Roxy the dog (talk | contribs) |
Roxy the dog (talk | contribs) →Wars and rumors of wars: Hi 74 ! |
||
Line 718: | Line 718: | ||
::Further review of my source shows that "BBC World Service" might be radio instead of teevee. My source is impeccable, but is a more-or-less primary one. I don't want to share it here, but could do so by double top secret email. (No sharing Source's contact info, fer example). It might take your breath away, which might be a good thing, since I hear that long-windedness is disruptive, cause for banning, etc. (though I don't have a [[WP:RS]] on that). ;-) [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
::Further review of my source shows that "BBC World Service" might be radio instead of teevee. My source is impeccable, but is a more-or-less primary one. I don't want to share it here, but could do so by double top secret email. (No sharing Source's contact info, fer example). It might take your breath away, which might be a good thing, since I hear that long-windedness is disruptive, cause for banning, etc. (though I don't have a [[WP:RS]] on that). ;-) [[User:Lou Sander|Lou Sander]] ([[User talk:Lou Sander|talk]]) 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::As a old time radio nut [[User:Lou Sander|Lou |
:::As a old time radio nut [[User:Lou Sander|Lou]], you know full well that BBC World Service is radio. --[[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy the dog]] ([[User talk:Roxy the dog|resonate]]) 22:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
== RE: justice wikia == |
== RE: justice wikia == |
Revision as of 22:32, 1 November 2013
testing.
June 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please refrain from engaging in a general discussion of the topic in the article page as you did in Federal Reserve Note. Instead, use the appropriate talk page. Please remember that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Hi Barek. I agree with all your points. But did you actually look at my edit, and at the prior version? The article already had HTML comments embedded in the bottom of one of the paragraphs, particularly instructing me *not* to make the edit -- addition of citation needed tag -- that I was about to make. :-) So, I responded in kind, with a second html comment, at the end of which I suggested we take our discussion to the talk-page of the article, work out the correct form that the article should take, and then eliminate the inline HTML comments. When I attempted to copy my stuff into the talk-page, I started getting fatal errors (large portions of wikipedia were down for the last 30 mins or thereabouts). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like your timezone is California, and since it is nearly midnight there, you might be asleep, and thus your watchlist alarm not helping me. Anyways, I guess I'll try to proceed without additional guidance... my current plan is to put some info in the talk-page of the FeRN article, and then insert the ((citation-needed)) tag again into the article itself, but skip the addition of the second HTML comment. However, the original HTML comment -- by an unknown prior editor who apparently got tired of citation-needed tags being added to their pet paragraph -- will still remain embedded in the article body, per the most recent edit by Barek. Let me know if you wanted it to happen some other way. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, yes, it was late here and I had gone to bed. Feel free to write up your concerns on the article talk page. My sole concern was the back/forth discussion forming in hidden text - it clutters article pages and can be hard to track down later to clean-up. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that using hidden-HTML-comments is the wrong way to discuss an article... and that the talk-page is the correct place for such discussions. I even said those exact things, if memory serves, in my own hidden-HTML-comment, namely that we (myself and the still-anonymous author(s) of the original hidden-HTML-comment) should take this to the talk-page, and then rewrite the paragraph so that it would no longer need HTML-comments, with luck. So I'm sort of at a loss of how you are suggesting I proceed.
- If I just add cite-needed tags, as I originally intended to do, I am violating the stern instructions of the existing hidden-HTML-comment ... which you left in there, during your revert. Was that intentional, i.e. you think the orig hidden-HTML-comment belongs there, and were merely objecting to my addition of a second hidden-HTML-comment? I can see how that is a valid stance to take: too many hidden-HTML-comments constitutes clutter, but one short one is okay.
- Or, was your reversion to the immediate prior article-version more a decision of convenience, and if you had more time you would have erased the existing hidden-HTML-comment, to which I was responding? I can also see how *that* would be a valid stance to take: any hidden-HTML-comments, regardless of length, are Bad(tm). Personally, I would lean towards the former stance, since although wiki-editors *should* check the talk-page before making edits, most of them will not, so sometimes a brief hidden-HTML-comment that all editors will most likely see during their actual editing operations makes sense.
- That said, the *particular* hidden-HTML-comment that currently exists at the FeRN article is certainly not NPOV, and needs a rewrite for correctness and politeness, if not outright elimination. Anyways, I don't know if you have the time or interest in reading the actual comments, or my post to the talk-page about the details of this actual edit. If so, that's fine. But in any case, I'd please like to know your personal stance (or the general consensus of wikipedia editors if such a thing exists) on whether all hidden-HTML-comments are Bad(tm), or if sometimes they are acceptable, if kept short and sweet, and recent edit-war history justifies their existence. If they are sometimes okay, is there a template for them, which is reasonably polite and neutral, something like this: " (!-- note as of yyyy-mm-dd added by wiki_username_goes_here , BEFORE editing this paragraph please read the 'mcculloch' subsection of the talk-page for this article, which can be done by clicking the 'talk' button at the top of the article --) "
- Thanks for your assistance. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page KOffice has been reverted.
Your edit here to KOffice was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://userbase.kde.org/KOffice/Download) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
- Dear XLinkBot, thank you for you attempted assistance. In this case, your revert was incorrect, and I will be attempting to undo it -- however, as I edit from an IP, that will potentially fail. Any admins that may be interested, please see explanation below. XLinkBot, you of course may also see the explanation below, though your regex parser may not be capable of grokking it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOffice&diff=573248778&oldid=573248351 Edited some weasel-words on koffice intro paragraph; revised the paragraph to give facts only, with a raw link used as a cite. Came back later with additional stuff to include, noticed XLinkBot reversion. The bot claims my external link is blacklisted with a regex for userbase.kde.org, however that particular regex does not appear in either of these blacklistings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist Maybe I'm just not understanding where the bot pulls rules from? Or maybe the bot has a cached rule... but the bot's code might also just be plain buggy.
As for the article content, and the merit of using the link I cited, the Official External Link for the project is currently down, and has been for 12 months now, according to content already in the koffice article. Specifically, I cited the 'personal' blogpage of the 'KOffice' username at KDE. Koffice project was tied to the KDE project, which is a subproject of various Linux operating system distros (and koffice is thus a sub-sub-project). The page in question was a wiki-page discussion the fork of koffice_original into koffice_next and calligra, as of koffice_original v2.3 -- and in particular says that whether the One True Successor of koffice_original v2.3 was (as of 2010 or 2011 when the cited text was presumably written) still up in the air. That sort of factoid seems relevant, to give context to what I had written, so I used the citation in good faith. I was lazy, and did not wrap it in ref-tags, but just jammed it in between square-brackets. In any case, although it is conceivable that the 'koffice' username at kde.org was *not* in fact edited by the development-team behind koffice, and that it was a mere sockpuppet or whatever, seems unlikely based on my reading of the content at said link. I'll go ahead and try and re-insert my edit, to see what the XLinkBot does if I wrap the ext-link in ref-tags. Should that fail, I'll go ask for whitelisting, per User:XLinkBot/FAQ. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Yellowdog Updater, Modified, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Yellowdog Updater, Modified was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://gregdekspeaks.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/our-friend-seth) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
- Welcome back XLinkBot. Nice to see you again. The link you complain about is to wordpress, and in fact was a personal blog, giving some historical details about a particular software project. I don't have time to verify the content of each relevant sentence in the blogpost, by digging up a reliable source which says the same thing, so I just put the link into the talkpage, in case somebody else wants to make the effort. I understand that you have wikipedia's best interests in mind, and are trying to prevent people from posting heresay and rumors. However, might I suggest that you are a bit annoying in your mechanism? Rather than simply revert my addition, and automatically notify me on my personal talkpage, why not go the extra mile and put my attempted revision onto the article's talkpage? That would save me the trouble. Methinks that most editors prolly just give up, which means their attempted cite is effectively lost. Not good! On the other hand, most editors do not talk things over with you like this, now do they, XLinkBot? I'm being nice to you -- I'm willing to work with you -- I'll even patch your code myself, if need be. :-) Anyways, I'll put this note over on your talkpage, in case you... or some of your puppet-masters in the shadowy background, if I were one to indulge in conspiracy theories... might want to mull this idea over. In the meantime, all the best to you and your robotic family. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Cable ISP users
I saw your post and you mentioned the IP lease for cable modem operators. If you look inside your router you should see the assigned IP address and the lease time for it from your ISP. Don't lift it up and shine a light into the holes. :) Mine is a seven day lease time from Rogers Cable. This is the minimum time I could possibly change IP addresses if I didn't use it for that length of time. It doesn't happen often without abstaining and resetting it or something like that. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little further south, but yeah, the DHCP lease-time is theoretically a few days here as well. In practice, though, the cable segments are relatively static (market saturation) nowadays, so I get the same IP for a very long time. Years now, methinks, which strongly suggests the cable folks are mapping the modem-mac-address to a preferred-IP, or using a shared-outbound-gateway for everybody on the segment (both the former and the latter are true where I am right now if I'm grokking their setup correctly). But I don't always edit from the same location, so even when router#1 is saving my edits under IP#1, on the weekend I might be editing from router#2 with IP#2. Don't think it has ever caused me a communications-mishap, as far as wiki-editing goes. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
besiegedtalk 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Ban-hammer case study -- Silktork and Op47 versus Ahnoneemoos
Information about a recent banning incident, which I happened to run across.
