"Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence." Leonardo da Vinci

Contrary to popular opinion this user does not enjoy being attacked or hounded. To all deletionists: I will never create an article... so don't bother looking!!!

Archives

User talk:MurderByDeadcopy/Archive 1 /Archive 2

You're a star![edit]

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar

Alll those deletionists can go fuck themselves! Magnus bjerg (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Anatole Krasnyansky‎‎, you may be blocked from editing. Disruption to make a WP:POINT not allowed here. Page blanking an article at WP:AFD is not allowed. If you continue in this manner you will likely loose your editing privileges for a time. Jbh^Talk 19:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can hound, attack, and harass me all over Wikipedia, but stay off my talk page.''' And it was you that wanted it cut, not me! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 20:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be able to back up accusations of hounding - this is the third personal attack you have made against me, not including the attacks you have made against others. I strongly suggest you strike it. I have interacted with you at Anatole Krasnyansky‎‎ and its AfD. No one asked you to blank that page, there was a discussion about sourcing and notability going on between several editors. You opened a discussion about an edit I made at Misogyny. This warning template is standard for someone who does page blanking. So back off and calm down. I will not comment further here unless you address me here or to leave required template messages. Jbh^Talk 20:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mrfrobinson. I noticed that you removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Lali Kandelaki, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, I know you. You enjoy following editors around. I'm apparently lucky enough to be one of those editors! I especially love this recent gift that you've given me. It will remain prominently on talk page forever. I look forward to many more such gifts! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar honor! I was wandering WikiProject Virginia and cleaning up. -- econterms (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you from me as well. It's always nice to get some positive feedback.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I assumed you were not being serious (considering your userpages) but if you actually want to follow our article nominations, simply go through the deletion sortings (all are listed Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat), I usually hang around the Bands and musicians, Actors and filmmakers, Business, Businesspeople, etc. so most of my nominations are there and, for DGG, he's not as swift with AfD nominations as I, so you can simply watch his contributions for his most recent AfDs. BTW, if you ever wonder if we're "deletionists", we've actually never been explicit about that, we simply both like to take care of troubled articles that seem to have no improvement and should've gotten attention long ago. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My page is this way not because I want it to be this way, but because I've been heavily harassed on Wikipedia. Whether Wikipedia admits it or not, it is a battlefield here. And AfD is the front line! What I'm asking for is when you notify DGG of any AfD"s between the two of you that I also get a notification from you as well. It shouldn't be any extra work, just copy and paste! Thanks!!! FYI - As for whether you are (or are not) a deletionists, the evidence speaks for itself. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's share a falafel to fight against the Deletion-nazis...! Waka waka1509 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...I like to chip in sometimes with a helpful comment, but please don't take that as meaning that I totally agree with your recent stance on Wikipedia matters. Sure, there are some trigger-happy people about, and new editors should be treated with every consideration; but to me this doesn't mean we accept any self-publicity, trivia or opinionated diatribes they care to post. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not like social media websites where they eagerly accept any & all user-generated content. So it may appear "hostile" to those whose expectations are formed in using those other websites. To reduce the chances that a new user will have a bad experience, it would be better to argue for measures to let them know, before they post their contributions, that we do in fact have limits to what we accept and do demand scads of references. That, and educating new page patrollers and restricting new or clueless users from doing patrolling. Sorry, yes, limits and restrictions, and not because we're loveless police but because restrictions and limits are necessary to maintain our project as a usable, credible and valuable resource for the world's readers. For my money this "inclusionist/deletionist" polarity is just daft. Thanks for your work and hope to see you around: Noyster (talk), 13:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your response to User:Noyster comment is rather tasteless and is borderline a personal attack.Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And I think you ought to stop following me! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here we go, anytime anyone disagrees with you or remarked about how uncivil you are you come out with accusations. Next will be I am bullying you I assume. Stop being uncivil, stop with the accusations and stop with the personal attacks. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• GO AWAY! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming to the defense of the Henry Flynt and the Insurrections article. It is your vote more than any that will probably save the article from unnecessary destruction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, friend. Happy holidays to you.Czolgolz (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for coming to the defense of the articles against deletionists. I thank you very much. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessary: [1]. WP:N specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Not the plural "sources"; later, it further explains multiple sources are required: ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

