User talk:Colonel Warden

Systemic corruption

Colonel, if one wanted to make a list of countries that suffer notably from systemic corruption (not that one should, mind you!), this search would probably allow you to include every country in the world, and the UN as well. That's pretty sad. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is indeed a lot of it about. I have added similar searches to the article's talk page. Warden (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ziegelburg

Given that we are supposed to be working together to build wikipedia, informing me there is a problem with an article is different to your belligerent AFD as if its against me. If articles have problems I am more than happy to look into them and if I agree will take the appropriate course of action. Please consider this in the future as unnecessary AFDs waste an awful lot of time. If sources cannot be found for an article to even verify its existence then they should obviously be deleted, I believed the castle was created from a missing list♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by a "missing list"? Are there more members requiring attention? Warden (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

List of castles in Austria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. It was amusing to find that the original Schloss Tyrol, after which the province was named, was not included. I have added it, along with a source.

Most of the entries seem to be blue links but how many of those have been constructed from the list, like Ziegelburg was? We should investigate further as, lacking good sources, the list does not seem reliable. Warden (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The amount of people actively working on Austrian related articles is apparently zero. Its sad that we are missing out so badly on German speaking contributors to such parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I speak German, I'll take a look. As an aside, Llandovery Castle could use some attention, seems like that would be right up you and Warden's alley. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Britannia Coco-nut Dancers‎

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nhat Nam

Nhat_Nam

You changed article about "traditional Vietnamese martial art" to "region in the north of Vietnam, near China" but you forgot about removing interwiki to enwiki in all linked wikipedias Bulwersator (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic's name is unchanged and so the interwiki links can remain. If multiple topics share this name then we may expect dab pages to be used. What does Ad: mean as a prefix? Warden (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"The topic's name is unchanged and so the interwiki links can remain" - it is completely untrue. Disambigs are used when multiple articles are present on wikipedia about this topis (at least it is method used on plwiki) Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@ad - I will fix this problem in my script, thanks Bulwersator (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nhat Namis a Vietnamese name and so will be rendered similarly in other wikis which use the latin alphabet. My work here indicates that there is at least one valid topic which we might have under this title. It may be that there are multiple topics, in which case a dba page would be used to disambiguate them. In all cases, interwiki links will be appropriate and so should remain. Warden (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Buran_Origin_of_Death

Yes I know that my grammar is poor, this huge discussion was completely unexpected. But can you point the most outrageous error in my statements? Bulwersator (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As an example, "can you point the most outrageous error" would be better as "can you point out the most outrageous error". See phrasal verb for an explanation of the general concept. Learning all such idioms isn't easy but so it goes. Warden (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Colonel Warden/Buran Origin of Death to Origin of death

Colonel Warden;
Please do not move this out of your user space again. By moving it directly back into main space after restoration, you've abused a bit of trust. When you finish doing whatever you'd like to do, we'll take the page directly to AfD and have a consensus-gatherin' exercise.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I did not move it "directly back". I put some significant effort into widening the scope of the topic, copy-editing and adding sources and significant content. I moved it back into mainspace after the quality of the article been significantly improved, because this is where articles are supposed to be worked on. I have continued to work upon the article there.

Your proposal to return the article to AFD is improper because that process is for articles which are to be deleted, not articles which are thought to be satisfactory. DRV is a possibility but I had thought to spare you this as, if we go there, the correctness of your close will be challenged.

I shall do some more work on the article today as I was thinking of taking the article to DYK. That process has a 5 day deadline and I am keen that this opportunity not be lost due to procrastination. The DYK process requires an independent review of the article and its quality. Will that be acceptable as a staging-post?

Warden (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I presumed that you'd be doing the accepted process of rewriting then taking it to deletion review. Instead you made one edit and moved it back into mainspace. This was an abuse of the courtesy I extended to you, and not terribly respectful to the others who participated in the deletion discussion.

I'm not at all fussed about deletion review, it's hardly a punitive process. Take that route if you feel like it, but I think you'll at most get a collective *shrug* as you've already been provided with the material. I'm actually being generous by saying that this will be taken straight to AfD, in that this skips the step of deletion review, which could run for days and days...

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• That single edit represented the work of an hour or more and contained numerous changes. In the course of preparing that edit - checking links, sources, images &c. - I was alarmed when it seemed that I might have lost my working copy, as sometimes happens when one has too many browser tabs open. I was then most concerned to save the work and get back into the mainstream asap, so that it would be safe. I generally dislike working in userspace because many features don't work properly there - incoming links, categories, templates &c.