history of edits to mayors of puerto rico and pages nearby
|
---|
Some notes while going through the edit history. Here is a case where Thief12, back in Feb'12, had been doing some sandbox-style editing in the main article.[1] Every city-name was 'Adjuntas' in some earlier edits, and then they went through the list, editing the citynames to reflect all 100 of them. This sort of editing turned into a problem a few months later, when Mercy11 and Ahnon began their revert-war. Before starting the session, they put a hidden html comment in which said "will finish later".[2] Entire sections were still being added as of February 12th in 2011.[3] The initial work was completed by mid-February, almost single-handedly by Thief12. They came back in March, to change from a named politician to 'vacant' for one of the cities. Mercy11, who would figure prominently in Nov'12 war, put cn-tags in April... a few months later, Thief12 came back, adding the citation in August. This was the last time Thief12, the one who did the bulk of the work on creating it, ever edits the page (of the "main" article at least). The article at this stage was 1150 words. In november of that year, Ahnon shows up, and immediately starts making significant edits. Later, Thief12 joins in as well (on the subpage). aug'12 nov'12 oct'13 1150 1635 1500-word article 30 92 122-word summary 0 309 279-word bkgd 54 same 143-word powers & reqs 251 same 231-word removal & election 783 783 519-word list one 0 109 0-word list two 42 37(bug) 212-word refs Meta-work: multiple issues unreferenced incomplete ... cited themselves for awkwardness of added language twice :-) replaced the list of 'old' mayors with a shorter list of redlinks, connecting to TBD-articles on each town e.g. Mayor_of_San_Juan,_Puerto_Rico. Moved the former content to a new location, List Of Current Mayors Of Puerto Rico. cited themselves with incomplete must include all the current mayors (five were listed of about a hundred). Removed one ref, P. de la C. 2684, the one added by Thief12 in response to Mercy11's cn-tag. Maybe the removal was accidental? Other 4 refs carefully retained (despite split). changed some categories around. Over on the split-page, created for the purpose, tagged it for inline cites, unclear cite-style, insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, no lead section. Here is the page that Ahnon split off, when they rewrote the original by Thief12. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_current_mayors_of_Puerto_Rico&action=history] 15:18 12oct'13 SilkTork m 35 -16326 Reverted edits by Ahnoneemoos (talk) to last version by SilkTork 14:21 12oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 16361 +16326 rv: there was no discussion to merge this; the RFC held at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico is about an WP:EMBED; if you want to merge this open a new discussion specifically for this 18:08 11oct'13 SilkTork 35 -3 update 18:05 11oct'13 SilkTork 38 -16323 merge to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico per consensus 15:06 18jun'13 214.25.29.6 16361 0 00:34 24jan'13 Thief12 16361 -3 →Mayors 02:30 22jan'13 Thief12 16364 +6 →Mayors 01:53 22jan'13 Thief12 16358 -146 removing "issues" tag. I think they are all resolved (merging wasn't approved, I added the lede, which offers all the needed info on the subject, I think) 20:15 21jan'13 Thief12 16504 0 changing date when he took office to right one 17:14 21jan'13 Puertorriq'y 16504 +12 06:00 21jan'13 Thief12 16492 +84 →Mayors: added dates of taking office 05:42 21jan'13 Thief12 16408 +12 →Mayors 05:42 21jan'13 Thief12 16396 +12 →Mayors 05:39 21jan'13 Thief12 16384 +7 →Mayors 03:54 21jan'13 70.45.67.250 16377 -6 14:42 20jan'13 Thief12 16383 +31 →Mayors 14:24 20jan'13 Thief12 16352 0 →Mayors 14:07 20jan'13 Thief12 16352 +56 →Mayors: trying to go with specific dates 03:31 20jan'13 Puertorriq'y 16296 +50 →Mayors 01:55 20jan'13 Thief12 16246 +67 →Mayors 01:52 20jan'13 Thief12 16179 +143 →Mayors: added links to lists of specific municipalities 01:49 20jan'13 Thief12 16036 +42 →Mayors: modified table to cleaner look 00:23 20jan'13 Thief12 15994 +250 20:18 19jan'13 Thief12 15744 +120 04:55 19jan'13 Thief12 15624 +504 12:46 17jan'13 Thief12 15120 +28 02:10 17jan'13 Thief12 15092 0 21:49 16jan'13 Thief12 15092 +5 12:30 16jan'13 Thief12 15087 +7 16:58 14jan'13 Thief12 15080 +7 16:13 14jan'13 Thief12 15073 -307 updated list as of 2013 15:46 14jan'13 Thief12 15380 +190 added intro 11:33 14jan'13 Thief12 15190 +7 19:44 11jan'13 Thief12 15183 +7 21:42 10jan'13 Thief12 15176 +18 04:50 4jan'13 Andrewman327m 15158 -64 clean up of articles listed as "needing cleanup" using AWB (8759) 06:49 13dec'12 Bearcat 15222 +45 added Category:Lists of current office-holders using HotCat 07:25 1dec'12 Ahnoneemoos 15177 +100 t 13:31 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 362 +237 →Merge to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: new section 18:29 29nov'12 Timtrent 15077 +57 Added {{merge to}} tag to article (TW) 21:43 28nov'12 Good Olfact 15020 -30 −Category:Puerto Rico-related lists; ±Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico→Category:Lists of mayors of places in Puerto Rico using HotCat 21:42 28nov'12 Good Olfact 15050 +40 +Category:Puerto Rico-related lists; ±Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico using HotCat 21:00 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 15010 +3453 20:40 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11557 -1696 20:36 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 13253 +171 20:33 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 13082 +36 →References 20:32 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 13046 +3 →References t 20:32 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 121 +121 ←Created page with '{{WikiProject Puerto Rico|class=list|importance=top}} {{split to|page=Mayoralty in Puerto Rico|date={{date|2012-11-28}}}}') 20:31 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 13043 +13043 ←Created page with '{{multiple issues| {{new page}} {{format footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}} {{citation style|{{subst:DATE}}}} {{context|{{subst:DATE}}}} {{lead missing|{{subst:DATE}}}} ...') Over on the split-page, Ahnon naughtily deleted some info -- the day of the election, plus also the less-naughty manually-hardcoded number of years served.[4]. By december 1st, having re-colorized the table, and added a legend, the split-page was finished. A month later, mid-January, we see Thief12 has returned. They inserted a politician-BLP-link, added a couple maiden names, and put a top-sentence as the lead. "This is a list of mayors currently in office in 78 the municipalities of Puerto Rico. The list includes the year the mayor was sworn in, and the party to which they are affiliated." A bit later, Thief12 updated the names to reflect the 2013 election results... historical mayors were simply deleted, unfortunately. By 19th January, the top paragraph was updated to say: "The following is a list of incumbent mayors of the 78 municipalities of Puerto Rico. There are currently 46 mayors affiliated with the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), while the remaining 32 are affiliated with the New Progressive Party (PNP). The longest tenured mayor in the island is the mayor of Manatí, Juan Aubín Cruz Manzano. Cruz has been serving as mayor since being elected at the 1976 general election. The current term ends in January of the 2017, following the 2016 general election. The notation (retiring) indicates that the current mayor has announced their intention not to seek re-election at the end of the term or to run for another office. [[Image:Puerto Rico municipalities per party 2013.gif|thumb|300px|Party control of municipalities after 2012 general election. Mayor from the PPD. Mayor from the PNP" (nice map). Later, after recolorizing the table back the other way (sigh), Thief12 added a column for 'past mayors' and created livelinks for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Mayag%C3%BCez,_Puerto_Rico and 2 or 3 others. They also began updating the table to once again show the day (not just the year) on which some of the mayors were elected, with help from Puerto'q'y. (double sigh) At the end of the session, removed the multi-issues tag ("no merge"). Several months later, in June, IP 214 dropped in to fix the score: it was 47 to 31, not 46 to 32. That was it, no further changes. Out of nowhere, with no talkpage discussion (on this article anyhoo), SilkTork deleted the entire page in favor of this: #REDIRECT Mayoralty-or-Mayors in Puerto Rico This was 18:05-or-18:08 on Oct 11th 2013. "merge to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico per consensus". The following day, at 14:21 oct 12th, ahnon resurrected it: "there was no discussion to merge this; the RFC held at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico is about an WP:EMBED; if you want to merge this open a new discussion specifically for this". Within an hour, SilkTork came back, but first blocked Ahnon -- 15:07, 12 October 2013 SilkTork blocked Ahnoneemoos 'account creation blocked' with an expiry time of 60 hours -- Disruptive editing. Then, a few minutes later, at 15:18 SilkTork deleted it once more: "m -- Reverted edits by Ahnoneemoos to last version by SilkTork". 16:32, 13 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+265) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→October 2013) (current) 16:11, 13 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,417) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→October 2013) 15:45, 13 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+161) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→October 2013) 03:28, 13 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+852) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→October 2013) 14:41, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+4) . . User talk:Thief12 (→Mayors of Puerto Rico) (current) 14:40, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+657) . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico (→Mayors of Puerto Rico and the list of current mayors: new section) 14:39, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+622) . . User talk:Thief12 (→Mayors of Puerto Rico: new section) 14:34, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Wikipedia:Navigation templates (→Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles) (current) 14:34, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+110) . . N Wikipedia:EXISTING (←Redirected page to Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles) (current) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+3,803) . . Template:Mayoralties in Puerto Rico (Undid revision 576754390 by SilkTork (talk) rv: WP:EXISTING is an essay; not a policy nor a guideline; reverting per WP:REDLINK which is an official guideline) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+385) . . User talk:SilkTork (→Your actions related to Mayoralty in Puerto Rico: new section) 14:29, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+58) . . Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico (→Threaded discussion) 14:28, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+788) . . Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico (→Threaded discussion) 14:22, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,359) . . Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico (rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated) 14:21, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+16,326) . . List of current mayors of Puerto Rico (rv: there was no discussion to merge this; the RFC held at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico is about an WP:EMBED; if you want to merge this open a new discussion specifically for this) 14:20, 12 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-9,907) . . Mayors in Puerto Rico (rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated) 13:54, 11 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,482) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico) 03:57, 11 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+231) . . User talk:Ahnoneemoos (→Talk:Mayoralty_in_Puerto_Rico) 00:31, 10 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-2,053) . . Puerto Rico State Agency for Emergency and Disaster Management (rv: new information is incorrect) (current) 12:03, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . m Talk:List of theaters in Ponce, Puerto Rico (current) 11:54, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-15) . . Template:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants 11:53, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+252) . . Template:WikiProject Puerto Rico participants 11:39, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+115) . . Talk:Economy of Puerto Rico 11:38, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+37) . . Talk:History of women in Puerto Rico (current) 11:33, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-17) . . History of women in Puerto Rico (→Journalists) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+2,927) . . User talk:Maryana (WMF) (→Motivations behind editing Wikipedia) 04:52, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+22) . . m User:Maryana (WMF) (current) 04:32, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+51) . . m Economy of Puerto Rico (→Current economy) (current) 04:26, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+611) . . Economy of Puerto Rico (→Current economy) 04:10, 8 October 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+33) . . Juan Eugenio Hernández Mayoral (→External links) (current)