No need for your change; it's already covered. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the above is about as clear as mud! It is, however, one terrific way to game sources, notability, and deletion hard!!! Especially since I see a ton of deleting based on "don't like' or "don't understand." Granted, were I you, I wouldn't "see" any problem with the current situation either since the sports notability is set up to include a wide berth. Once the system benefits you, there's zero need to "fix' it! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MBD, I just saw this. One thing I have learned in my last year of AfD participation is that the general notability guideline standards for "significant coverage" vary widely from subject area to subject area, which usually implies a different cast of participants. No conspiracy, just different standards that have evolved among different participants in different subject areas. That said, and contrary to your implication above, sports-related AfD discussions usually have among the weaker standards for "significant coverage". I've been trying to change that, especially in light of the extremely very permissive "one game" rule that is the prevalent SNG for MLB baseball, NBA basketball, NFL football, NHL hockey, and major match cricket players, and professional association football players of all levels. As for the second half of your comment above, you would do well to assume good faith in my case; I am one of the strongest advocates you will find for a consistent interpretation of GNG -- and significant coverage in particular -- across all subject areas. My "agenda" is simply to see a more consistent standard, consistently applied. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that I don't see you participating in AfD's in area's I care about. In fact, from what I've discovered editor's who were most active in those area's left about 5-6 years ago. As for the sports area, it's just much easier for most editor's to clearly see what passes in an AfD. In other areas, it becomes more of a rough guess based on the knowledge each individual editor brings to an AfD and what is found on Google. Sure, I know you've said that sources don't need to be in English or on the net, however, that isn't really the norm of what's happening at most AfD's. I'd also say reliable sources are changing fast. Newspapers are folding. And unfortunately, I don't believe Wikipedia is adjusting quickly enough to keep up with all these new changes. This place seems rather stuck in the past. Granted some of that has to do with the thinking that Wikipedia needs to be exactly like Encyclopædia Britannica! Doubt Wikipedia will ever be very consistent, but it is an admirable goal.
  

I'd also like to see an article only being sent to AfD three times. It's a ridiculous amount of time sink. And after the third time, it really shouldn't happen again.

FYI - Happy Holiday's & hope you were around when going to Skeeter's Home of the Big Biscuit was there! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I attended Florida for undergraduate school in the '80s and returned for grad and professional school in the early '90s. I knew Skeeter's well; not a fan of the Big Biscuit, but I ate more than my share of Asher Specials at 3:00 a.m. I still get a craving from time to time for sunny-side-up eggs over crispy hash browns with a sprinkle of shredded cheddar. Merry Christmas. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tradeo aticle is speeded even though it has links from reuters etc.. Please let me know if you can help. Always :) (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas wishes Always :) (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate what you are doing, participating at AFDs, it isn't the most glamorous of jobs here. However, if you really want to make a difference, I suggest going more in-depth in your responses to better sway who decides whether an article stays or is sacked. Decisions are made by the quality, not quantity, of opinions, so admins can just ignore your response if it isn't well-thought-out. Don't just say "keep" just because your belief is AFDs are a way of revenge (sometimes they are, mostly they are not), sometimes you have to accept an article isn't notable. You can say what you want about this, but this was just advice. I'm not trying to stop your little "crusade" you got going on here, but if you want to be taken seriously, follow some of the points I made. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I just noticed what you said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoo Art Fair, in response to Deb, who invited you to help improve an article--your response is, basically, "no I don't want to do anything, I just want to complain". Cullen328 also commented in that discussion, and had some arguments to make. Your AfD comments are typically worth nothing to a closing admin since they don't present policy-based arguments and/or lack evidence, nor do they--and this is what TheGracefulSlick is getting at--seem to convince anyone that some article is worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, since I was pinged by Drmies, I will chime in here. The style of your user page and talk page motivates me to bring you an olive branch. Please take a look at the current improved state of Zoo Art Fair, which is my little gift to you. I decided to check it out based on your "keep" comment at AfD. I expanded the article and added four references, three of them independent. Then, please do me a favor and take a look at the section on my user page called "Found at Articles for Deletion, and helped to keep by improving". That is a list of over 90 articles once listed at AfD that I decided to try to save. And so far, my success rate is 100%. Here's my strategy: I spend as little time as possible moaning and groaning and complaining about the editors who support deletion. Instead, I find reliable sources, add them to the article, and then use those sources to expand the article. If necessary, I rewrite the text to the NPOV. Then, I report what I have done at the AfD debate. It works every time, so far at least. Give it a try! Thank you for your kind attention to these points I have made, and Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a pretty nice little gift there, Cullen. Happy new year to you too! Drmies (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, now I'm none to sure which AfD TheGracefulSlick is discussing but I do know that for Zoo Art Fair my view was that it didn't have a hope of making it which is why I only commented on it rather then actually state "keep". It's a habit I got into after seeing editors following me just to vote "delete" after me. What really soured me with AfD's is my experience with Anatole Krasnyansky. (And to a lesser degree Barbara Bly.) I'd seen other editors save articles, however, my attempt was meet with ridicule and repugnancy as though I was committing some crime against humanity. That's when I realized those other editors had been around for years and had the clout to save an article. I did not have that clout and it was fair game to bully me off any article that I might attempt saving.

