225:, as you know and have stated before. I've been keeping up regularly with news relevant to the article and, although I don't believe the article had any neutrality problem in the first place, I did manage to track down a single reliable source with criticism, which I inserted and sourced in the article. I can and will ignore Cramyourspam's incessant insistence on my alleged affiliations to whoever and whatever he claims, but I'm still not comfortable with the situation because Cramyourspam isn't showing any intention of leaving the article alone. Although for the time being he isn't editing himself, he's now recruiting other editors to support him. I don't want any more unsourced (or blog-sourced) information in this BLP, and I don't mind talking out the issue with the user involved. But now the user has gone a step further and is trying to involve other editors in his quest to negate the subject's notability and the article's credibility. I find that frustrating. I know that those familiar with WP notability guidelines won't sanction what he says, but I'm tired of it. This has dragged on intermittently for weeks. Can anything be done to put this to rest now, or will we have to patiently wait until it dies down? I don't mind waiting, but after all this time, more of that seems unnecessary to me. What has experience taught you in similar situations?
535:
with a reasonable comment from
Oneusbukguy (I'm not sure if that is the right name) on his talk page to get an idea of how he conducts himself. Also the huge amount of nominations has been commented on by Papurusa who isn't in favour of event pages but this was also ignored. We would have been far more agreeable if he had informed us to start with but clearly finds event pages 'annoying' as he put in his own words so is clearly taking the whole martial arts thing quite personally. I know it takes two to tango and I am not blameless but the end result is that five years of work is being undone in the matter of weeks. The result is that three editors will shortly be leaving this website as we feel we cannot create anything without Libstar and his buddies nominating (and deleting) things with the seeming support of admin. Thanks.
334:
vote-based; I have done a bit of editing on pt.wiki, where majority votes with poor reasoning have either deleted good articles or saved bad ones (in my opinion, of course). But aside from all of this, I'm very concerned about the possibility of an AfD nomination since many real-life commitments have been significantly limiting my time here, and I'm afraid that I might not have adequate time to monitor such a discussion. And there's also the fact that I've spent so much time taking care of the article, sourcing it, and adding every bit of info I've found (including CYS's wishes for criticism and mention of the vanity gallery. Sometime after all of this began, a new article was published with some negative feedback, and I
365:"gave up" on the discussion page, he went ahead and asked that other user to get involved. I hope my initial post to you didn't sound like a request for administrative action; it was more of a question about what options were available. This is the first time I've ever been involved in a drawn-out dispute like this on WP, so I'm trying to understand if there is some less severe alternative to put an end to a headache without going to ANI (which I agree is unnecessary at the moment). I am a little annoyed at the (mild) personal attacks, but I know they could be worse and that his weak arguments probably won't convince many other users that I'm a COI editor. After all, anyone
279:
to be discussed or nominates it for deletion, it is unlikely to be productive for you to interact with him directly more. He has the ability to nominate the article for deletion (AfD) and if he does so you might want to comment on the AfD - but even then you don't really have to. Arguments made at AfD that ignore policy are ignored, and so far he hasn't made any policy-based arguments as to why the article should be deleted. Unless he comes up with some much better arguments, he would have no real chance at getting the article deleted at AfD.
561:
I've seen y'all talking about leaving
Knowledge to post them elsewhere, and although I would encourage you not to completely leave Knowledge, I would also encourage you to post stuff like what's currently being nominated for deletion elsewhere going forward. There are tons of sites that will appreciate content of the nature you guys have been generating and I'm sure there are plenty of people who would make use of it - but Knowledge has made a conscious decision not to be the default repository for everything.
394:
admins have broad discretionary power to totally ignore non-policy based arguments. I also the article watchlisted and will notice/be participating in any AfD - and am around enough that I won't accidentally miss it. I also gotta say, it confuses me that CYS's talk page talks about how he hates
Knowledge because he's fed up with deletionists, heh. (Sorry for any incoherence in this post - I've been traveling a ton and am totally zoinked.)
481:
299:
sense and although sometimes annoying things happen, I think the good of the project far outweighs the bad overall. BTW: I'm usually good at checking my talk page regularly, but if something comes up and I seem to have missed it, feel free to drop me an email. You can do so via a link on the lefthand toolbar from my userpage if you have an email address associated with your account.
547:
again, will step in and notify the person and ask him to do it going forward. I don't agree with him failing to notify people, and I doubt that his current nomination strategy is the best approach, but the attitude you guys have been adopting is going to limit the sympathy you get from most quarters.
