before, it was highly appreciated. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Richwales[edit]

I understand the thought behind your "Off with his head" statement, but please consider changing it to "Oppose". It is important to keep the climate of RfAs constructive and nonprovocative. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main provocation here is the detailed nature of my oppose, in which the candidate is shown to lack some basic understanding of core policies. This is a strong criticism but a necessary part of the RfA process. The heading of Off with his head is levity which, by adding some humour, might perhaps soften the blow. It draws attention to the article decapitation, which is the locus of the examples cited. And it is a literary reference to the Red Queen who is a famous archetype of despotic behaviour. The candidate is also being criticised by others for his willingness to block quickly rather than to warn and so the reference seems to work on several levels.
As the heading has been there for some time and the candidate must have read it by now, I prefer to let it stand. I shall instead explain to the candidate that there is nothing personal in this and get his views. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I did understand you meant the comment in jest, and I wasn't terribly offended. However, I think Kingturtle has a point, and IMO it would probably be better if you could change it to a simple "oppose". (But in case you were wondering — no, if I were an "uninvolved admin" and saw you make this kind of comment in someone else's RfA, I would not block you for incivility, and I probably wouldn't even think of reporting it anywhere — I would simply suggest that the comment might be a bit excessive and leave it at that.)
In a print medium such as e-mail, Wikipedia talk pages, etc., I feel we need to be especially careful in the way we express ourselves, since small nuances (which would be obvious in face-to-face conversation) may not end up being communicated as the writer intended. I've seen this sort of thing many times in RfA's — including my own current RfA, where many people have concluded from my comments that I must obviously fancy myself to be some sort of Judge Dredd — which in fact couldn't be further from the truth, but the damage is done and I doubt anything I say at this point can undo it.
Regarding the substance of your comments and those made by others, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to discuss them in detail while my RfA is still open, but I do recognize that some valid criticisms are being made (even if they hurt) — and regardless of which way the RfA finally turns out, I'm definitely going to have some "homework" to do. Thanks again for the feedback. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. As you seem to be taking it well and to show that there's no hard feelings, I shall amend my summary. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topics surrounding Froward Point[edit]

You make a persuasive point, though I think there should be an article for Froward Point itself, which has some substantial things of note about it aside from the Brownstone Battery and the NCI lookout.

I suggest that three articles are required, because each looks at an entirely different aspect of the same location; Geography (and presumably wildlife), The Battery, The NCI station. I don't have the wherewithal to handle more than the NCI one, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm not even sure that this stage that the NCI one is going to survive. If it does my interest is in looking at articles for the other 43 NCI lookouts provided they are inherently notable. Most, like a school, are likely to be notable simply by existing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Colonel Warden[edit]

Remove inappropriate content. Please see edit history and content removal per WP:TPNO, and User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, specifically no personal attacks, and do not misrepresent other people. It might also be considered vandalism, WP:VAN. In addition, this attack was placed here by an IP sockpuppet of User:Bondiveres. For information about the sockpuppet see WP:ANI#User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran. Thank you. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU[edit]

Hi Colonel. Your RFC has a little over a week left before the requisite thirty days are up. I realize it must be difficult to participate in such a conversation, but if we are to have any hope of arriving at a voluntary solution to the issues identified your participation is vital. Several proposals have been made that address the issues identified, if you could at the very least indicate if you would be willing to abide by any or all of these proposals it would be most helpful. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments seem to have dried up so a final response seems right now. I'll start drafting one. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nudge. It's really about time you engaged with that RfC/U. I don't agree with some of the complaints (e.g. re-removing prod tags), but as you know I've previously criticised you for making deceptive edit summaries - some of this RfC/U has merit and you need to acknowledge where the community has real concerns. If you don't, it'll not help you the next time you get dragged to ANI. Fences&Windows 02:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I engaged with it before it had even started and so your premise seems counterfactual. I have been too busy to do much on Wikipedia since Christmas but it's quiet this morning (for now) and so I shall take another look to see what more may be needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a start and have a substantial response page building now. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I made this point because I think it'll help you, not just to kick you while you're down. I meant "engage again", I knew that you'd already made some comments on it. Sorry. Fences&Windows 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds comments[edit]