I see a lot of issues with AfD's. One of the biggest is just how effective it is at running off new editors. Regrettably, I don't see any fix for that. Most of the rules here are merely guidelines open to a wide berth of interpretation. But then, I've come to secretly believe that were it not for Google's influence Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is right now which is what's mostly likely enabling Wikipedia to safely continue with a skeletal crew. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I predict that Zoo Art Fair will be kept, and thank you for commenting. Pretty much any article for which significant coverage in independent, reliable sources exist can be saved from deletion, simply by adding the sources to the article and pointing that out at AfD. Improving the article is "AfD gold", as I learned as a very new editor. I always got thanks for that and never once criticism. Most of the time, simply providing a link to the significant coverage in the AfD debate is enough to save the article. As for the "skeletal crew", English Wikipedia has well over 3000 highly active editors (over 100 edits a month) and that number is growing. We also have about 30,000 moderately active editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal experience has differed greatly from your's in this area. The truly oddest part of this situation is that the more cynical I became about AfD's, the better I seem to have become at saving article's at AfD's. All I can think is that there must be some backfire effect combined with zero sum game going within the AfD environment. (Or, perhaps, it's just that old saying of expect nothing and be surprised?!) Because I'm now truly surprised whenever anything that I'm involved in over at AfD gets saved there! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason you are surprised is that your approach was based on a misconception in the first place. You seem to have taken an isolated incident and focused on it to the exclusion of all else. It's not like you've created a whole lot of articles that have been deleted or even nominated - the personal experience of which you speak is actually quite limited. Deb (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am, however, quite the lurker and (I believe) I have the ability to empathize when I read about others in similar situations!
  

FYI - My original approach was to add reliable sources to articles up for AfD's so where did I go wrong? Because that seems to be what everyone here is ascribing that I do to succeed when the fact remains that is the plan that failed me. It didn't just fail for me, it complete agony. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, sometimes you just have to accept when an article isn't notable. It isn't a common occurrence and any user can create articles that stay here. For example, I have written 157 articles since I started here a year ago with 0 being deleted, so it isn't a difficult task. But overall my point is cynicism at AFDs make 0 difference to an outcome, and may actually hinder its stay sometimes. Articles that are borderline could be saved if you wrote a thorough and accurate reason as to why it should stay. However, when they are deleted do not think it is because editors are evil or it was a "gotcha" moment. If we kept every article here and disregarded notability to not hurt people's feeling, Wikipedia would be a complete joke.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sincerely convinced that a topic is notable, but the article is in danger of being deleted, drop me a note at any time, and I will do my best to help. By the way, the AfD debate for Zoo Art Fair has been closed as "Keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The funniest part in all of this is that doing it "wrong" actually saved the article so... now believe I finally did it correctly! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's I did wrong.

• Robin Haley
• Gail Leven Pollock
• Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel
• Gia DeSantis
• List of birds on stamps
• Complykaro A fav since I offered to fix this article!
• Dave Taylor
• Nigma Talib
• Andrew Osta
  

AND my personal Biggest epic failure ever where I kept finding additional reliable sources so the only option deletionists had was to hound me off the article. Was also accused of all sorts of things even though I didn't create the article and had barely added anything to said article!