Anyway, I shall continue to flesh out the article and plan to place it back into mainspace when it seems ready for DYK. I would hope to do this sooner rather than later as it seems best to act while the matter is fresh but I am mindful of the motto festina lente. I shall notify you when this is done and you may then take it again to AFD, if you wish.

Warden (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Gutenberg project has some of the guy's books available. [1]

He does seem rather racist, as was common around that time. [2]

“ Lecture II.—The Savage Conception of Death

The subject of the lectures the belief in immortality and the worship of the dead among certain of the lower races, p. 31; question of the nature and origin of death, 31 sq.; universal interest of the question, 32 sq.; the belief in immortality general among mankind, 33; belief of many savages that death is not natural and that they would never die if their lives were not cut prematurely short by sorcery,

”

A lot of open source text to go through to find information about different groups. Too long to fit everything on one page, so perhaps separate pages for related groups. He calls them "savages" a lot. But even National Geographic had racism in it back in the 1890's, I having their hundred and whatever year collecting, and seeing them saying things such as "the Africans are deficient in their thinking ability" and how "Asia and Africa have long been populated by the inferior races." Doesn't invalidate his work though. Dream Focus 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As article's creator, I have to ask, wouldn't a rename be in order?

Would Origin of death stories not be better if simply renamed? The four classifications system for death myths or death myth classifications? I asked on the anthropologist wikiproject if people still used this classification method. It might have an official name even. As long as it has a similar title to the other article, people who apparently haven't read both of them through, will get confused and argue they are the same. Dream Focus 16:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The first name chosen for the article was Origin of death which seems simple and similar to titles like Origin of birds. Frazer had more than four classifications - the four listed were just the ones with names. His book then goes on to list numerous similar stories which are more miscellaneous, not having as strong a similarity as the two messengers &c. For more on such classification, see Aarne–Thompson classification system, which has 2500 different archetypes. Warden (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your rescue tagging of List of fictional cats and other felines