You and I have never (to my recollection) interacted. I would like to make sure that my recent comments Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 are not misinterpreted. I take RfA quite seriously. I do not participate in every one, although I follow just about every one, because it takes time to do the homework necessary to opine, and I'm not always able to find the time. I get nervous when I see what appears to be a bandwagon effect, either pro or con, and think those are often the situations begging for more thorough investigation. With that as background, I applaud your action, in light of an almost certain conclusion, to undertake some research to see if there were reasons for concern. While I reached a different assessment than you did on those specific situations, I thank you for taking the time to look for incidents which may shed light on the candidates qualifications.--SPhilbrickT 17:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen you around as your sig is quite distinctive. I supported your own RfA and persuaded Robofish to switch from oppose to support. What impressed me in your case was your willingness to help new editors. Ironholds seems quite different in this respect and I should perhaps say something of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you, both for your support, and your persuasion of others. I am mildly concerned that my sig may be too distinctive. I saw someone else using something similar, and adopted it, changing the color to the school color of my favorite sports team. I'm conflicted, because I like the fact that if I'm look at a long page on comments, it is easy to find my own. However, I'm not a big fan of those whose sig is too garish. Back to Ironholds. Given a propensity for acerbic speech, I wonder if encouraging interaction with new editors is a good idea. I spent some time at Requests for feedback today, and it is sometimes difficult to avoid writing "Frankly, it sucks". That said, I checked out this exchange and thought it demonstrated restraint, when an earlier Ironholds might have been more direct.--SPhilbrickT 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Sheridan (actor)[edit]