• Anatole Krasnyansky

Hello. I see you removed personal info from Lindsay Tait and mentioned it was requested it be removed. Do you know where this was requested? Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your contribution to the debate. Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to offer you my thanks. While it's only at best a stub, I'd still hate to see the work go to waste :) FiReSTaRT (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What "list" am I on? Are you annoyed with me because someone said I'd thanked them for reverting an incorrect edit of yours? That isn't bullying either. I know you don't like rules, but we have them partly to stop bullying. There are also rules saying that we shouldn't make threats or accuse people of things they haven't done. I'm glad you feel passionately about making this place work better, but calling everyone bullies really doesn't help. Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I can gather you've decided you can read my mind. So after having a good laugh behind my back about me, you ran to my talk page to bully me about one cryptic summary I made which you've chosen to misconstrue. Well, all I can add at this point is that I'd prefer never engaging with you anymore on any level. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you bringing the matter of one specific editor to my attention. I have offered that editor my personal greeting and my offer of help. If, in your view, I could have done better, please let me know. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to thank you for summing up the misconduct of Bondegezou and NewsAndEventsGuy nicely. I've copied your comment to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents to thank you there too as they have decided to escalate their conduct. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some insight into the background of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz's case I just posted on User:HighInBC's Talk page (don't want to retype it so if you want to read it, you can go there). But you are correct, he is being mob bullied. I wish I'd seen the ANI sooner and I might have tried to help intervene before it got to this point. I'm traveling at the moment and posting from an iPad so can't help out - I posted a quick note in the ANI, though. Thanks for tackling this. LavaBaron (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For sticking-up for a new editor being bullied.LavaBaron (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: I'm quitting Wikipedia due to misbehavior, bullying, gaslighting and other harassment by NewsAndEventsGuy and Bondegezou (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LavaBaron#80.25_likely_I_just_quit._Make_that_90.25. for details, noting they filed a bad-faith ANI action trying to get me blocked out of spite as well as their IP vandalism to my talk page). Today the only thing I'm doing is closing down my involvement with one or two pages so nobody expects me to respond to anything.

So long, and thanks for all the fish! Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised. Not only have I personally experienced being bullied myself here on this site, I've seen it played out multiples since creating my account. I have decided that those on Wikipedia who choose to be silent about bullying are just as bad as the bullies themselves, I just cannot comprehend why they remain silent. I refuse to become a bully or remain silent, and it certainly has altered my opinion of Wikipedia is really all about considerably! All the best to you! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like how you are fighting for change here. I especially respect your nerve to stand up to the "big wig" editors and admins who think they are all that just because they can throw some policies at others. While I don't 100% agree with all your viewpoints, and I don't believe you will be the user who leads to noticeable change, I think this is a step to ending the harassment and lack of good faith I see here. If you need any help, I'd be glad to lend a hand if possible. Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the beer. The badges and the scars on my talk page are equally welcome -- when balanced. And you have helped with the balance. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So... i brought that case, and I feel like your comment .... de-humanized me. I reviewed your talk/user/sandboxes and i get it that you feel pretty burned and have seen some bad things and been treated badly, but still. I am not writing to you to stomp my foot or make drama, i just want to talk a bit. Are you willing? Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got my ear, talk. I will add that I did not check into who started that ANI, only who it was against and that it had to do with COI. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M thanks for replying and welcoming the discussion! Well hm. I first got interested in COI issues because I am a science-based editor and delete a lot of crap that people add to articles about medicine (and formerly about other topics that I cannot discuss) and I have been accused many, many, MANY times of being an industry shill. And still am.

I used to work in academia and interacted with the conflicts of interest office a lot while I did; I understand deeply why COI management is important, how it is done well and how it is done poorly, and how people react to discussions of it. I decided that COI work in WP needed help. People didn't really know what to do when they came across what they thought was conflicted editing, and conflicted editors didn't know very well what they should do, to be here more or less peaceably. My approach is to just try to talk everybody like the people they actually are - I describe it here on my user page.