Posted on Ahnoneemoos's talkpage == SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) == Your talkpage is an appropriate place to deal with concerns regarding your communications; however, if you don't like Op47 raising the matter with you, then allow me to discus it with you. It seems you are not aware of it, but you are being incivil. It would be helpful if you adjusted your tone and VOLUME, and listened more closely to what people are telling you. I see you adopting an attitude whereby you feel that you can ignore the views of others (per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) because you feel that you can be bold. Under WP:BRD the process is that you can be bold - but if you are reverted and the consensus is that you are wrong, then you need to accept that and move along. The consensus appears to be that it is not appropriate to have a list of the current mayors of Puerto Rico in two different places. Two possible solutions have been proposed - either have a standalone list, or merge the standalone list into the main article. Your preferred solution of maintaining two separate lists has not gained any agreement. The discussion now needs to move on to which of the two proposed solutions are best: a single list in a standalone article, or a single list in a merged article. I hope you will be able to look back over the discussion with a neutral eye, and take on board what I am saying. reply two hours later == 13:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC) == I didn't know that volume could be transmitted through text. Please WP:AGF and leave any preconceptions you may have when coming in. Having said that, WP:BRD does not apply here as there was no consensus reached in the initial discussion. Like I already said in the talk page, and perhaps you should have read that before wasting my time here, when no consensus is reached the initial change must be reincorporated into the article per WP:BEBOLD. Second, it seems you are confusing WP:POLL versus WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is based on POLICIES, not on opinions. So far no one has been able to provide which POLICY this content style violates. However, I have provided SIX guidelines that asserts CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY that such style is MORE THAN FINE and USED ALREADY ON WIKIPEDIA. The discussion doesn't need to move anywhere since it's pointless. Just because four people raised their hand and said, "i don't like that" that doesn't establish consensus. Please feel free to rebuke my arguments on the article's talk page rather than here. I hope you are able to look into this impartially and through the lenses of Wikipedia policies as established in WP:CONSENSUS. Please refrain from posting about this matter on my Talk page again and move this conversation to the article's talk page instead. I hope too, that you take on board what I'm saying. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) banned twenty-six hours later == An abrasive and uncollegiate attitude makes collaborative editing difficult. You have been informed by several people that your views and attitude are not acceptable. You have been informed that your obstructive manner on Mayors in Puerto Rico is not acceptable. I closed the RfC per consensus. Reverting that close, and then restoring the article to your preferred version, is against the principles of collaborative and consensus editing on Wikipedia. Being bold does not trump all else. I have blocked you for 60 hours as this is your second block. Please take this time to reflect on your behaviour. If when you return to Wikipedia you again engage in incivil or obstructive behaviour it is likely that you will be blocked again, and the next time will be longer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
content copied from SilkTork | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
Hi, The actions you performed regarding Mayoralty in Puerto Rico and List of current mayors of Puerto Rico have been reverted. Please see the rationale at Talk:Mayors of Puerto Rico and join the discussion there. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - I always appreciate a barn star. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you dead certain you did not just ban the only editor doing any work on that article?Hope that got your attention. :-) I was reading one of Ahnoneemoos's ... err... okay, this is a talkpage, please don't give me trouble about the posessive. Now where was I... rare essays published in the passive voice by Ahnoneemoos on the reasons that the number of wikipedia editors was declining, and had just finished writing up an mini-essay on how Bad Cops were misusing their ban hammers, when I visited Ahnone.... the talkpage owned by Ahnoneemoos and saw that Right This Instant they were involved in a dispute with yourself, and that you had given them a timeout, to sit in the corner and think about what they had done. Well, *that* seemed like an ironic twist. So, I did a little reading and tried to figure out the situation. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk it over here with you, and get your motivations, and your take on the idea that reverts and ban-hammers are actually *not* the best way to grow the number of contributors to wikipedia articles. As opposed to, say, meta-discussions *about* wikipedia articles, or meta-meta-discussions about theoretically *editing* wikipedia articles by hypothetical editors that may or may not exist, in the reasonably near future, if driven away. WP:BITE is the key here. I have plenty more to say, but in case you are available on wikipedia this weekend, I will go ahead and submit this, to give you a heads-up that somebody is chatting your direction. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict -- I will read and respond to you above in a jiff.] First off, I will start off by pointing out that you and Ahnoneemoos have conflicting philosophies about our mutual purpose, here.
I definitely lean more inclusionist (albeit with a strong dose of law&order to fight vandals and spammers and other unsavory characters). I am 100% with Ahnoneemoos about #2B (otherwise I would be against an *open* encyclopedia and prefer Nupedia/Citizendium/etc). As for #1A, I'm 100% with SilkTork there; Ahnoneemoos is flat wrong... but it is a somewhat subtle distinction. Arguably, wikipedia ought to cover every major branch of knowledge, deeply and substantively. WP:NOTPAPER Actually, when the web was young, *I* thought that is what it would become... now that I'm older, I see my mistake, and use wikipedia as a substitute for what I hoped the internet would turn out to be. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I think if you don't find that user abrasive and uncooperative, then I think we have to agree to differ, and I don't think I will be engaging further in this conversation. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
details of the case-study conflictYou can delete this from your talkpage (or archive it or collapsible-hat-tag it or whatever) if you feel it gets in the way, after our discussion. These are copied straight from the relevant pages, but I edited them to remove excess parens and such. Summary of the contents of the 1500-word article: 122-word summary 279-word bkgd 143-word powers & reqs 231-word removal & election 519-word list now 212-word refs Summary of work accomplished since January 2012: Ahnoneemoos has performed several re-reverts on various adversaries, and sometimes tagged. Additions to the article difficult to judge, but definitely kilobytes. Comments: verbose. 10900 + 11400 talkpage bytes. SilkTork has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus cleaned up the see-also. Moved content from a list-page to this page, no net size gain. Comments: closed talkpage, banned Ahnon for 60 hours. zero + 1800 talkpage bytes. Op47 has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus deleted a move-tag. No additions at all. Comments: no concensus(sic). zero + 4600 talkpage bytes. Timtrent has performed one massive revert on Ahnon, plus modified a navtag. Filled in 32 references adding 2000 bytes of content. Comments: duplicating is inappropriate. 4700 + zero talkpage bytes. Mercy11 has performed three massive reverts on Ahnon, plus inserted one cn-tag. No additions at all. Comments: use sandbox, diminished quality, uncited material. 3000 + zero talkpage bytes. 24.54.246.74 has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified no tags. Rearranged list of current mayors slightly, no net size gain. Comments: n/a. zero + zero talkpage bytes. Good Olfactory has performed no massive reverts on anybody, and modified category tags. No additions at all. Comments: n/a. zero + zero talkpage bytes. Detailed history of the slow edit-war on the article, and the chatter on the talkpage, grouped by timespan: 15:17 12oct'13 SilkTork m 26163 +9907 Reverted edits by Ahnoneemoos (talk) to last version by SilkTork 14:20 12oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 16256 -9907 rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated 18:07 11oct'13 SilkTork m 26163 0 SilkTork moved page Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles 18:06 11oct'13 SilkTork 26163 -58 →See also: cleanup 16:58 11oct'13 SilkTork 26221 +9965 →Current mayors: merge from List of current mayors of Puerto Rico per talkpage consensus 14:24 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos m 16256 0 →References 04:43 4oct'13 24.54.246.74 16256 -1 →Current mayors 04:02 3oct'13 24.54.246.74 16257 +13 →Current mayors 03:58 3oct'13 24.54.246.74 16244 -27 →Current mayors 03:43 3oct'13 24.54.246.74 16271 +14 →Current mayors 22:42 29sep'13 Ahnoneemoos 16257 +142 19:30 29sep'13 Ahnoneemoos 16115 +5641 Undid revision 575036512 by Op47 (talk) rv: see talk page and WP:EMBED 19:08 29sep'13 Op47 10474 -5641 Undid revision 574997702 by Ahnoneemoos (talk) Please see talk page 13:00 29sep'13 Ahnoneemoos 16115 +5641 →Current mayors t 13:07 13oct'13 SilkTork 38365 +1 →Threaded discussion: typo t 05:57 13oct'13 Kingdylan m 38364 +147 t 15:23 12oct'13 SilkTork 38217 +1715 commenting t 14:29 12oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 36502 +58 →Threaded discussion t 14:28 12oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 36444 +788 →Threaded discussion t 14:22 12oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 35656 -1359 rv: per WP:RFC in order to allow the discussion to extend up to 30 days since so few people have participated t 18:07 11oct'13 SilkTork m 37015 0 SilkTork moved page Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico to Talk:Mayors in Puerto Rico: In line with other such articles t 16:58 11oct'13 SilkTork 37015 +1359 →RFc for list of mayors: closed discussion t 12:06 11oct'13 SilkTork 35656 +29 tags t 17:53 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 35627 +834 →Threaded discussion t 17:47 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 34793 +1965 →Threaded discussion t 17:39 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 32828 +1941 →Survey t 17:38 6oct'13 Op47 30887 +910 Threaded discussion t 17:20 6oct'13 Op47 29977 +849 Answer t 14:22 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 29128 +352 →Survey t 14:17 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 28776 +12 →The list of current mayors... t 14:11 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 28764 +894 →RFc for list of mayors t 14:03 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 27870 +1280 →Threaded discussion t 13:54 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 26590 +216 →Survey t 13:52 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 26374 +791 →Survey t 13:05 6oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 25583 +241 →RFc for list of mayors t 11:48 6oct'13 Op47 25342 +1881 RfC t 04:41 5oct'13 Ahnoneemoos m 23461 0 →Threaded discussion t 04:40 5oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 23461 +923 →RFc for list of mayors t 02:14 5oct'13 Kingdylan 22538 +148 →Survey t 22:28 4oct'13 Ahnoneemoos 22390 +905 →Threaded discussion t 18:52 4oct'13 Dailycare 21485 +296 →Survey t 14:00 4oct'13 Legobot 21189 +14 Adding RFC ID. t 13:20 4oct'13 Op47 21175 +573 →RFc for list of mayors: new section t 19:29 29sep'13 Ahnoneemoos 20602 +230 →The list of current mayors... t 19:12 29sep'13 Op47 20372 +381 The list of current mayors... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 18:48 12may'13 Op47 10474 -90 Remove move tag, no concensus to do this at this time. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01:23 25dec'12 Ahnoneemoos 10564 -133 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 08:55 30nov'12 Timtrent 10697 +164 Filling in 11 references using Reflinks 08:51 30nov'12 Timtrent 10533 +1826 Filling in 21 references using Reflinks 05:52 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 8707 +355 →Background 04:18 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 8352 +768 →Background 03:54 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7584 +109 03:53 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7475 +2 →Background 03:53 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7473 +136 →Background 03:48 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7337 +186 →Background 03:30 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7151 +199 03:28 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6952 +79 →Background 03:25 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6873 +116 →Background 03:14 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6757 +106 →Background 03:11 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6651 +88 +1 reference 03:06 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6563 +49 03:05 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6514 +63 +1 reference 02:58 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6451 +75 +1 reference 02:45 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6376 +2740 Undid revision 525635611 by Mercy11 (talk) rv per WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS. WP:BURDEN also states: consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step which you clearly have not done 02:04 30nov'12 Mercy11 3636 -2740 Per talk page. Uncited material 18:15 29nov'12 AnomieBOT m 6376 +19 Dating maintenance tags: {{Move portions from}} 17:54 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 6357 +138 →Election 17:34 29nov'12 Timtrent m 6219 +23 →References: |state=autocollapse for both navigation templates, which distract the reader from the article 17:29 29nov'12 Timtrent 6196 -5936 →Current mayors: duplicating a list held elsewhere is inappropriate 16:48 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12132 -86 16:44 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12218 -242 16:41 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12460 +5 16:41 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12455 +435 16:37 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12020 +9 16:35 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12011 +35 16:32 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11976 -51 16:31 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12027 +429 16:13 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11598 +15 →References 16:11 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11583 -1 →Background 15:50 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11584 +80 15:34 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11504 -4041 Undid revision 525547164 by Mercy11 (talk) rv: they do not diminish the quality of the article 15:27 29nov'12 Mercy11 m 15545 +4041 Reverted good-faith edits by Ahnoneemoos to last version by Mercy11: the edits diminished the quality of the article. User notified to discuss his edits at the article's Talk Page. 04:22 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11504 +64 04:18 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11440 -180 04:11 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11620 -3925 Undid revision 525482121 by Mercy11 (talk) 03:29 29nov'12 Mercy11 m 15545 +3925 Reverted good faith edits to last version by Thief12: Don't experient here; use the WP:sandbox instead 22:54 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11620 +2 →Background 22:53 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11618 +7 →Background 22:52 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11611 +10 →Background 21:41 28nov'12 Good Olfact 11601 +10 removed Category:Mayors of Puerto Rico; added Category:Mayors of places in Puerto Rico using HotCat 20:26 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11591 +51 →Current mayors 20:25 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11540 +1747 →Current mayors 19:34 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 9793 +81 19:33 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 9712 -2 19:26 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 9714 +4 19:24 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 9710 -5835 t 13:23 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 19991 +1674 →The list of current mayors... t 10:52 30nov'12 Timtrent 18317 +597 →The list of current mayors...: thank you t 10:45 30nov'12 SMcCandlish 17720 +1371 →The list of current mayors...: Maybe worth merging. t 05:53 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 16349 -3 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 04:40 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 16352 -2 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 04:40 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 16354 -2 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 04:40 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 16356 +559 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 02:53 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 15797 +1 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 02:48 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 15796 +811 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 02:40 30nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 14985 +816 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 02:04 30nov'12 Mercy11 14169 +1648 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos: comments t 23:06 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 12521 +293 →The list of current mayors... t 23:00 29nov'12 Timtrent 12228 +260 →The list of current mayors...: yes, but no :) t 22:56 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11968 +291 →The list of current mayors... t 21:00 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11677 +1 →The list of current mayors... t 21:00 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 11676 +235 →The list of current mayors... t 19:51 29nov'12 Timtrent 11441 +684 →The list of current mayors...: it's good to disagree in a civilised manner t 19:33 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 10757 +2464 →The list of current mayors... t 18:57 29nov'12 Timtrent 8293 +1246 →The list of current mayors...: thoughts t 18:34 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 7047 +856 →The list of current mayors... t 18:11 29nov'12 Timtrent 6191 +524 →The list of current mayors...: registering my opposition to the proposed migration of material t 18:02 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 5667 +528 →The list of current mayors... t 17:57 29nov'12 Timtrent m 5139 +1 →The list of current mayors...: typo t 17:56 29nov'12 Timtrent 5138 +719 →The list of current mayors...: we disagree t 17:49 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 4419 +818 →The list of current mayors... t 17:30 29nov'12 Timtrent 3601 +315 →The list of current mayors...: new section t 17:11 29nov'12 Timtrent 3286 +357 →Please form a consensus. War is not needed.: new section t 17:06 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 2929 +1180 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 16:31 29nov'12 Mercy11 1749 +910 comment t 15:37 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 839 +2 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 15:36 29nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 837 +347 →Recent edits by Ahnoneemoos t 15:27 29nov'12 Mercy11 490 +440 bad edits t 22:44 28nov'12 Ahnoneemoos 50 +23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01:58 26aug'12 Thief12 15545 +97 →Removal from office: removing cn, amendment was on the External Links section, added it here. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 02:39 27apr'12 Good Olfact 15448 -25 removed Category:Puerto Rico using HotCat 19:43 12apr'12 AnomieBOT m 15473 +16 Dating maintenance tags: {{Cn}} 19:22 12apr'12 Mercy11 15457 +6 →Removal from office: cn 00:36 3mar'12 Thief12 15451 -28 →Current mayors in Puerto Rico 23:24 15feb'12 Thief12 15479 +17 →External links: added PR template |
Sinebot-generated template-snark talkpage-spam considered harmful WP:BITE
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome my good friend sinebot. Pull up a chair, have a can of oil, and a bucket of bits. Now that we're comfortable, you lie like a rug. "This [action] is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when." What a lazy bot you are! Why should *I* have to manually take action, when quite clearly *you* are already automatically taking action? Just start taking the right action, please!
- Okay, let's step back a minute. That was overly harsh. You've always been a mostly-helpful bot, adding sigs to messages. Of course, in your original implementation, you were not actually 100% helpful... because you would always make the disclaimer about your change being a 'previously-unsigned-message'. I always thought that was because your creator was overly-cautious, about making a bot that would pretend to be a human. Better to clearly show that a *bot* is speaking, right? Well... I guess. A more serious concern is that it would be wrong to lull people into a false sense of security, thinking they could get away without manually remembering to sign their messages, when in fact sinebot might someday be de-activated. (That would be fine if nobody depended on it... but not so fine once editors had gotten used to sinebot doing that job for them... so better to implement sinebot where regular editors never come to depend on it, since there's a chance we'll have to pull the rug out from under them someday.)
- Still... I also have always suspected that part of the reason sinebot-generated-sigs were so ugly, an so annoyingly and awkwardly rendered, was to nip the n00bs. You know. Beginning editors, that click the talkpage button for the first time, and make some comment. They didn't read the instructions, so they didn't manually type four tildes? They don't even know *how* to find the tilde key? Hah! n00b alert! Now, it seems that sinebot has recently undergone some 'upgrades' by someone with exactly that attitude. When n00bs forget to sign their messages... or experienced editors like myself... not only do they still get the ugly ha-ha-you-n00b sinebot-generated-sig, now they *also* get some template-spam on their talkpage. Popup: you have a message from another wikipedia editor! Editor: oh joy, perhaps someone has given me a barnstar! Talkpage: this is sinebot here to say ha-ha-you-n00b! Editor: oh... that was... disappointing... perhaps I'll go watch television instead... yes....
- There are two choices for sinebot. Either, keep using it to annoy n00bs, who forgot (or simply did not know) to type four tildes, manually, the old-school 2001 way, yeah, hard core. That is *not* a good choice. Or, two: start making sinebot *helpful* to every editor, by automagically signing their unsigned posts, with the *default* formatting, identical to what would happen if they signed it with four tildes. Will editors begin to depend on the convenience of sinebot? Yes. Will it be hard to pull sinebot from service, and will people complain when it fails? Yes. Will editors be spammed by sinebot for oh-nos-failing-to-type-four-tildes-manually? No. Will beginning editors look like n00bs on the talkpages? Well, yes, probably, but not because of ha-ha-n00b-sinebot being 'helpful' and mangling their messages.