364:
I'm going to ignore CYS's future comments (like his most recent on my talk page, to which you responded), because I think that might allow the conversation to die out, but I'm still not convinced the article is safe since he has put poorly sourced information in it before and because after he said he
298:
It is worth mentioning that it is possible that, somehow, the article would fail at AfD. I don't think it would, and I'm generally right about such guesses, but stranger things have happened. Even if that somehow happens, I would encourage you to stick around - usually, we're pretty decent at making
278:
I can understand why CYS's actions are irritating, but most of it is not going to be stuff you can outright stop. However, most of it, you can safely ignore. You have no obligation to interact with him on the talk page, and unless he starts making significant changes to the actual article that need
534:
Ok - point taken. He has put a number of mine and
Cyperus pages up for nomination and has not contacted me once on my talk page through this whole process despite repeated requests and has simply has said 'its not in the rules' so he doesn't need to do. You should also check on how he communicates
502:
I don't know if your referring to last weeks nominations or something more recent. If it is something recent I don't know what you are talking about because I haven't communicated with
Libstar for the past week and don't intend to as it is totally pointless. The only thing that gets me is that you
560:
Most (but not all) of the things he's nominating for deletion really do not meet our inclusion guidelines. It's not a slur on their value, it's just that they don't meet long-established guidelines considered to represent the community's consensus as to what should be included and what shouldn't.
319:
Thanks for your reply. I'll ask about the image, since I also am not well versed in image policy; I know the basics (enough that I felt comfortable uploading it), but I'm certainly far from an expert and so will verify your point with someone who is. I may see about uploading a low-resolution image
238:
Hi Arma - I'm afraid the brevity was iphone-induced, rather than voluntary. I'll post a longer response when I get home later today, but in the meantime, I would encourage you not to stress over it. No matter how much he posts, his posts alone can't do anything - to delete it he would have to run
393:
I don't think you have too much to worry about in an AfD. Usually enwiki afds are pretty good about sticking to at least mostly policy based reasoning. Since it's not a majority vote, non-policy based support of other people doesn't influence much unless no one else is paying attention - closing
546:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I've been busy. That's pretty lame. I would agree that notification of the creator of the page should be in most cases a requirement of the deletion process, it is unfortunate that it is not. I will start to monitor his contributions, and if he does so
270:
image in the article. As far as I'm aware photographs like that are considered reproductions of the original artwork, so as long as the artwork is still under copyright we would need the permission of the rights holder (Andre or her parents) before we would be able to use the photograph. It's
333:
I'm also fairly confident that any AfD nomination would not be successful, but given that I see CYS soliciting support from others, I am a little worried that he could stir up the idea of false support for himself. I am glad that here on en.wiki, AfD discussions are argument-based rather than
282:
The addition of unsourced material (or material that isn't sourced to BLP standards) is a concern for any BLP, but it hasn't happened much yet. I have the article watchlisted as I'm sure you do, and it's not a big deal to remove poorly sourced stuff as it crops up - it only takes a couple of
519:
diff on marty's talkpage - the personal attack rules don't only apply when you are directly communicating with someone - if you call someone a douchebag anywhere on-wiki, you're likely to eventually pull a block for it. Is
Libstar really still AfDing things without notifying the creators?
286:
All of his COI accusations are certainly at least verging on violating a couple of policies, but unless they become substantially more offensive or persistent ignoring them is probably the best course of action. He's definitely not doing a very good job at
162:
Fair enough. I mostly corrected just because I didn't think it ultimately mattered and figured if I left it as vandalism there was half a chance the IP would take it as something to start whining about to distract from the actual issue.
146:
You were right the first time, clear vandalism, not just because of the edit summary but because there was an earlier consensus that it was a BLP violation. Edit-warring from multiple IPs, probably a banned/blocked user.
503:
guys are fine with him nominating pages without consulting the authors while any upset this has caused is ignored. Have you talked to
Libstar and said perhaps you better cool it on the nominating? Cheers.
183:
Hey Kevin, thanks for the feedback on
Sublime Magazine! If I go through it again to take out any non-neutral wording of the magazine would it be possible for you to remove the tag you put in it?
239:
it through a full AfD where his opinion would only be one of many (and opinions that ignore policy are generally ignored.) Anyway, iphone induced brevity is fun - I'll be back around later.
271:
outside of my normal area of focus so I could be wrong and thus haven't taken it down or anything. Unless you know positively that my understanding is incorrect, we should probably ask at
221:. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this. The debate keeps going in circles because Cramyourspam continues to put forth variants of the same argument that are all irrelevant under
429:
Hello to you too. I'll leave my own contact info below; I'm staying in Boston until 15th, after that 'normal service' will be resumed (ie, I'm very often available on IRC). Cheers,
369:
interested could look at my contribution history (past the first page, obviously) on en.wiki and on pt.wiki to see that the topics I edit are diverse and basically all unrelated to
489:
454:
295:
guideline, but since none of his edits are outrageously over the line trying to get the policies enforced strictly would create a lot more drama than it would stop.
283:
buttons. If unsourced stuff starts popping up a bunch, there's other stuff we can do to stop it, but until it does a bunch we don't need to worry about it too much.
214:
122:
110:
126:
106:
414:
403:
388:
260:
118:
370:
206:
184:
218:
570:
172:
266:
Hi Arma - I'm at a real computer now, yay. First, for something unrelated to the rest of the issues here - I don't believe we can use
356:
352:
348:
335:
233:
529:
308:
248:
378:
Well, thank you again for your help and advice. I hope this issue exhausts itself soon, and I'm grateful for your comments.
272:
516:
86:
37:
156:
320:
of the painting, since I have seen justification of low-res artwork use in many articles (for example, images like
446:
75:
26:
497:
197:
192:
359:). I'm sure you've already seen the bulk of the drama surrounding that on the article's talk page, though.