If you look at the Talk page of the editor we just banned for using WP in his SEO business, you will see that I tried to explain last July what the deal is with COI in WP, why it matters, and what we do to try to manage it, and how various parts of the community react to conflicted editors. You can see that here. I try to be simple, polite, and direct, as (I hope) you can see there, and tailor the discussion to the person and their situation. (In Tony's case, him being a PR guy who gives talks and writes articles in PR magazines about how to use WP in your PR business, and had no clue about COI in WP when we started talking, he was in an especially deep hole to start with, especially with the history of wiki-PR etc here). If you are not familiar with the history of PR firms abusing WP, please see the article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia which describes the major scandals of the past, and please see Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_participating_communications_firms from some firms that at least say they "get it" and don't want to be part of the problem.

Generally this approach works really well - I have had editors with a COI thank me for teaching them how things work here. here is one. There are a bunch more but I have not kept track of them (I guess I should). Conversations have also gone badly. Sometimes that is my fault, sometimes the other editor's, and sometimes both of us mis-step... everybody is human and this is an especially messy thing to deal with. And as I acknowledged in the ANI, I did come down on Tony too harshly when I found out he had blown off everything I had tried to teach him and had gone back to writing crappy articles to promote his clients. That was my bad. But we should have banned him. He wrote crappy articles. (you can check them if you don't believe me). So banning him was a good thing - the only thing that matters here at the end of the day, is how good the content is. The purpose of managing COI is to stem the tide of crap content added by conflicted editors (note I am not saying that conflicted editors always add crap content, but if you start engaging in COI-management work here you will see that the way we detect conflicted editors, is by their crap edits. Which makes sense - they are not here to write good articles that comply with policy - they are here to promote their clients or themselves and they tend to write puffery and use no sources, or poor sources like press releases.) (And I'll just add, since it is often brought up in these context, that advocacy-driven editors also harm WP a lot too by adding crap content. I don't know which problem is worse; nobody does. But discussions about COI-driven editing are distinct from discussions about advocacy-driven editing; they are a clearly-definable subset of discussions about advocacy).

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand where I at least come from. I do know there are a lot of people here who are really cruel to editors they even believe have a COI. Those people are not good Wikipedians in my view; I would say they are probably not good people but that would be too a big leap. This place is a laboratory of human behavior though.

Anyway, thanks for entertaining this. Sorry if it was too long. And I am happy to hear anything you have to say in response. Jytdog (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue I'm having here with disclosing the COI is that is patently incorrect. No one on Wikipedia discloses COI except those who are paid . . . or those who other Wikipedians believe are paid. (Which could be wrong, but who cares since I've found Wikipedians will always believe the worst, not necessarily the truth.) That label is then attached to any editor here that any other editor here chooses to accuse. It can be a lie. Doesn't matter. Meanwhile, I can love potatoes all I want and write glowingly about that subject. Or despise peanut nut and trash that subject so long as I don't get paid for doing so.

The only effect I see happening with all these labels thrown on editors is just another pre-approved sanctioned Wikipedia harassment project. If proper rules are created that all Wikipedia editors follow (instead of just a few) the whole site would be better. Now, to top it off, not only are COI labels approved, but there is a movement occurring to OUT editors. Hell, why not just go to those editors living quarters and torch the place?

As for the second part peer review all I can say is, there is no peer review on Wikipedia! And if you believe AfC is peer reviewed, well I'm sorry, but I would never consider those doing that work my peer. I'm slightly entertained by the fact that were Wikipedia editors paid, Wikipedia would probably be the number one company in the USA in violation of child labor laws. On top of which, Wikipedia is now demanding wholly completed articles, and not articles began by one individual while worked on by the masses. So . . . while Wikipedia initially rejected Nupedia and the experts, there is now an attempt to turn Wikipedia into Nupedia? Or . . . at least the pretense of an attempt?!!!

I also find Wikipedia's use of templates to be the most useless, unfriendliest, lamest concepts around. (Although, I do advocate a cheerful bot "Welcome" with clearly defined rules. Doubt Wikipedia has the wherewithal to create that however. Especially since they can't even be bothered with kerning their logos!) Best part about templates here is any fool can use them. I can go to any other editors page, slap multiple warnings in it, back them into a corner and hopefully they'll say something offensive to me so I can get them banned. But, then, the majority of editors don't even bother to place a Welcome to Wikipedia on that of any suspected COI's talk page. Why Welcome an editor when it's more fun running them off.