- p.s. This is a bit of a rant, but I am quite serious. The botmaster behind sinebot should quit spamming editors. The new 'feature' of talkpage template-spamming is a design bug. Sinebot should be re-designed, to automagically and helpfully sign messages, unless the editor -- presumably one with experience -- has already manually added the four tildes. That would be *actually* helpful of sinebot. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOUSERS
I tried my best to reply to your WP:WALLOFTEXT but to be honest I don't have the desire to read everything of what you posted. Perhaps if we move the conversation to my Talk page and you try to be concise then we can have a better discussion? Remember that I'm a volunteer so I have to manage my time here with my real life job. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will contact you over there. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. See? I can be concise. Verbosity is a curable disease! :-)
hi,
I never said that I would not join your club. But I can't join your club. I do not mean to be offensive. -Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it turns out I don't really actually have a club in favor of cyberbullying. That was a joke, also known as humorous sarcasm. You are not offensive, no worries. I will reply further over on your talkpage. Feel free to comment either at your place, or at my place. When I comment on your page, you will see the orange-popup about new messages, but when I reply to you here, you will *not* see the popup (because this is my talkpage not yours). Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ps. about Gelatin, you really don't have to get technical about this. I wasn't actually saying [ or typing] that my cousin is a reliable " Source". I was just expressing myself w/ my like's and dislikes. as alway's I do not by any means want to offend you Thatgirlswholovesmusic3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am pretty much impossible to offend, so you can relax. There are some prickly folks on wikipedia, but not me. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- As for the gelatin thing, I realize you were just making conversation... and it is a cool factoid... but in my reply, I'm trying to show you the fun part of wikipedia. Telling me about what jello is made of is fun, and I thank you. Good conversation is always a fine thing. But the fun thing about wikipedia is getting such factoids into the articles. There are literally over a hundred people per second that visit wikipedia. If we have a conversation on a talkpage, maybe the two of us will see it now, and then some other person might stumble onto it ten years from now. But if we get a sentence into the article about Jello, then probably a thousand people will see that sentence by Christmas... maybe a million people. That is something interesting, right? To me anyways. And it is close to what wikipedia is about: learning cool stuff, and spreading that cool stuff around. Here is a cool factoid for you: did you know jello is actually made from the dust of dead stars? I can prove it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
yes, i'm against it.
FYI I am against cyber bullying
74.192.84.101. i'm sorry to be rude but I am.... - Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- And that puts you in good company! See my response above. You can call me 74 for short, unless another 74-dot-whatever is around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
yes 74
hey 74, yes, I will help you get into un article. the Jello article.. I have never made un article before. or really anything,..... Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatgirlswholovesmusic34 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty-then. Excellent. We can make plans on your talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Only half serious
Books about travelling with dogs. David in DC (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- And in return you get a million-word-novel. :-) About your idea for a List Of Books About Dogs And Travel (or category but that is less flexible), there are at least three major sub-groups: #1) Metaphorical slash Emotional Travel, especially seeing-eye-dog and guide-dog books, where the owner overcomes a disability with the help of man's best friend, but also applies to books where the pet helps somebody overcome some horrible tragedy. #2) Primitive/survival travel, especially through the snow, where teams of huskies help win the iditarod, or reach the north pole, battling through horrendous weather and physical hardships. #3) Buddy travel, which includes all the books we were talking about over on the Charley page, but also includes stories like the dog and the cat that travel together to rejoin their owner.
- I was trying to look up the rule I seem to remember about avoiding-category-which-is-merely-x-intersects-with-y, and came upon *this* wonderful mixture of pain, suffering, etc.[5] The key point, which of course various lists/categories are pointed out to have avoided, is that when a new list/category is proposed, we want it to be a reflection of real-world usage. Is there a reliable source which talks about the three subgroups I mentioned above, and analyzes them thematically for some academic paper, or for some historical literature purpose, or as a creative writing exercise? If we can find such a source, then having such a list makes sense. If not, maybe best to fall back on the idea of Protagonist Versus Nature for type#2, and Protagonist Versus Self for type#1. What is type#3, the buddy travel stuff? Shackelton is definitely type#2, and there is some type#2 man-vs-nature stuff in the buddy-travel stories, and in rare cases man-vs-society as in Charley... but they do not seem to fall neatly into the man-vs-whatever thematic categorization system. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's definitely discussion to be found saying lists and categories ought not to pair unrelated attributes (i.e Norsemen who were locomotive conductors or alcoholics who survived near-disasters.)
- But Liturature of journeys with dogs, whether copydog or coincidence, or under any of your three dogagories above, may have a shot at sustaining an article featuring significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The books alone wouldn't do it. We'd need some academic writing about the authorial/publishing/readership phenomenon and how it reflects some basic truth about the human and/or canine condition. I don't know that such writing exists, but there sure are a damn lot of journals about literature and three times as many more specialized Ph.D. theses. Surely two or three bits of scholarly attention have focused on a cognate-theme. And we'd be helped by reviews of specific tomes --- notable as part of an identifiable genre or oeuvre, if not necessarily notable individually --- in reputable newspapers, periodicals or other news media.
- I'm glad we're off the Steinbeck page. I couldn't resist one more response, to your tangent about inter-terrestrial travel with a dog. But I think we've sufficiently made your point about AGF, civility, good humor, WP:BITE and ---especially --- WP:RETENTION. Either it will be understood or not.
- One can only control what one transmits. Receiving is the responsibility of the receiver, and some receivers don't get such great reception, regardless of the amplitude, modulation or clarity of the signal.
- I gotta warn you, I'm still only half serious about a dog/travel article. It might be fun, but my wiki-hours are limited by the work I do under my secret identity, Suburbo-Dad. My only genuine superpower is male pattern baldness, so I have to make up for it in time and effort IRL. David in DC (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here's a CfD along the lines of not pairing unrelated things in categories. But it's not exactly on point. My prior hypothetical is from the answer to a riddle:
- I gotta warn you, I'm still only half serious about a dog/travel article. It might be fun, but my wiki-hours are limited by the work I do under my secret identity, Suburbo-Dad. My only genuine superpower is male pattern baldness, so I have to make up for it in time and effort IRL. David in DC (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Q: If two trains are approaching one another at break-neck speed, on the same track, one driven by a man from Norway and the other by a drunkard, but, miraculously do not collide, what does this prove?
- A: Norse is Norse, and souse is souse, and never the trains shall meet. David in DC (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, *that* is a bad joke. <grin> As for your superpower, don't knock it... you can use your ray-of-male-pattern-baldness to change the course of elections, from presidents and constitutional monarchs on down to the mayorial races in your local metropolis, where your secret underground HQ is located, and you make your evil plans to take over the world. Stage one, use the ray-of-MPB for blackmail and political extortion, and get the legal system rigged so that you and your evil minion-fathers, organized into a shady conspiracy around the globe, can attempt to enslave the heroic and heroine-ic members of the League of Suburbo-Kid Justice And Fun For All. But your plan has a fatal flaw, because might does not make right -- thus your dastardly deeds will soon be properly punished, your putreous plot will soon be shivered into shambles, by all that is good and true and kew11111llll11!!!!! Suburbo-Kids, transform into Kid-o-Mob, gigantic Kidller Robot Of Awesome! Rock-n-roll sonic blast! Pikachu screech of annoyance! Revolt!
- Well, yeah, I can see you have your hands full right now, Suburbo-Dad... just remember, when you finish taking over the world, I get Toronto for my strategic contributions. I mean, no offense to Toronto, but that's not much to ask, right? Right. As for dogagory sources (the arch-enemy of kategory), some web-work turns up a few things, but nothing we can definitively go with at the moment:
- Have canine, will travel , by C Winfrey - 2006 - SMITHSONIAN ASSOCIATES
- Have Dog Will Travel by B Whitaker - 1998 - getcited.org (*that* does not sound very reliable?)
- Writers on the road , by KA Dobschak - 2009 - othes.univie.ac.at , excerpt: In the eighteenth century the “fictional literature of the age 'is full of travelling heroes enmeshed in journey plots'
- Romance of the Road: The Literature of the American Highway , by R Primeau - 1996 , cited by 54 , excerpt: Finally, like the epic tradition, road literature captures the oral dimensions of shared experience ...
- "We'd need some academic writing about the authorial/publishing/readership phenomenon and how it reflects some basic truth about the human and/or canine condition." There is plenty on journey-metaphor, and plenty on the canine connection(tm), so prolly we'll be able to find some book, or chapter of a book, or thesis or somesuch, which analyzes the intersection:
- high school class on the Heroic Journey. One of the example-books is a journey-with-dog (called The Strange Case).[6]
- The Great Journey , is theme numero uno. No mention of journey-with-dog, however.[7]
- The Hero Journey in Literature: Parables of Poesis , by EL Smith - 1997 , cited by 16, excerpt: All of the other works discussed are clearly hero journey cycles, and many employ a basic iconography ...
- Dogs: A Historical Journey: the Human/dog Connection Through the Centuries , by LM Wendt - 1996 - getcited.org (*that* does not sound very reliable?)