It's the same person; I compared the parent info with the ODNB article on the subject, and the existing article. Is there any particular grounds on which you contest it? Ironholds (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by what I read at WP:CSD A10. IIRC, I created this article some weeks ago which does not seem to be "recent". I can no longer see it and don't recall the details but, per my usual practise, suppose that it had a couple of good sources which may be of value in the duplicate article: "this does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." Colonel Warden (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Beeblebrox's agreement on my talkpage as a (sorta, tiny) bit of consensus. It contained, I think, a single source; I can undelete and userfy it for you if you want to transfer things over. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your article duplicated a topic that has been covered on Wikipedia for almost eight years [2] so it is relatively recent. There is no logical reason to keep the article you posted, everything in it is covered in the first two sentences of our existing article. It did have a source not used in our current article though. Here it is: citation Charles Partington (1838), "Sheridan, Thomas", The British Cyclopaedia of Biography And guess what, it is not related to the subject of the article you wrote, but rather to his father. Once again, you seem to have used a source without even reading it, and nobody would have noticed if not for your wiki-lawyering to try and rescue your deeply flawed creation. Well done. You sir, remind me very much of the fable of The Fox and the Grapes. You are upset that IH is finally an admin, so you try to contest on of his first admin actions with an illogical, petty, procedural complaint. That in doing so you revealed yet another use of puffery by you makes it more or less worthwhile, but you should still be ashamed of yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this source when starting the article Thomas Sheridan (divine), as he is its main subject. Thomas Sheridan (actor) was a spinoff from this and I didn't spend a lot of time on it. I seem to recall some confusion in the sources about the generations of the Sheridan family but it may be that I misunderstood something. Anyway, my starting point for this incident was that I saw a CSD A10 on my watchlist and this stood out as an unusual occurrence which seemed to need following up. Naturally I noticed that this was an action of the new admin Ironholds but I treated the matter as I would if any other admin had done it, avoiding any personal attacks such as those that you have now made. Ironholds offers to userfy the article for me and I'll take him up on this so that I may study and learn from it. Currently, I am unable to see it and I'd like to puzzle over the matter to get the details of the Sheridan family tree straight if there is still any remaining confusion. Our coverage of these various subjects will tend to benefit from such close attention and so the encyclopedia grows. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Beeblebrox is right as to what the source covers, but I would contest his claims of some kind of petty bias and remind him to WP:AGF. It is natural, when any user has an article deleted in what they feel to be an incorrect fashion, to seek some kind of remedy from the admin involved, regardless of who that admin is. CW's message was neatly, neutrally and inoffensively worded, and I expect he would have done exactly the same thing were it any other admin. However, it does seem that the article isn't going to be of much use; a single line, with the source not apparently relating to the subject. What I can do is undergo a search through JSTOR and related repositories, as well as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and email you any sources I find which would be of use in articles about the Sheridan family. Would that be helpful? Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall exactly what was in the article and that's one reason for wanting to see it again, as it has now become yet another stick to beat me with. From what is said above, it seems that I used the citation "Charles Partington (1838), "Sheridan, Thomas", The British Cyclopaedia of Biography". This source does provide quite a few details about Thomas Sheridan junior as the latter part of the entry is devoted to his career and the other article would benefit from this reference. I might add it directly now but it would be nice to check that's all that's needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's essentially all there was; a single line saying "Thomas Sheridan was an actor and [blotto]" and that reference. I can still userfy it if you want, it just seems like a waste of effort given the conciseness of the content. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor has moved the earlier article onto the name of my stub and I have added the citation and parentage to that article. Other things to check would be the categories and the talk page, in case there was some detail worth saving there. I'm going out now so will leave it there for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you feel you are being beaten with sticks, perhaps you should stop handing them out. I didn't go looking for this problem, you tried to contest a perfectly valid deletion reason on a flimsy technicality and in the course of looking into it in good faith I discovered more sloppy, careless sourcing by you. Articles aren't alive. It doesn't hurt them when we delete them. It's not like rescuing puppies from the pound, this deletion was in the realm of routine housekeeping and you decided to make a big deal out of it. If you had done your research properly when composing this one-line substub this never would have happened. I wash my hands of this mess, and the RFC on exactly this topic as it is clearly hopeless. You can't fix your own problems if you won't admit they exist in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ookay, ignoring the above comments (not directly relevant) the earlier article contained one category not found in the "old" one ("elocutionists", which I've now added) and the talkpage, nada but a sources template. Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human trophy collecting[edit]

I see you commented on the Human trophy collecting deletion. Unpleasant as the idea may be, this has been a practice throughout history. Perhaps we can find instances in articles that can be linked or included in this article. I have some ideas, but I have to run some errands this afternoon. I suspect that this article will be improved and rescued. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above my paygrade[edit]

I made a new article, just a stub so far. Above my paygrade is a very common expression found everywhere. Google news search shows it appearing all over the place, even super famous people like President Obama using it. Know any credible dictionaries that give a specific definition for it? Dream Focus 12:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like an Americanism and I'm not sure exactly what it means. I'll check it out now. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like military jargon to a former O-2. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's also US feds, and many US states, positions are assigned a grade. See this for example. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oldest use of "above my paygrade" only dates to 1999 on google news archives,[3] from a chat transcript with gossip writer Lloyd Grove. However, searching for "above my pay grade" with a space yields older sources, going back to a 1981, which appear to have a military origin. In 1981, it came from a quote from Navy Secretary John Lehmanin a UPI story.[4]. Its use by a military pilot in 1986[5] at least received notice by one columnist.[6]. It continues to be mentioned most often in military settings until the early 1990s, when it began to be more broadly used by US government officials. In July 1996, USAtoday described US republican congressperson Susan Molinari as someone who "uses hip phrases like ``above my pay grade and ``totally iced."[7]. Hmm, guess I'll copy this to the talk page of the article as well for future use.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working parents[edit]