Then there's the concept that all this is improving Wikipedia. Except that it is also eliminating the good editors. Editors who would work on making an article more neutral, instead just leave. I've met a lot of writers and very few of them would enjoy or endure this brand of hostility. (With the possible exception of Sorken.) I, myself, don't touch certain articles due to the fear that they will be sent to AfD or I might be called COI . . . again.

COI is a minor problem made big because no one here wants to deal with fixing the big problems. Were those big problems fixed, the COI issue would vanish. Fortunately, as long as Google keeps placing Wikipedia at the top of their searches, everyone gets to pretend everythings honky-dory. Google and Jimbo have been ballin' off Wikipedia for years . . . that's the real COI issue. Not those peons that you're squashing in their meager attempts to put food on their table --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hm. I read everything you wrote there, twice. My first reaction, is that you don't seem to have read what I actually wrote. I made it clear that I am aware that many people in WP use "COI" claims as a cudgel in content disputes, and that I have been the target of a bunch of that. I also made it clear that I am well aware that unpaid advocacy is a huge problem. (the cudgeling and advocacy are often coming from the same people). So I don't know what you are actually responding to.

It is clear that you have very strong opinions on the topic of COI in WP and perhaps this was a good opportunity for you to vent and let off some rhetorical fireworks and make some grand statements (and statements unsupportable with data, like "COI is a minor problem" - no one has any data to say if is a major or minor problem). If at some point you do want to actually talk with me like I am a person (where we respond to one another) I would be happy to do that. I really don't know how to respond to what you've written though, which is less like a conversation between adults and more like an internet chatboard flame. I have no interest in that.... Anyway let me know if you want to talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DITTO! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to talk. That is why I opened the discussion. Because of your comment about the posting I made at ANI, i wanted to explain to you why I opened the case and what I had done before i opened it. Do you have anything that you would like to say to me, in particular? Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, this is correct, you want to talk, however, based on the above evidence, I don't see you wanting to have an actual conversation with me. You wanted me to fall obediently in line with your way of thinking. Well, I'm nobody's "yes" man! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No i don't expect you to agree with me at all. i did hope you would respond to me. To me, and what i actually wrote. I do appreciate you telling me your thoughts about how people deal with COI generally, though. And I heard that. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that in your zealous desire to push this ideology that "all COI is bad", you have been overlooking the negative fallout that's being left behind in it's wake. This includes harassment, bullying, and the running off of innocent editors. And, to me, those are Wikipedia's major problems. The reader's of Wikipedia couldn't care less about all this COI kerfunkle. Reader's don't go to talk pages so the adding of editors as possibly having a COI is only used by other editors to harass them. That's why most of those editors once they are list leave. Or start a new account. And, finally, savvy readers realize humans are biased so they would expect articles to be biased anyways. Therefore, It would be way more logical to work on making edits neutral, not on harassing editors. Because there is no such thing as an unbiased editor. Of course, if one were truly concerned about eliminating bias, one would figure out a way to increase the numbers of minorities and women on Wikipedia, since right now, all we've got is a bunch of articles white men relate to! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Duck and cover
	For being bold at ANI with your comment about editors with COI. You could also mention that it pushes such editors deeper underground and makes it tougher to find articles that need reviewed for NPOV. Wikipedia needs more people like you if it plans to retain editors. CNMall41 (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Best use of the word "Duck" that I've seen on Wikipedia! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are braver than I. After being accused of being a shill based on that same thread, I evaluated if I really wanted to stay. I see now why people leave the project. Good luck to you! --CNMall41 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of being a shill and I have said repeatedly that my question to you on your Talk page (not in the ANI thread) had nothing to do with your post at the ANI thread. I understand that you continue to believe it does. There is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I say that I have often said things in a vague way to not put the blame onto someone only to have someone else believe I was referring to them. Just something to consider. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh thanks! I don't have any kittens to spare, so here is a picture of the beautiful town of Levoča. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What??? Shouldn't we notify the authorities? Thanks for the gorgeous pic! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I heard about the shortage. Be good to the kitty.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whew! For a second there, I was worried!!! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting at my RfA, and your support for WP:NOBIGDEAL. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care, but it doesn't do your reputation any good to screw around (as Floquenbeam put it), first on Hawkeye's RFA, so much so that the 'crat clerk felt impelled to remove bits of several of your posts, and now on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 2/Bureaucrat chat. It's not witty. Please stop. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• So my guess is that you prefer suppression through silence? If I didn't care, I would be wasting my time here at all. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I also want to add that Bishonen did not go to Hallward's Ghost's page even though they are the one who followed me and started the whole issue Bishonen is referring to here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	L.O.V.E. your attitude, humor, frankness and honesty. Wow, so refreshing. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a barnstar in admiration for your ...everything I've read on your talk page. Love your userboxes too. My purpose is not to just compliment you, but to offer my help, if ever needed. I am a proud Polyglot, with 3 mother tongues, (English, French and Spanish), a few degrees, and a few other languages. Feel free, anytime and I'll respond. Merci pour tes tripes! --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not treat RfX as a straight-up vote where a numerical percentage suffices. To use a strange analogy, there is supposed to be flavor an texture to the discussion, and when the discussion gets murky enough, 'crats are supposed to taste the soup and determine if the support flavor appears clear, or is it too muddled. Two sets of 68% may taste different. In this case, my opinion (as I wrote) is that the opposition was more effective in their case as their concerns were laser focused on the essence of RfX. Hawk had lost the tools for cause, and the opposition was pretty clear that they did not see sufficient rehabilitation. The supports were less adamant about their trust in Hawk's rehabilitation and had a significant proportion of second chance even without certainty of Hawk's change. That was probably the key element in why I felt the soup was did taste strongly enough of support. In another hypothetical case, where the opposes are less concentrated, more spread out over areas (so section A of oppose may actually support in the issues bothering section B), the oppose flavor may be too diffuse to counteract the support. I apologize for the gastronomic analogy, but perhaps that helps explain how we act and that it really isn't arbitrary (at least we hope so!). Thank you for the feedback! -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This answer appears to more about defending your position for why the RfX failed as opposed to addressing some of my points. Believe me, I understand why that is. It still seems to me, that the supposed moving around of percentages, that recently happened, was a complete waste of time. Since, clearly, RfX's with these low percentages were able to pass in the past without such nonsense.