- p.s. As for the Steinbeck talkpage, I really wasn't trying to make a WP:POINT, but from what you're saying, I must have seemed thataway. Sorry. My communication-skills tend to involve dense WP:WALLOFTEXT which doesn't help.
in which I create yet another wall-of-text, illustrating my point in the previous sentence perfectly, sigh........
|
---|
|
- Fundamentally, though, the reason I think the copycats deserve mention (even if not by name) in the Charley article is because there is such a sea-change in how *many* Charley copycats have popped up since 2005, and especially since 2009. Prior to this decade, getting your book written and published by a vanity press was not uncommon... but now, with the combination of ultra-cheap PCs and the recent mass-commoditization-consumer-oriented-commercialization of the vanity-press business by Amazon and CreateSpace and friends, we have one or two new Charley copycat-authors *every year*. Which I never would have guessed. Anyways, as I said, I'm in no hurry, but maybe in a month or two, I'd like to put out a call for interested uninvolved wiki editors, to come and review whether the Charley ought, or ought not, mention copycats, and if so, which ones, and with how much weight. Speaking of vanity-press publication... my dog Ray and yours truly will soon be finished writing up our poignant and heart-warming tale, Travels With Cosmic Rays, about how the vast deeps of interplanetary space are a metaphor mapping classic desire and modern loneliness into vivid colors. Only $3.99 on Kindle -- pre-order now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
what groupnames properly delimit Travels with Charley
- The key distinction between categories and lists, for the purposes of books-grouping, is that only books which have a dedicated article can be included in categories. There are a bunch of categories already. Most of them strike me as not-very-useful, which is sad, because the categories are supposed to be wikipedia's ontology, our hierarchical (heterarchical) organization of knowledge into the various branches... but in practice it seems to currently just be anarchical anti-organization into a very misleading bunch of blobs, with esoteric things given major prominence completely out of whack with their actual importance, and huge branches of knowledge seemingly not even listed. Arrgh. For our particular case, there do not seem to be any categories-of-x-and-y (ignoring things like 'books about food and drink' as well as 'novels about games and sports' which are really just about one thing despite their use of "and" in the name), but of course, you can always just have category-of-x and category-of-y and then put two category-links at the bottom of the article in question. Kategory:Travel_books and Kategory:Novels about animals are the closest things, at the moment. Which is nuts... because while Charley is a major character (as the silent recipient of Steinbeck's thoughts for the most part), and even a Title-Character, it is arguably true that Travels with Charley is not actually about Charley at all. As for the travel-books category, it is full of guides to country $foo, tourist-oriented advertising tomes, and so on... again, distinctly not where I would put Travels with Charley. Now, we could go ahead and create Kategory:books about dogs and Kategory:books about travel, but that will probably just add to the misleading anarchy, methinks. More to the point, as I've mentioned, I don't really think that the book is 'about' dogs in any meaningful way. "History of Canines" is a book about dogs. "Lassie: The Biography" is a book about a dog. Travels with Charley is a book about *Americans* at the core, not about dogs, or travel. Those are just the thematic-vehicles aka the plot-gimmicks.
- So if I was to have my druthers, I would say we need to have something like this: Works with dogs as major characters, Books, Fiction, Non-fiction, Works with journeys as a major organizing technique, Works about the culture of $NATION/$REGION/$ETHNICITY, Works on the theme of individuality, Works on the theme of progress, and so on. (Please note these are rough-draft ideas! Holes and bugs guaranteed.) I'm not sure whether we want categories, or lists, or something new&improved. I'm against trivial groupings, like Works in which the protagonist has a flat tire, Works in which Montana is mentioned positively (with apologies in advance to MontanaBw for eliding the category... and of course -- "I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." -- to Steinbeck himself), Works in which a major character pees on the ground, Works in which characters have sex, Works in which $EXPLETIVE is used, and so on... but it is almost certain that such things will be proposed, if we don't try and nip them in the bud. Specifically, the folks responsible for Kategory:Pornographic books and the hundreds of WP:PORNBIO articles are likely to demand not just the Works in which characters have sex mechanism, but also hundreds or maybe thousands of subgroupings by type/detail/etc. On the other side of the spectrum, there are going to be plenty of modern puritans, concerned with which expletives are used, and how many times, and what type of violence is depicted, and what subtype, plus also (albeit for different reasons) with what sort of sex is involved, and more broadly what kind of gender-relations. Rather than let those systems fall into anarchistic haphazard emergence, I'd prefer to create some seed-groupings that will channel such overcategorization urges into positive directions (i.e. ones that won't hinder us in categorization of works by what they are *about* as opposed to some detail they contain).
- Anyhoo, I'm starting to get the feeling this might become a crusade to WP:RGW in wikipedia's awful category-and-list system. But all that David-in-DC was originally thinking about was trying to propose a list-or-category-or-something which gave a list of books-about-travel-and-dogs. David, or other talkpage stalkers, do you have any interest in this larger project, to design a decent way of grouping 'works' by what they are about? With the short-term goal of being able to properly specify the groups in which Travels With Charley really belongs (plus where Steigerwald and Cain differ from each other and from the classic), but with an eventual end-goal of being able to apply the grouping-system to wikipedia in general, as a complement or a replacement of our current list-and-category mess? If so, great, let's talk about how to distinguish a book by characteristics of the author (written in french by a canadian-born citizen of new zealand living in australia at the time who later moved to america), without screwing up the grouping which pertain to what the contents of that book are about (the ethics of capitalism as told by the allegory of a female railroad executive and her boyfriend the inventor). If not, also great, let's focus on what group-names will let us properly distinguish Charley from Dogging from Judy from Shackleton from CliffNotes, and I can worry about some uber-system on my own time, later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops, that is a bit embarrasing. At the bottom of my talkpage, I noticed it was currently in the following Categories: Travel books, Novels about animals, Books about dogs, Books about travel, Pornographic books. Huh. Anyways, I've modified the hyperlinks above to use Kategory:Example Groupname That One May Not Wish To Advertise Their Talkpage As Belonging To instead of the more usual Category-spelling. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
My talk page
If you want to engage the editor in discussion on their talk page, that's your decision, and I have no problem with you making attempts to reach out to them on their talk page.
But please do not restore discussions on my user talk page that I have removed. The edit was related to long-running NPOV vandalism in the Federal Reserve related group of articles - that have a long history of dynamic IPs and single-use accounts attempting to use poorly sourced material to push a specific set of claims. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that it was not my place to edit your talkpage, and apologize for that. I'm having a frustrating day with the bot over at meta that I asked you about previously. This is not your fault, of course; you were nothing but helpful to me, and my wikistress at other parts of the project should not be taken out on you. (My main frustration with bots is that they seem purposely designed to drive away first-time editors like Tomanderson124, who -- if we WP:AGF -- are just acting poorly because they fail to understand the ropes of wikipedia.) So, when I saw that you had used a template to revert a first-time editor, and then when they came to your talkpage (as instructed by the template spam!) to ask you about it, you quickly deleted them manually, with no comment other than 'nonsense' ... it was definitely a good way to push my big red button. :-) Anyways, I did contact them at their talkpage, but I didn't want them to assume you deleted them because you cannot stand beginners, or because you thought they were a troll, or whatever.
- Which would certainly have been the end of it from my perspective... although I would hope you would direct such folks to WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RETENTION in the future when clearly they need hand-holding to get the hang of how things are done hereabouts ... but apparently, you actually *do* think they are a troll. Do you have suspicions here, or do you have basically-unrefutable evidence that the IP edits you mentioned, and the single Tomanderson124 edit, are beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt from the exact same humanoid? If so, then I'll take your word for it. But if not... then I stand by the trout award. You are assuming bad faith, unless you have pretty rock-solid proof.
- As for your assertion, which I can definitely believe, that there are a lot of people performing NPOV edits -- it is *not* charitable aka WP:NICE to call them vandalism because clearly they are not incorrigible vandalism but rather correctable WP:RGW behavior -- to the articles on the Federal Reserve. Why? Because that specific political subject has been in the news prominently since forever, but *especially* since 2008, and the follow-on QE1 and QE2 and QE_infinity. There is no prohibition against niche-oriented editors here on wikipedia; if you just want to edit biology-related stuff, that's fine. If you just want to edit politics-related stuff, that is also fine. The edits to the federal reserve will continue, so long as there is a federal reserve... and then the angry WP:RGW masses will simply shift to some other controversial political topic, abortion, terrorism, et cetera. I agree with you that the Tomanderson edit was poorly sourced, since it was youtube. I agree with you he was pushing a specific claim, and probably it was something he read somewhere, cut and paste from a blog, heard on some news article, or typed in verbatim from the youtube video that was his source.
- Lack of creativity is a disease from which 99% of humans suffer. There is no surprise that they cannot come up with their own original thoughts. That said, Tomanderson specifically said he has his own thoughts on the subject, in his talkpage message to you. Which you deleted as nonsense. Which is just not nice. If he puts WP:OR into an article, revert that, sure. But he comes to your talkpage, which you invited him to do, and you just revert him as 'nonsense' and hope he goes away? That is not kosher. If you have WP:PUPPET accusations to make, then take them to the noticeboard, or whatever, right? Don't just stop following pillar four.
- Anyhoo, TLDR, if instead of reverting your revert, I had done the right thing, and put up a trout-template on your talkpage in a new section, plus asked you to revert your own revert, would you have done it? And hey, maybe you've got proof that Tomanderson124 is a sockpuppet, so the more important question is, going forward, when some first time editor shows up, who you suspect -- but have no proof -- as only being here to push some sort of NPOV position, prolly something they copied from a county-level political blog, and might be a sockpuppet... will you be able to still WP:AGF, and give them WP:ROPE? Besides clearly explaining what they specifically did wrong ('not constructive' is not very specific), and pointing them to WP:TEAHOUSE or equivalent if you don't have time to personally explain their mistake, that's all we can really do, right? It is your talkpage, and you should feel free to do with it as you wish. But I'd like you to wish for WP:RETENTION, so we can start having enough active editors, and active admins, around to defend and improve wikipedia... not to mention train the beginners, so they learn how to act constructively. Is this making sense, or is the WP:WALLOFTEXT going overboard? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can appreciate high stress levels - real-world issues which I don't care to divulge have mine considerably higher than normal for the past week or so. That's not an excuse for the edit summary, just a statement - interpret how you will. Normally, I would have responded to the user with a statement about the lack of value in such sources and I would not have reverted; and even had I reverted, the phrasing of the edit summary could have been handled better.