  • Working parents seems to be about stay at home parents instead. A new user made a single edit, creating it, and then hasn't been heard from again. Google book search instantly shows books written about working parents, and there is plenty of coverage of this term. The article would have to be rewritten if it is to survive. Do you think its salvageable? Dream Focus 10:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stay-at-home sections seemed inappropriate and so I have removed them. The article is quite feasible to develop because the topic is covered by so many sources. The only difficulty is choosing between them and summarising in a dry style. One also has to be careful take an international perspective as many of the sources relate to the experience of particular countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Vermont[edit]

Take a look at Battles in Vermont and see if it can be rescued. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The territory of Vermont was not permanently settled. It was treated as a hunting ground by several Indian tribes including the Iroquois and Abenaki. These Indian nations regularly fought each other in this area. Then, when the English and French settled North America, the area became a battleground between these colonial powers and their Indian allies.[1]

Skeleton Tarantula[edit]

Thanks for finding that reference! I actually used to have a copy of that Marshall book, but a couple of years ago I gave it to a young friend along with her first tarantula - I really should get a new copy :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in academia[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to improve bullying in academia. It is now much better although obviously it needs expansion over time. --Penbat (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I shall chip in more as the fancy takes me. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary schools[edit]

Might it be a better idea to merge/redirectthe articles rather than just remove the prods without explanation. You surely realize there's not a chance they wil hold as individual articles, even if a little expanded. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have time to do more, alas. As it is, I only got through the As and the Bs. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI again. It certainly would be nice if you would actually pay attention to other editors' concerns instead of doing things like this.—Kww(talk) 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a thread at ani that it in regard to edits you have made. Incidents#Colonel_Warden_.28again - Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to be closed now. My understanding of it is that my actions were quite proper as the prod template states clearly, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." My general position is that such schools usually have notability by virtue of the inspector's reports which are independent, reliable and detailed. The contrary position seems to be that of WP:MILL which is neither policy nor guideline. The idea that quotidian or mundane topics are not notable is explicitly refuted by the notability guideline which explains that topics are not required to be important or famous to be notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it needs closing again, talk about more heat than light, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just commenting that every state school in England is inspected by Ofsted. My general position is that the grading system following an inspection is not an award and therefore IMO it is not a measure of notability, and only confirms the existence of a school. The inspection report that takes the form of an open letter to the school, is an indication to the school's board and staff of what, if anything, needs to be improved: (1 (Outstanding), 2 (Good), 3 (Satisfactory) and 4 (Inadequate). --Kudpung (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many topics are subject to systematic inspection and codification - chemicals, diseases, species, aircraft &c. Such topics may be quite obscure but we cover them all nonetheless. Respectable schools have this character too and I see no reason to discriminate against them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure that stands up in this case. Not only does every school get an Ofsted inspection, but so does every nursery (my middle of the road town has 10 of those) and most child minders (rough guess, my town has 100 or so). In fact any establishment or person that cares for children (foster carers anyone?). Best estimate we are looking at hundreds of thousands of Ofsted graded institutions & individuals. I do not think that being subject to systematic inspection by a notable body alone infers notability. As Kudpung says this is simply something that says "this institution exists in the eyes of Ofsted and is at a standard of X" --Errant (chat!) 20:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reports on child minders and such are not published so publically. Schools, on the other hand, receive extensive publicity in the press due to the league table reports on the key-stages testing and such. We have numerous topics for which there is little such notice. For example, see Ihar Fartunau, PCDHB10, not to mention numerous villages in Poland. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science of morality[edit]

Thanks for sharing Bentham's Deontology or, the science of morality". I may have never found it otherwise. I have attempted to fairly incorporate Bentham's considerations of science and morality into the article, and it is much better for it. This may help make it more clear, in the deletion discussions, why the Science of Morality page is relevant on its own. So thanks again.-Tesseract2(talk) 15:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Note also that the 1991 Britannica has a long entry on Ethics which is worth reviewing. It has a fair bit to say about science and Leslie Stephen's Science of Ethics (1882) is cited. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That encyclopaedia is quite densely packed and written- I will have look into Leslie Stephen (and also A.E. Taylor) to see if they should be considered on the science of morality page.-Tesseract2(talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