I just have huge concerns about impartially amongst the 'crats. I believe their decision to not promote was based on their own biases. Once that occurs, new 'crats are needed. Especially with 'crats moving goal posts on how to correctly vote in an adminship. The restructuring of how one's suppose to actually vote, yet no one was specifically notified about these changes. For instance, had I been aware of these newest changes, I would have stated, "Strong Support - I TRUST THAT THIS EDITOR WILL NOT USE THE ADMINSHIP TOOLS IMPROPERLY!!! Instead, I just feel betrayed. But then I guess the 'crats didn't betray the core in-crowd which I believe was the true goal. Which makes sense since those are the individuals that voted them in, and there is no such thing as a reelection here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 23:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed the dispute at "Women are wonderful" effect due to the level of editing - a tool called Pushipedia flagged it up (it "pushes" notifications of high-edit articles) in Recent changes (whoops, mixed up). I thought some advice may help: 1. I see you proposed a merge, but you didn't open a discussion. I have fixed the tag to direct to the talk section opened an IP editor to oppose the merge. Please add a succinct explanation of why this topic is best dealt with as part of Ambivalent sexism rather than as a standalone topic. Please also place a brief and neutrally worded note at Talk:Ambivalent sexism and at the relevant WikiProjects so interested editors can find the discussion. 2. Try to avoid discussing the motives of other editors and labels such as MRA. A focus on the sources and what they say keeps the emotional level down. 3. Avoid over-tagging in content disputes. How are "might" and "possibility" weasel words? For the "women are wonderful when" part, a look on Google Scholar shows it has been only Laurie Rudman et al. who have made that point, so "some" can be replaced with "Rudman et al." Fences&Windows 12:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Template:Edit conflict is for when there are clashes in editing and to be used on talk pages. It is not the same as edit warring. If you feel that edit warring is happening, it is best to stop editing and keep talking. Fences&Windows 12:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't comment here to warn you off: I saw the lack of justification for the merge and gave some additional advice. I am trying to help resolve the dispute. As well as posting to WikiProjects, you can also gain help at WP:NPOV/N. You say "they repeatedly attempted to hide info" - can you explain this, provide diffs? If this IP is a "civil POV pusher", the last thing you want to do is lose your temper. Stay calm, and get more eyes on this. Fences&Windows 01:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading your comment - MRA I know, I took my a while to work out TRP though I have heard of The Red Pill. I hold no brief for those ideas, and I have no favouritism to any side of that article. The topic involves scholarly work, so focus on how that is best represented in Wikipedia. As well as WP:NPOV/N, the fringe theories noticeboard may also be of assistance. Fences&Windows 01:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fences and windows: Because of the constant personal attacks about me by this IP, I would love more eyes on the subject. However, I don't see much interest in this subject except from the outside by the MRA & Terps/TRP group. There is no interest in an explanation of the term, just the term. The interest in this article is only to omitting info and/or classifying anything they don't like as "controversial." Doing these two things turns any article into a propaganda piece.
  