You recently added a rescue tag to List of fictional cats and other felines. The fact that you added the rescue tag is not problematic. The fact that you deleted a cleanup tag while you added the rescue tag is problematic. You might recall a lengthy RFC/U which took place on this very behavior: removing cleanup tags without addressing the problem to which they refer. Unless I missed it in a previous edit, you did not add references or footnotes to the article, yet you removed the tag. You may have noticed that the first 9 sections of this article (some of which are extremely long, and comprise well more than half of the article) are completely unreferenced. Can you explain why you did this, and why further discussions should not be started to topic ban you from modifying or deleting cleanup tags on any article? —SW— ^spout 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A very brief look through your last 50 edits reveals another example. Cleanup tags don't always require talk page discussion, especially when their purpose is obvious (have you ever seen the lead of an article with a large, extremely detailed bulleted list in it?). And again, you did nothing to clean up the article before removing the cleanup tag. Will a deeper look reveal that your editing patterns have regressed back into serial disruption? —SW— ^comment 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• That tag said "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (Consider using more specific clean up instructions.) Please improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions." This wording seemed quite vague and uncertain as to what the problem might be, and without specific details, did not seem actionable. As I wrote much of the article, I am quite familiar with its details and was not aware of any particular cleanup actions which were needed. The talk page for that article just contains another copy of the same tag, which seems enough in this case. Warden (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that the JW Cameron case is less severe than the List of cats case, however given your history, you'd think you would want to play it on the safe side. And, of course, you've been told dozens of times that cleanup tags don't go on talk pages. You seem to have an incredible ability to selectively forget things like that. —SW— ^gossip 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The rescue tag performs the similar function of inviting editors to improve the article. It is redundant to have two tags repeating themself and the rescue tag does the job better during the AFD period. When that period is over, the need for remaining tags can be reviewed in the light of the discussion. Warden (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is obviously not the way that cleanup tags are normally treated, and I know you are aware of this. Cleanup tags are not removed in place of a rescue tag, ever. They do not perform similar functions to the point that one can replace the other, especially given the fact that the rescue tag is always temporarily applied and removed after a week (do you really think the closing admin would restore the {{more footnotes}} tag at the end of the AfD, or that a discussion would start regarding restoration of the tag?). You've been here more than long enough and have received untold quantities of warning about this exact type of behavior. I'm not going to argue with you about it, because experience has shown such efforts to be entirely unfruitful. I'd like to see other impartial user's opinions here, and depending on the reaction, will recommend starting an ArbCom case or other such measures. —SW— ^gab 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The previous tag invited editors to add inline citations, which is exactly the sort of work which ARS editors customarily perform in such cases. See, for example, List of bespectacled baseball players - another article currently at AFD, which you have just followed me to. I added inline citations of entries there to establish the article more firmly and expect this similar process to take place in the case of the cats. This is normal rescue work and the rescue tag is better for this purpose because it contains search links which assist in the finding of appropriate sources to be cited. Warden (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you think the rescue tag is "better" is irrelevant, there is no consensus for your preference (and you've had dozens of editors tell you this already in the aforementioned RFC/U, so claiming ignorance at this point isn't going to fly). The point is that you removed the footnote tag without addressing the problem. What happens if no one comes to the article to "rescue" it, and the rescue tag is removed after the AfD is over. Were you planning on revisiting the page to restore the footnote tag? I highly doubt it. The tag would have been removed permanently without anyone having addressed the problem of referencing in the article, and this was clearly your intent. The rescue tag is not a substitute for a specific cleanup tag, and you've been here long enough to know that. Either you are purposely trying to marginalize cleanup tags again, or you are acting out of gross incompetence for how cleanup tags work. In either case, you shouldn't be touching cleanup tags anymore (in my opinion). —SW— ^talk 18:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• We should note that SnottyWong recently removed a cleanup tag on an article himself. His position seems to be that such action is ok when he does it but not when I do it - see WP:POT. Warden (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, I don't have a long history of trying to quietly marginalize cleanup tags to the point that I was blocked and had an extensive RFC/U on the topic. Secondly, my removal of the rescue tag (which is not really a "cleanup tag" in the same sense of the word as {{more footnotes}} is, even though it is a maintenance tag) is currently being discussed at length and there is quite a bit of support from the community on the removal. So, I think the two situations are quite different. If you receive the same level of support on your removal of the footnote cleanup tag, I'll gladly back off. —SW— ^express 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Snotty Wong is now canvassing hostile admins. Given his history of personal antagonism, his actions seem contrary to WP:HARASS. Warden (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to lodge a complaint if you think I'm harassing you or canvassing "hostile admins", and see if it sticks. I've simply sent a message to the same 3 admins who were involved in the previous iteration of similar behavior by you, for which you were blocked. I could send a message to all of the hundreds of editors who were involved in the previous RFC/U if you prefer. —SW— ^speak 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Colonel, I don't think any of us want to go down that route again - would it be so difficult for you to leave maintenance tags in place when you add the rescue tag, and when you remove one that you believe is no longer valid to leave a descriptive edit summary? Then we can all go back to productive things. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is certainly better to edit constructively than to bicker in this way. As a gesture of good faith, I have added two good sources and three inline citations to the article in question. I had already mentioned these sources in the AFD but the expected rush of cat-lovers has not yet appeared and so it seems good to get them well established in the article itself. Warden (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to continue to misunderstand. Three sources barely makes a dent in an article that large. The first roughly 2/3 of the article doesn't have a single citation. You think three inline cites is enough to correct that problem? A gesture of good faith would have been to restore the cleanup tag. —SW— ^confer 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The list doesn't really need inline citations for many or most of the entries, such as the Cheshire Cat. Note that that it is our policy that facts should be verifiable, not that we actually have to verify them all with inline citations. No, the top priority for the article IMO is a good lead image. I have found a good colourful one now and it already looks much more cheerful... Warden (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Really, per Black Kite, you shouldn't be the one doing removal of questionable cleanup tags. If you want to remove a tag, please make sure that you've so thoroughly addressed the issue and documented your addressing the issue that anyone who complains about your removal will BOOMERANG themselves. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• Here's a few more from the past few months: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Clearly, this is not just an isolated incident. CW has learned nothing from the RFC/U. —SW— ^yak 05:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bit of an overstatement. The widest point of agreement at the RfC was that the Colonel ought to avoid removing tags in a way that could be seen as stealthy. In all your examples the edit summary clearly says "– tag". FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks incorrect to me, the section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel_Warden#Outside_view_by_Bali_ultimate had the largest number of endorsements, and it's thrust was "This narrow issue is part of a much larger, long-standing pattern." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I said "widest" not "most numerically supported". The suggestion that the Colonel's tag removals should be clearly indicated in edit summaries was agreed with by a wide cross section of the community - including several constructive editors like DGG, WSC, MQS - not just the usual deletionist battle grounders. BTW youv've incorrectly linked to a main space article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank for letting me know about the link. Apologies for my mistaking your intent in "widest," it was fairly ambiguous. So you're saying that you don't think that that section of the request for comment is representative? And further, that those who endorsed that section aren't "constructive editors," am I understanding that correctly?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Snotty mentioned several hundred editors taking part , so I wouldnt say a group of 34 or who endorse one extreme view are representative of the RfC and much less of the community as a whole. I dont mean to say all who endorsed the view are unconstructive, a few of them I recognise as generally good editors. But the view itself was extreme and provocative IMO, and I dont think youre helping by referring to it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean "representative" in that sense, but in the "unbiased sample" sense. Sorry, didn't mean to be unhelpful, was just a misunderstanding of your "widest." Nothing to see here, moving along... - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I should have took more care to make my meaning clear. Hope you have a good weekend! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The {{more footnotes}} tag is for articles where there are references that lack inline citations. When the Colonel removed the tag there was only one reference in the reference section which was refered to by over two dozen inline citations! So he was well within his rights to remove it. ( Ideally the section header needed changing as the "Notes" section was really a "Notes and citations" section – will take care of this in a min.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS - do agree with Black Kite though, probably best to remove tags with a seperate edit as a way to possibly avoid these time wasting diversions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not going to get into arguing minutiae. The point is that cleanup tags are being removed without addressing the problems they point out, when those problems clearly exist. There doesn't seem to be wide support for escalating this, so I'll drop it and instead give a clear, unambiguous warning which cannot possibly be neither misunderstood nor overlooked in future proceedings: Colonel Warden, please do not remove or otherwise modify cleanup templates unless you have fully corrected the problem indicated by that template. This includes (but is not limited to) the following requests:

• Please do not replace cleanup tags with the {{Rescue}} template.
• Please do not remove entire {{Multiple issues}} tags unless you have addressed all of the issues listed.
• Please do not move cleanup tags to the talk page of an article.
• Please do not move cleanup tags to the bottom of an article (unless that is their normal position, e.g. {{Uncategorized}})
• Please do not remove cleanup tags just because the issue isn't being actively discussed on the talk page, particularly if the problem to which the tag refers is obviously still affecting the article.
• Please do not remove cleanup tags that have only been partially addressed (e.g. suppose there's a very long article which only has one reference, and it has a {{Refimprove}} tag. Don't remove the tag if you only add one or two references to the article).

Given your history, if you are in doubt as to whether it is appropriate to remove a cleanup tag, it's best to not remove it. Instead, ask a trusted colleague first or start a discussion on the talk page of the article. If you have any questions or if you think that any of the above requests are unreasonable, I'm more than willing to discuss it with you right here. I will be occasionally monitoring your contributions, and if I see any more disruptive editing like this, I will most likely escalate the issue to either ANI or ArbCom. I recognize that I am not in charge of you and I'm not an admin, and I assure you that I'm not trying to threaten you or be the WikiPolice. But, I will not stand idly by and watch someone unilaterally remove helpful templates (which another editor took the time to insert) and undo much of the work of new page patrollers, simply for ideological reasons. —SW— ^gab 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

Please do not edit war, especially 1) to institute a change (see WP:BRD), which 2) is under discussion on the talk page even as we speak and 3) is currently against the consensus in that discussion. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Your position is not supported by the facts, as I have explained on the relevant talk page. Warden (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please direct me to the policy that says your interpretation of the facts dictates what changes are made to policy pages. You know as well as I do that consensus is needed for such changes. Make your case, and if you convince enough people then great, but if not you can't insist on your version. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• The relevant policy is WP:NOTLAW which explains that our guidelines and policies follow actual practise rather than determining it. It states, "When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed." and such action seems appropriate in this case. Warden (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• "Is found to have occurred," does not mean "has been deemed to have occurred by grand master Colonel Warden despite the disagreement of a majority of other community members discussing the matter with him." You still need a consensus to make policy changes.Griswaldo (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• See also the policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. My understanding is that the disputed text is novel and so should be removed as it lacks consensus and factual support. Warden (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Brought to you by Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Input needed on Beast Wars Maximal deletion

I noticed you had an opinion on the proposed deletion on the article on Fuzors. The same nominator also proposed the deletion of the article on Maximals, saying they are not notable. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers) Your input would be welcome, since there are few voices in this article yet. Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)