All AfD nominations are disruptive and against core policy?[edit]

Colonel, do you really believe that all AfD nominations are against core policy and should be defined as "disruption," as you suggested here. I'm not sure if you only meant the ones you don't like, but your argument would apply to all of them.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What this means is that deletion is only appropriate for articles which are not able to be improved. This principle is stated emphatically in our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what people decide during an AfD. If the problems presented by those who want it deleted are real problems and in that case if they can be fixed. Assuming good faith, clearly I don't believe this article can be "fixed" through normal editing, and likewise assuming good faith you do believe it can, or perhaps that there is nothing to fix. Is it disruptive to nominate an article one believes cannot be "fixed through normal editing" to AfD? If so, then again you're impugning all AfD nominations, since they are always based on such a belief initially. If not, then you're rather specifically impugning my motives, suggesting that I am nominating this entry despite believing that it can be fixed. In other words your assuming bad faith. There is no way for this to be disruption if you assume good faith, unless, again you think all AfD nominations are disruptive. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is deletion that would be disruptive; the nomination is just an irrelevance or nuisance if it is mistaken, as in this case. WP:BEFORE suggests ways of mitigating this. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mincing words. So I'm advocating disruption. Gee thanks, that solves it!Griswaldo (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take the Colonel so seriously. He is an extremist inclusionist, and his views don't represent the normal views of the average WP editor. All of his !votes at AfD are similar to the one which bothered you. Take it with a grain of salt, and continue doing the good work you're doing. —SW— converse 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An extremist? And how do you know what represents the normal views of the average WP editor? No surveys have been done. Its true that these days you have a lot more deletionists around since their relentless path of destruction has driven so many people away over the years as they reshaped Wikipedia to be more of their liking, but there is no way to tell just what the average person likes or doesn't like. Most Wikipedia editors never participate in any AFDs at all. And common sense, there was no reason to waste time nominating that article for deletion. It will certainly end in keep. Don't be a hater. Dream Focus 05:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most wikipedia editors never participate in any AFDs at all. That's why having groups of editors dedicated to one of two AfD outcomes like "inclusion" or "deletion" roaming around the AfD circuit is even more damaging. When groups like this show up we can't determine how the community really feels about an article. I think it would be a great help to the encyclopedia if we encouraged the majority of editors to engage more community processes like AfD and to discourage the core groups who only vote one way or the other from doing so. This article may well have been kept by a true community consensus, but at this point half the commentators are from the usual inclusionist keep brigade. One of the reasons why I nominated this article, besides the fact that I truly don't think it belongs in an encylopedia, was to see what the community thought about one of the many longevity lists that currently exist. There was a recent arbitration on longevity, which made it apparent that the entire area of the encyclopedia is a walled garden. IMO some of the entries in the garden are great, even if a bit WP:OWNed by a group of editors, but others are not. Anyway, no such luck testing the waters with this, now that a specific group of Wikipedia ideologues have taken over the discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I reviewed the AFDs for that day, I passed over most of them and only chose to join the discussion for this one, which was already leaning towards Keep. I did so because it seemed to be a reasonable topic and, insofar as it touched on longevity, this was a plus, because that is a topic that interests me. I recently proposed an unrelated article for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on the video game industry. The characterisation of me as a Wikipedia ideologue who has no interest in the topics under discussion and only votes one way is therefore false. I don't attend very many AFDs but when I do, I like to make a difference. This is supposed to be the idea - that we don't just vote but that we contribute significantly to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't attend many AfD's? In your last 5000 edits, you edited 1798 unique AfD pages. This suggests that you spend nearly half of your time at AfD, which is far more than most editors.See correction below. I'd be happy to post an analysis of your AfD votes to see exactly how non-biased your votes are. —SW— gab 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Colonel Warden/AfD stats. Feel free to delete it if you don't want it. Note that the table only represents AfD votes made in your last 5000 total edits. As expected, you vote to keep or speedy keep nearly 85% of the time, while you vote to delete only 5% of the time. In the AfD's for which you vote Keep, the AfD eventually closes as something other than Keep 47% of the time. —SW— confabulate 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he may just not want to participate in discussions which he thinks should be deleted, because most of the time, things worth deleting are obvious, and will be deleted whether he participates or not. Most of the time I !vote delete is when it is an AfD that has gone a long time with little discussion, and needs all the help it can get. Participating in things you want kept is normal, and should be most of your votes. Not protecting him or anything. Just giving some insight on another view. (By the way, how did you get those statistics? Is it easy to make up? I may want one done for myself.) Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but consider how often he "gets it wrong". Nearly half the time he votes to keep, the AfD closes some other way. Anyway, CW's stats pale in comparison to Dream Focus' (see User:Dream Focus/AfD stats). In DF's last 5000 edits, he edited 2322 unique AfD's, suggesting that he spends the majority of his time at AfD. Nearly 97% of his votes are to Keep. When he votes to Keep, the AfD ends up closing as something other than Keep about 54% of the time. For every AfD on which he votes to keep, about 1 in 3 end up being deleted, redirected, or merged. —SW— yak 18:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misread that. 1014 of AFD that I said keep ended in keep, and 440 ended in delete. So its kept when I say keep 2.3 times as often than its deleted. That's far more than 54% of the time. The 337 No consensus default to keep by the way, and usually stay kept. Dream Focus 23:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SW's figure of 1798 different AFDs in the last 5000 edits seemed too high and so it proves. The detailed stats show that there were 1755 in the last 1030 days. That's between 1 and 2 a day, on average. I'm usually trying to scan all the AFDs and so pick those 1 or 2 from the 100+ which we get every day. That's about 1%. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my stats are off. I believe the bot might actually be going back a full 5000 edits in the WP namespace only. I'll have to do some tests to be sure. In any case, the accurate stats are that 1496 of your last 5000 edits (to all namespaces) were to AfD pages. From those 1496 edits, you contributed to 589 unique AfD's. —SW— gossip 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film)[edit]