The hiding I'm referring to is stuff like this. On 07:49, 6 February 2016 the IP created this subject titled, MurderByDeadcopy overwhelming bias and deception. Then later the same IP on 02:23, 7 February 2016 hid that info. Again on 04:49, 7 February 2016 along with multiple other times, Why this was being done is so that the IP could then brazenly claim all these exact issues about me. That, even though I had wanted to work on consensus in the first place, and the IP lied about me, once they believed they had the upper hand, the IP mysteriously changed their tune. This could be because more than one individual is doing the writing on that IP. The tell here is in the comments Removed off topic comment, let us know when you want to contribute

These are the reasons why I didn't understand that while the IP was clearly attacking me, you decided to show up only on my talk page. That's the favoritism/disparity I was referring to, not the article itself. I'd never heard of that article's subject before making this account and it's clearly given too much WP:UNDUE by a few fringe groups, while most WP editors have little interest in it. My guess is that most sociologists are more interested in the dynamics of Wikipedia itself rather than the horrible inaccuracies WP creates with the sociology/psychology subjects written here. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 22:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained that I primarily commented here because you made a merge request that you did not provide any justification for. My comments were intended as advice not admonishment. Another editor has now commented and restored the merge tag, but you still need to add a comment on the talk page to argue for a merge. You should also add a note at Talk:Ambivalent sexism to direct readers to the merge discussion and probably at the WikiProjects to alert interested editors.

I have advised the IP editor to follow talk page guidelines after they removed your comments etc. There is a lot of talk and I missed some of the issues with their edits before. The IP editor has also had two of their talk page comments removed, once by another editor and once by you, probably inadvertently. You say they were trying to hide information when they changed the heading to "Misleading language", but their edit was accompanied by an apology and the original heading was not in accordance with talk page guidelines as it was an attack on you and not neutrally worded (they apologised and themselves changed the title, so there is no need for me to warn them unless this recurs). To take some heat out of this talk page, I have again changed the section heading to "Neutrality dispute" with the original title commented out. Using "us" is not by itself evidence of a shared account (by "us" they probably just mean editors reading the talk page) and they'd have to be using the same computer to have the same IP.

The IP editor may well have an agenda and may have come from Reddit, but it is possible for editors with competing agendas and no agenda alike to work together. Not all of their first series of edits were wrong: the paragraph they removed beginning "In contemporary research..." was too close in wording to the source text and one of the references was misattributed, for example. This dispute is only a week old and they're discussing the edits, even if some of their understanding of reliable sourcing guidelines is sketchy. Fyddlestiks is involved again, so stay calm and keep discussing the merge and sourcing. There is a risk of improper synthesis on this topic because it is so specific and there are relatively few sources directly discussing this effect in detail; a merge to Ambivalent sexism might better put this content into context.

UNDUE is about the weight given to content within an article, not the existence of articles or the attention editors give to them. I hope these comments are of some help. Fences&Windows 14:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fences and windows: I'm going to stop explaining myself to you because I believe this discussion as fallen into, "No, what I meant was," and, I'm not sure it matters all that much at this point. Also, I'm actually feeling more as the odd man out now, then I did before your last comments, so I'd rather quit while only 10% behind rather than 90% behind. Or, before it devolves into whether or not I can comprehend three syllable words! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI @MurderByDeadCopy

Hope you are doing well. Okay so we have done a lot of work on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harvey_Boulter entry. Can I possibly ask that you have a look at the entry to see if it looks okay?

Would really appreciate it. Might help me not getting beaten up again :-)

Regards CB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccboshoff (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]