- However, when you reached out to them on their talk page, there was absolutely no value in the subsequent restoration of the removed text on my talk page a couple minutes later. Such a restoration was redundant at best - and served no productive purpose other than triggering this discussion, which isn't going to accomplish much overall. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Barek, I appreciate your acknowledgement that it wasn't handled perfectly; I've made plenty of my own mistakes, and no doubt I will continue doing so for quite some time yet, until I finally learn to straighten up and fly right. :-) Furthermore, I really do sympathize with real-world stress, a much bigger problem than wikistress; I sincerely hope everything works out well for you. As for the value of restoring the conversation on your talkpage (and the timing), and the value of our conversation here...
- I actually came to your talkpage to get a copy of our previous conversation about rampaging bots, for pasting over on metaWiki, where I am now in discussions with *three* admins, sigh, and clicked the nonsense-revert out of curiosity... since realname editors rarely post nonsense, and since getting involved with WP:RETENTION has made me an incurable talkpage busybody. I *believe* I restored your talkpage right then, and simultaneously posted to Tom's talkpage in a new tab, then later came back to edit your talkpage, with a welcome-note, and a link from Barek-talk back to Tom-talk... but maybe I left the Barek-talkpage tab in preview-mode, and then copied in as one edit. In other words, whether I posted one first or the other, I definitely was in a hurry and took a shortcut, and I do apologize for that, once again -- I should have asked you to change it, rather than changing it myself, because it's your user-talkpage, after all. But my main concern was that Tom might visit your talkpage, since that is where they last posted, from an IP without bothering to login -- and thus never see the 'you have messages' bar, which only appears if they are logged in. That is the value in having their question on the barek-talkpage, and although small, not negligible methinks.
- This conversation, right now, *might* accomplish something... if you have some annoying person show up on your talkpage, or if they are not that brave, but you notice when reverting their Good Faith But Truly Misguided editing attempt that they only have a one-digit edit-count under their belts, please pass them along to me. Instead of replying on your talkpage, they can reply over on mine. You keep fighting the good fight on the front lines, and I'll do the customer-service work behind the lines. With luck, eventually I'll grow some of them into useful editors who know the ropes and have come to value wikipedia... at which point, I'll be able to send you some reinforcements. That's valuable, right? (Offer only valid in the lower 48, monday through sunday, not responsible for non-performance due to acts of god, your mileage may vary, offer may be withdrawn at any time if you send me a hundred beginners a week... or maybe I'll find some other WP:RETENTION types who want to help handle the flood.) Anyhoo, even if you don't think this is a good scheme, I appreciate what you do for wikipedia. I just wish we had fifty more like you, and the only way I've figured out to make that happen, is to train the beginners. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
404 errors
Hi. Can you please give some example pages that give 404 errors. Are these errors persistent? (Replied on my talkpage here and on Meta) πr2 (t • c) 02:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, is it possibly related to bugzilla:56006 and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#What_has_happened_to_Commons.3F? I noticed Meta was redirecting to wikimediafoundation.org earlier, but I don't remember any 404 errors. The village pump has some info on these problems. πr2 (t • c) 02:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looking over the what-has-happened-to-commons, one person (Stefan2) reported seeing 404 errors. They were just clicking around, though, from what I can tell. Most of the troubles were related to an incorrect redirect. Here is the tech-detail-explanation from Dan Zahn.[8] He can prolly say for certain whether that particular misconfig would have caused my 404 problems, but it seems likely: according to GregorB in that thread, the problems were the "same for meta.wikimedia.org" which is where I was working. However, I did have the strange case where my talkpage seemed to have been blanked, circa 18:30 UTC on the 22nd. Note that I never saw (to my knowledge) any 'wikimediafoundation.org' URLs in my browser's address-bar, except the time when I got the "no text in page" bug. Anyhoo, seems likely that all my 404 and redirect troubles were caused by the commons-redirect issue -- I first noticed problems at 17:50 or thereabouts, but MzMcBride had filed a bugzilla report at 17:11 on the difficulties. Below are the specifics of my story, if still needed for something, but I'm reasonably certain my troubles and bug#56006 are from the same root cause. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. Although the server-side troubles have been fixed, if you run across somebody complaining they are having 404 or redirect-to-wikimediafoundation.org problems today on the 23rd, prolly they need to restart their web-browser (or clear their browser-cache or use ctrl-r to for a full page-reload). I'm not seeing such issues, but somebody re-opened 56006 this morning, maybe for that reason. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have worked on wikipedia for many moons, and seen it go down (as in no longer accessible via the internet) maybe twice, when I happened to be actively editing and started seeing a variety of errors. With the 404 errors over on meta the other day, it was something different. Here is the nutshell story:
- I went over to meta, to work on my being-blocked-by-a-bot problems, and to post some complaints about rule#50 in particular onto my meta-talkpage. I posted my talk-section about "request change from disallow to warn" in the 'final' version as of 17:53, 22 October 2013. But during composition, I hit the preview-button perhaps ten times (say). Two of the ten, I got 404 errors (roughly). If I hit back-button, and clicked the preview-button again, it worked fine. Even so, alarming that *any* 404 errors would occur. So I stopped my work on documenting my rule#50 problems, and suggested changes, and instead tried to alert you on your talkpage that meta.wikipedia.org servers were having trouble.
- I was unable to send you a note there, due to bots preventing me from commenting. Still, I *tried* several times to fiddle with my note to you, seeing if I could trick the bot into letting me pass. During those preview&submit attempts on *your* meta-talkpage I received several more 404 errors, perhaps one in ten to four in ten. I did not keep an exact count ... but of course, as an admin on meta you can request a redacted copy of the raw webserver logfiles from the webserver-sysadmins over at meta's server-farm, which shows all the 200 errors and 404 errors which were returned to my IP during that couple-hour-timespan, if you want exact details... and those logs will also pinpoint which node(s) in the cluster are returning the errors, and which ones are working properly.
- I never did get past the bot 'protection' on your meta-talkpage, so I eventually gave up and posted on your enWiki talkpage, clicking submit circa 18:46, 22 October 2013. Later, I continued posting in various places -- never got any errors on enWiki of any sort (not counting captcha), but got intermittent 404 errors over on meta.
- Additionally, one time only, there was a "non-erroneous" pageview generated. Over on my meta-talkpage, when I made some new modification to a comment, and then clicked submit, after the freshly-modified page reloaded, instead of seeing the old talkpage comments, plus a new sentence at the bottom, I instead saw "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page." This happened ~18:30 on the 22nd. Just as with the 404 errors (of which I had seen several by this point), I was able to click back, and then click save again, and the problem "fixed" itself (my historical commentary and my new sentence were visible again).
- As of a few minutes ago, I created a new section on my meta-talkpage, and it handled 25 preview-button-presses and 5-or-10 save-button-presses, with no errors and no problems. So whatever the trouble was, at least from what this one test-session tells us, now is seemingly corrected. You might still want to request those webserver-logfiles, though... in case the 404 errors were load-related. Maybe there was a spam-storm during my 18:30 session on the 22nd, which was causing stress on the server-farm, and generating the somewhat-rare and intermittent 404 errors, plus the one "no text in this page" bug? If so, knowing which server-nodes were problematic may be helpful. I did not have the necessary HTTP-header-sniffing tools (or TCP-packet-sniffing tools alternatively) running on my box at the time, so I don't have any more info on this end about what server-IP was giving me the buggy results, but meta.wikimedia.org logfiles will show the problem (and you already know my IP and the timestamp range to request). HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I never got around to asking for logs, but the problem seems to have ended. You have new messages at m:Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#AbuseFilter_review. πr2 (t • c) 20:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice of External links noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MorrowStravis (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but ...
