233:, 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?
543:
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.
342:
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
373:"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
287:
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.
402:
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.)
489:
307:
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.
372:
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
306:
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
286:
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
542:
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
510:
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
327:
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
246:
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
401:
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
278:
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
341:
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
290:
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
527:
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?
294:
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
170:
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.
154:
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.
511:
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.
191:
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?
247:
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.
279:
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
229:. 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
437:
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,
377:
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
497:
462:
303:
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.
291:
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.
222:
130:
118:
134:
114:
422:
411:
396:
268:
126:
378:
214:
192:
226:
180:
274:
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
364:
360:
356:
343:
241:
537:
316:
256:
386:
Well, thank you again for your help and advice. I hope this issue exhausts itself soon, and I'm grateful for your comments.
101:
54:
280:
524:
90:
37:
164:
328:
of the painting, since I have seen justification of low-res artwork use in many articles (for example, images like
454:
79:
26:
505:
205:
200:
367:). I'm sure you've already seen the bulk of the drama surrounding that on the article's talk page, though.
476:
355:
edit the article with some negative information sourced only by that private blog he has often quoted (
346:). I'm sure you've heard variants of the "but-I've-worked-so-hard" speech a thousand times, though.
105:
58:
533:
432:
407:
312:
252:
176:
149:
122:
86:
33:
418:
392:
264:
237:
230:
160:
8:
548:
516:
65:
218:
196:
21:
529:
403:
308:
248:
172:
186:
156:
544:
512:
468:
447:
97:
50:
283:
for clarification from someone with more experience in the realm of images.
333:
300:
296:
275:
440:
213:
Thank you for your calm, succinct comments in the disussions about
329:
299:
and he also doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to the
70:
496:
461:
68:
to this revision, which may differ significantly from the
359:) and put a groundless autobiography tag on the article (
221:claimed to be dropping the issue on the article's
467:The best way to contact Chzz is IRC (text-chat),
47:
77:
14:
78:Revision as of 20:54, 13 July 2011 by
225:, but I'm afraid that intentions are
44:
25:
351:This discussion did start after CYS
17:
416:Thanks, Kevin. Advice appreciated.
143:
112:
495:
460:
144:
563:
108:) to last version by Kgorman-ucb)
64:. The present address (URL) is a
61:) to last version by Kgorman-ucb)
487:
13:
1:
7:
24:of this page, as edited by
10:
568:
538:16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
488:
455:18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
217:. I was glad to see that
201:09:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
423:17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
412:03:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
397:00:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
317:23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
269:17:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
262:Okay, thank you, Kevin.
257:13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
242:00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
181:23:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
165:05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
519:) 08:40, 10 July 2011
500:
465:
344:added this information
551:) 18:24, 12 July 2011
499:
464:
523:I was talking about
506:Re: Personal Attacks
483:Third-best is email
206:End not in sight ...
297:assuming good faith
119:← Previous revision
45:20:54, 13 July 2011
501:
466:
453:
559:
494:
492:
491:
490:
482:
479:
473:
452:
450:
444:
438:
281:this noticeboard
131:Newer revision →
109:
94:
73:
71:current revision
63:
62:
46:
42:
41:
567:
566:
562:
561:
560:
558:
557:
556:
508:
503:
502:
486:
484:
480:
475:
474:Second-best is
471:
448:
442:
439:
435:
433:Re. hi / summit
419:Armadillopteryx
393:Armadillopteryx
265:Armadillopteryx
238:Armadillopteryx
208:
189:
152:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
123:Latest revision
111:
110:
95:
84:
82:
69:
48:
31:
29:
12:
11:
5:
565:
555:
554:
553:
552:
507:
504:
459:
458:
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
388:
387:
383:
382:
369:
368:
348:
347:
338:
337:
324:
323:
272:
271:
207:
204:
188:
185:
184:
183:
151:
150:Jona Lendering
148:
146:
102:Negativecharge
80:
66:permanent link
55:Negativecharge
27:
16:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
564:
550:
546:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
526:
522:
521:
520:
518:
514:
498:
478:
470:
463:
457:
456:
451:
446:
445:
424:
421:
420:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
395:
394:
390:
389:
385:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
345:
340:
339:
335:
334:Pablo Picasso
331:
326:
325:
321:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
304:
302:
298:
292:
288:
284:
282:
277:
270:
267:
266:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
244:
243:
240:
239:
234:
232:
231:WP:NOTABILITY
228:
224:
220:
216:
211:
203:
202:
198:
194:
182:
178:
174:
169:
168:
167:
166:
162:
158:
147:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
107:
103:
99:
92:
88:
83:
76:
75:
72:
67:
60:
56:
52:
39:
35:
30:
23:
509:
477:my talk page
441:
436:
417:
391:
379:Aelita Andre
374:
352:
305:
293:
289:
285:
273:
263:
245:
236:
235:
219:Cramyourspam
215:Aelita Andre
212:
209:
193:Steve Curtis
190:
153:
145:
81:Kevin Gorman
28:Kevin Gorman
22:old revision
19:
18:
20:This is an
493:live.co.uk
210:Hi Kevin,
157:Dougweller
545:jsmith006
513:jsmith006
322:Hi Kevin,
227:otherwise
223:talk page
100:edits by
53:edits by
301:civility
98:Reverted
91:contribs
51:Reverted
38:contribs
187:Sublime
375:really
530:Kevin
443:Chzz
404:Kevin
309:Kevin
249:Kevin
173:Kevin
549:talk
534:talk
525:this
517:talk
485:Chzz
469:here
408:talk
365:here
363:and
361:here
357:here
330:this
313:talk
276:this
253:talk
197:talk
177:talk
161:talk
135:diff
129:) |
127:diff
115:diff
106:talk
87:talk
59:talk
34:talk
353:did
332:in
43:at
536:)
449:►
410:)
336:).
315:)
255:)
199:)
179:)
163:)
121:|
117:)
89:|
36:|
547:(
532:(
515:(
481:·
472:·
406:(
381:.
311:(
251:(
195:(
175:(
159:(
137:)
133:(
125:(
113:(
104:(
96:(
93:)
85:(
74:.
57:(
49:(
40:)
32:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.