The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read a substantial article about the movie in a newspaper recently. Not seen it showing at a cinema yet though. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the new sources since incubation, I found London Evening Standard[8] and First Post[9] Was one of these the one you saw? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages and New Users[edit]

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your new pages and deletion work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read about WikiGuides already, thanks, but the scheme seems too demanding in its hours of work and such. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a "do what you can, when you want" thing. Really, it's not much more than what you already do on-wiki (saving articles via the production of sources) but with some helping-the-user involved. If you change your mind, give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United Kingdom#Images[edit]

As someone whose opinion I respect and who has in the past kindly offered to give advice where I may feel to be in need of it, I would be most grateful for your take on a particular issue that I have been discussing on the United Kingdom talk page regarding image selection. I have taken a pretty hard line against what I see as an attempt to select images based on some type of 'editorial policy' rather than on the pure merits of the images taken individually, which strikes me as POV-pushing and not in keeping with WP policy. I am currently in a minority of one in the discussion. This in itself does not embarrass me, but it does make me keen to get the take of someone who I know is very independent-minded. In short, I would be very grateful for your view as to whether I should drop the point and walk away - and/or I have allowed myself to get caught up in the emotion of the discussion and lost my objectivity - or if there is a point of principle at stake worth fighting for. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to support Dickens too but his sales are dwarfed by Agatha Christie and Barbara Cartland. I'm going to bat for the latter as I suppose she will need some lobbying to get a look in. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding your thoughts. Just out of interest, do you think that my stance against the selection of images on the grounds of sex or home country was appropriate or I pushed it too far? Rangoon11 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed cinemas in Kingston upon Hull[edit]