468:
347:
edit the article with some negative information sourced only by that private blog he has often quoted (
338:). I'm sure you've heard variants of the "but-I've-worked-so-hard" speech a thousand times, though.
566:
525:
424:
399:
304:
244:
168:
141:
114:
82:
33:
410:
384:
256:
229:
222:
152:
8:
540:
508:
61:
210:
188:
21:
562:
521:
395:
300:
240:
164:
178:
148:
536:
504:
460:
439:
275:
for clarification from someone with more experience in the realm of images.
325:
292:
288:
267:
432:
205:
Thank you for your calm, succinct comments in the disussions about
321:
291:
and he also doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to the
66:
488:
453:
64:
to this revision, which may differ significantly from the
351:) and put a groundless autobiography tag on the article (
213:claimed to be dropping the issue on the article's
459:The best way to contact Chzz is IRC (text-chat),
95:
52:
47:
73:
14:
74:Revision as of 04:42, 14 July 2011 by
217:, but I'm afraid that intentions are
44:
25:
343:This discussion did start after CYS
17:
408:Thanks, Kevin. Advice appreciated.
135:
104:
487:
452:
136:
586:
60:. The present address (URL) is a
479:
13:
1:
7:
24:of this page, as edited by
10:
591:
93:
50:
571:04:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
530:16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
480:
447:18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
209:. I was glad to see that
193:09:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
415:17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
404:03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
389:00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
309:23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
261:17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
254:Okay, thank you, Kevin.
249:13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
234:00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
173:23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
157:05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
543:) 18:24, 12 July 2011
511:) 08:40, 10 July 2011
492:
457:
336:added this information
96:→Re: Personal Attacks
53:→Re: Personal Attacks
491:
456:
515:I was talking about
498:Re: Personal Attacks
475:Third-best is email
198:End not in sight ...
289:assuming good faith
111:← Previous revision
45:04:42, 14 July 2011
493:
458:
445:
582:
486:
484:
483:
482:
474:
471:
465:
444:
442:
436:
430:
273:this noticeboard
123:Newer revision →
101:
99:
98:
90:
69:
67:current revision
59:
58:
56:
55:
46:
42:
41:
590:
589:
585:
584:
583:
581:
580:
579:
500:
495:
494:
478:
476:
472:
467:
466:Second-best is
463:
440:
434:
431:
427:
425:Re. hi / summit
411:Armadillopteryx
385:Armadillopteryx
257:Armadillopteryx
230:Armadillopteryx
200:
181:
144:
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
115:Latest revision
103:
102:
94:
91:
80:
78:
65:
51:
48:
31:
29:
12:
11:
5:
588:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
499:
496:
451:
450:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
380:
379:
375:
374:
361:
360:
340:
339:
330:
329:
316:
315:
264:
263:
199:
196:
180:
177:
176:
175:
143:
142:Jona Lendering
140:
138:
76:
62:permanent link
27:
16:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
587:
572:
568:
564:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
545:
544:
542:
538:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
518:
514:
513:
512:
510:
506:
490:
470:
462:
455:
449:
448:
443:
438:
437:
416:
413:
412:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
392:
391:
390:
387:
386:
382:
381:
377:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
337:
332:
331:
327:
326:Pablo Picasso
323:
318:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
306:
302:
296:
294:
290:
284:
280:
276:
274:
269:
262:
259:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
236:
235:
232:
231:
226:
224:
223:WP:NOTABILITY
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
195:
194:
190:
186:
174:
170:
166:
161:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
139:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
97:
88:
84:
79:
72:
71:
68:
63:
54:
39:
35:
30:
23:
501:
469:my talk page
433:
428:
409:
383:
371:Aelita Andre
366:
344:
297:
285:
281:
277:
265:
255:
237:
228:
227:
211:Cramyourspam
207:Aelita Andre
204:
201:
185:Steve Curtis
182:
145:
137:
77:Kevin Gorman
28:Kevin Gorman
22:old revision
19:
18:
20:This is an
485:live.co.uk
202:Hi Kevin,
149:Dougweller
537:jsmith006
505:jsmith006
314:Hi Kevin,
219:otherwise
215:talk page
293:civility
87:contribs
38:contribs
179:Sublime
367:really
563:Kevin
522:Kevin
435:Chzz
396:Kevin
301:Kevin
241:Kevin
165:Kevin
567:talk
541:talk
526:talk
517:this
509:talk
477:Chzz
461:here
400:talk
357:here
355:and
353:here
349:here
322:this
305:talk
268:this
245:talk
189:talk
169:talk
153:talk
127:diff
121:) |
119:diff
107:diff
83:talk
34:talk
345:did
324:in
43:at
569:)
528:)
441:►
402:)
328:).
307:)
247:)
191:)
171:)
155:)
113:|
109:)
85:|
36:|
565:(
539:(
524:(
507:(
473:·
464:·
398:(
373:.
303:(
243:(
187:(
167:(
151:(
129:)
125:(
117:(
105:(
100:)
92:(
89:)
81:(
70:.
57:)
49:(
40:)
32:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.