Thanks Colonel - for your encouragement and additions/editing on "Closed Cinemas...". It's a Keep now.Elrooj (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruislip Woods[edit]

Thank you very much, it's good to see the article highlighted as it has been. Harrison49 (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Colonel Warden/RIP[edit]

User:Colonel Warden/RIP, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Warden/RIP during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Barong 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, what a mess over there Colonel! As a somewhat "involved" editor, I won't be commenting or ivoting there (others similarly yet shamelessly more involved than I should note this), but I'd like to make two suggestion entries for expanding the list (were it to be kept). Two of the more memorable trolls I've seen here actually had the community going for awhile, with supporters believing in them and feeling bad for them. One is tagged as a sock of a user you already have, but User:Bad edits r dumb was quite good for a stupid laugh. And the memorably creative troll User:Sven70 played the bogus "discrimination" angle to a "T". Of course, it boils down to WP:DENY ultimately, and giving them kudos for fooling so many might be feeding their egos a bit. If they were ever to come across such a backwater userpage: but after this attention, who knows, right? Good luck with the 2nd attempt to delete your list! Cheers... Doc talk 04:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James William Middleton[edit]

Hi. Just to let you know I am not the one who put the speedy deletion request (that was done by, rather strangely, an unregistered IP); see diff. I also did not play any part in AFDing the article, although it apparently had been deleted previously. I wouldn't want you to think that I did any of that because of our disagreement over the Alice Ward page. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material on googling for his name an "gay" has no place on an BLP talk page. Replace it and you may be blocked.--Scott Mac 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your threat and use of admin tools when you are involved seems improper. The discussion in that case related to article content and so was proper. Your activity seems contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, thanks much for your message regarding my comment in regards to keeping the page about James Middleton, however the link you provided me has this message: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." The TALK page is where I left my opinion. I'm now confused. Where is the right place to make my comment?

Thanks againPrwagner3 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another article contributed, thanks Victuallers (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One in three chance this may be some kind of a joke. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly just seems to be Mick blowing off steam but I have made a brief comment endorsing your close. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pig slaughter[edit]

The article is being reorganized and content has been appropriately moved to other articles. Please undo your reverts so work can progress. Hope I'm not being disruptive! Thanks! NYFernValley (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for that article for discussion. You keep removing things that several people keep putting back in. Dream Focus 21:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material has been sent to more approrpiate articles. Please revert. People are putting things back in because they don't realize they have been moved. By the way, are you and DreamFocus the same person? Just wondering, not an accusation. NYFernValley (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we aren't the same person. That makes no sense at all. And I know you moved things to other articles, but as I said in the talk page, they belong in the pig slaughtering article, not elsewhere. Dream Focus 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Colonel, you and I have disagreed many times, and we probably will continue to do so. But I think we both have similar intentions for our project, and I want to a. thank you for the time you've spent on the encyclopedia, improving and expanding it to your best judgment, and b. for your support at my RfA. The bare numbers (SnottyWong's numbers--I assume you're familiar with that calculus) probably paint me as a deletionist, but from your support vote I gather that you realize I don't vote "delete" for its own sake. Gaining admin status, as now seems likely, will not change that--and being a Dutchman, I always prefer to err on the side of caution. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socratic Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for your message and award, Colonel Warden. There is so much work to do on this subject (and so many centuries of referenceable material to be taken into account) that, like the philosopher, I'm sure to die before it's finished! Incidentally, have you checked the two lines preserved from the poem by Socrates? It's on a political subject, which is apt in the context of The Belly and the Members. I appreciated your redirection of that article, too. It was something I was thinking of and you beat me to it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Zadock Thompson (1842), History of Vermont
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonel_Warden/Archive_4&oldid=1144608974"