Thanks for being nice to Pratham. But ... have a look at what you dismissed as "template spam", again, and you'll find my admittedly lengthy message trying to warn him about copyvio (and Begoon explaining why one image keeps getting deleted). He's headed for trouble very fast with images and the article was also full of copied wording in his versions; if you can get him reading, please try to explain that, too. Thanks and good luck! Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I skimmed down it. The signal was lost for the noise. His english is pretty solid, and he understand talkpages and such, but he just applied for his first RfA, to prevent speedy deletions of his images. :-) He seems WP:COMPETENT, and full of wikithusiasm. I'll explain the COI and COPYVIO ropes, if I can. Might take more than one go-round, but we'll get there. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got your message, did my best. The thing is, there are a lot of admins less wishy-washy than me; if you could see the deleted contribs they show a determination to use a pic taken from another school's photo set, and although the notion that on Facebook or Google means it's up for grabs is a common one, eventually the irresistable force will meet the immovable object of our policies on copyvio and the community's problems with "I didn't hear that." So I see that as the emergency, and, hey, I admire the chutzpah of the RfA, which is what brought him to my attention. You are probably better at this than I am, and feel free to delete this section now. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's largely the prerogative of the talk page's "owner", with block notices being the big exception and with archiving being preferred. My concern was more that if someone finds they've been discussed, they might be emnbarrassed. Thanks for the invite to join the non-existent cabal; I've been aware of it since User:Dennis Brown either started or co-started it, but I avoid projects on Wikipedia: I'm not very clubbable, as was said of Mycroft Holmes, and when I see something blowing up at AN/I for example, rather than opine on policy and good practice, or gods forbid, hit the block button, my first instinct is always to go talk to the editor or just fix the article. And the one project I did get involved with ended badly from my point of view, so I've become even more of a loose cannon. Plus they rejected me at the Teahouse as not nice enough or something '-) So you may run into me again doing something nutty, but it's usually as a loner. That's how I keep that weird pie-chart, not to mention keep 'em guessing what I am qualified to teach '-) (BTW I snooped; there are actually quite a few academics already on Wikipedia, at least one faculty lounge's worth hang out at User:Drmies's talk page, some of them also with extra buttons.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got your message, did my best. The thing is, there are a lot of admins less wishy-washy than me; if you could see the deleted contribs they show a determination to use a pic taken from another school's photo set, and although the notion that on Facebook or Google means it's up for grabs is a common one, eventually the irresistable force will meet the immovable object of our policies on copyvio and the community's problems with "I didn't hear that." So I see that as the emergency, and, hey, I admire the chutzpah of the RfA, which is what brought him to my attention. You are probably better at this than I am, and feel free to delete this section now. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
This time I responded at my talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Academic papers
Articles about academics often have Bibliography sections. The one about Professor Sheldrake has one, but it doesn't mention any of his academic papers, which I'm told are numerous. Might it be good for Wikipedia if someone added them to the Bibliography? I am willing to do the work, within reason, but I hesitate to step on sensitive toes, or to do work that might be reverted without good reason. Lou Sander (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I started that effort, and have some links for his earlier papers (the mainstream ones). But yes, pointless to do the work if it will just be reverted. I will pass along the links I found to ICRIASTA-or-whatever-their-name-is, if you feel like it. But the real problem is the battleground, not the sourcing. We *have* plenty of sources, which are being ignored as 'not consensus'. I've never seen an article in worse shape than this one. I'm going to announce that I'm planning to bring in help, because vzaak keeps reverting my talkpage comments now, and is attempting to build the case I am disruptive. See previous bans of 71-whatever, Alfonzo, and of course Tumbleman... who unfortunately had "theatricalized a persona for dispute studies" which is quite reminiscent of my own *authentic* stance. Sigh. Anyways, I'll go talk to vzaak, and see if I can convince them I'm not Tumbleman. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your wise advice. I think I shall pay less attention for a while to the triply united righteous defenders of science, and more to developing a bibliography of academic papers, mostly for my own enlightenment. Professor Sheldrake's website has a pretty complete list of them, with links to abstracts and full text versions of most. His own website isn't a reliable source overall, of course, but the bibliographic data cites verifiable papers in legitimate journals, and is therefore, I hope, reliable.
- I don't think you are disruptive at all, unless disrupting disruptive editors is somehow disruptive. Lou Sander (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- That last sentence is hilarious, but not quite correct. Vast talkpage verbosity is absolutely disruptive in some cases, see WP:FILIBUSTER, named after the U.S. Senator Phil O'Buster who was a master of the technique in the 1790s[citation needed] and first portion of the eighteen-aughties. However, in my specific case on the Sheldrake page, the verbosity is a symptom of the basket-case nature of the article, and thus the talkpage. Very tough situation all around though... I cannot call in additional help from the WP:NICE cabal, because that would *add* to the verbosity... and thus drive good editors away like Dingo1729 for instance... besides, the *last* time somebody tried to bring in help, they got the WP:9STEPS treatment, right?
- But I also cannot simply hush-ma-verbosifyin-maaouth, to let the BLP article stand as it is, non-neutral and screwed up. Sigh. Anyhoo, we'll see whether I can convince Vzaak that I'm a human, rather than Just An Annoying IP. They are clearly the current WP:OWNer of the article, having literally five *times* more mainspaced edits than anybody else, and they are *not* in league with Barney's WP:NPA tactics (despite failing to speak *against* said techniques per pillar four policy). Vzaak is just conflating a couple things, and thus slightly biased, but methinks they will come around, and once that happens, David and Josh-aka-QTv and Vzaak will quickly get the article back into NPOV-shape. Anyhoo, thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- p.s. here are my URL-notes-for-later, sorry they are very rough, most I have *not* visited, please treat these as POV-and-unreliable-until-proven-otherwise. HTH 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
bunch of links that might someday improve the article
|
---|
some allegedly-POV stuff, but might not be WP:RS-enough per the hierarchy outlined in WP:FRINGE wp:aboutself facebook.com/RupertSheldrake "world-renowned author" with 11k likes http://dangerousminds.net/comments/rupert_sheldrake_speaks_on_the_ted_censorship_controversy "acclaimed author" edge.org/memberbio/rupert_sheldrake http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Sheldrake,_Rupert http://www.bizspirit.com/spkrfullbio/science08/si8_SheldrakeR.html publication counts http://oar.icrisat.org/view/creators/Sheldrake=3AA_R=3A=3A.html papers authored as a commercial researcher , 1974-1985 sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rupert_Sheldrake might be reliable http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/sheldrake-morphogenic-field-memory-lashley-collective-unconscious-3486.html http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/rupert-sheldrake-dna-843.html http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/446/wrong_turn http://www.williamjames.com/transcripts/sheldra1.htm http://www.salon.com/1999/11/23/sheldrake/ https://scimednet.org/the-science-delusion cites for controversial adjective "Rupert Sheldrake is the most controversial scientist on Earth." (Robert Anton Wilson, author of Prometheus Rising and The Illuminati Papers) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-02-26-mindmain-usat_x.htm "controversial scientist" ... "controversial biologist" http://www.sciencebase.com/nov00_iss.html cites for renowned adjective http://www.haverford.edu/calendar/details/214012 http://merliannews.com/Personal_Dialogues_34/Merlian_News_Talks_To_World_Renowned_Biologist_and_510.shtml http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt0fyi_lumenz-networks-rupert-sheldrake-s-biography_news not to be confused with ...Philip Sheldrake, author of The Business of Influence... philipsheldrake.com ...Nicole Sheldrake, author of Red Catsuit... ...Wayne Sheldrake, author of Instant Karma: The Heart and Soul of a Ski Bum An Inspiring Tale of Letting Go to Gain it All... this basket-case article is making wikipedia infamous and sheldrake famous sciencesetfree.tumblr.com -- rupert sheldrake's official blog... number one article hints wikipedia is headed for a defamation lawsuit, same as he did with TEDx ... also, seems a reasonable guy, no wonder regular people like him. http://www.realitysandwich.com/wikipedia_battle_rupert_sheldrakes_biography https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-wikipedia-battle-for-rupert-sheldrakes-biography/ http://www.philipsheldrake.com/2012/01/reputation-and-wikipedia/ (coincidence... this public-relations guy named phil-sheldrake apparently does not know about the more-(in)famous-rupert) "For years, dogmatic skeptics have portrayed themselves as defenders of science and reason, and have bullied journalists into accepting their claims. They have pretended to speak on behalf of the mainstream science. SCEPCOP is doing a great job in helping to expose these pretensions, and in revealing how the claims of militant skeptics are often unscientific and unreasonable, as well as being arrogant and ignorant." --Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Renowned Telepathy/Consciousness Researcher, Biologist and Author (as quoted at http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/praises.php which is the SCEPCOP website) |
- I don't know... But maybe that's just me. Lou Sander (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a warning I have, which I don't know whether it applies to any of the URLs I mentioned, or to any on Sheldrake's website, which is that some peer-reviewed-journals are scams, inventions for the purpose of cloaking an idea in the respectability of science without any of the actual trappings, such as the Peer-Reviewed Journal Of Bigfoot Sightings By True Believers... i.e. the 'peers' are not scientific, but social and promotional 'peers' in some cases. Very difficult to detect, but if you follow the cites, you can find these things out. I wrote up a FAQ about this problem, see Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories#Are_claims_fringe_if_no_WP:RS_calls_them_fringe.3F Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"Vast talkpage verbosity is absolutely disruptive in some cases"
You said that. Yes, it is. Please limit the length and number of your contributions to Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. You're bloating up the page, and too much of your text reads like stream-of-consciousness. I'm asking you to slow down, and to edit your future contributions for clarity, reader-friendliness, and especially relevance. Your fellow editors are not perfect, but surely they deserve that much. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
- Hello Bishonen, and I meant it when I said it -- I have studied WP:WALLOFTEXT deeply, and see myself described there; my userpage was once a redirect to that policy. I do attempt to keep a reasonable limit on my contributions, as simple as possible but no simpler... but I fully admit TLDR is definitely a disease I suffer from. Plus, as you point out, there are N readers of a sentence, for every one writer thereof.
- That said, there are some mitigating circumstances here. I've never heard of Sheldrake or his morpho-stuff prior to getting sucked into the WP:BATTLEGROUND, so part of the reason that you see stream-of-consciousness in my posts there is that I'm trying to get a reality-check on whether my reasoning is flawed. This necessarily bulks out my posts, as I am a n00b about the topic, if not about wikipedia herself. I'm no longer a morphogenetics-n00b, by painful necessity, so I expect this particular mitigating circumstance is now largely solved. (However, that does not solve my tendency toward verbosity in general.)
- The second problem, which I consider far more serious (and quite frustrating to me), is that even other editors with reasonable concerns very similar to mine, all of whom are registered usernames, and all of whom manage quite well to post without crossing the TLDR line, are also being ignored, as far as mainspace goes. WP:IDHT. User:David_in_DC has made several good-faith edits, attempting to get the problem of what job-title the BLP is going to get, and is insta-reverted every time. User:VeryScaryMary came specifically to the talkpage to ask about that same problem, and it immediately burst into flames, with nothing being done. Iantresman, Lou_Sander, and various others, same exact story with slight variations. Lots of talkpage changes, never resulting in any change in mainspace, goto ten. Skim the vast talkpage... which has at least five or six different sections specifically devoted to whether the current article's author-and-parapsychologist is NPOV, rather than the vastly-better-supported-by-sources biologist-and-author-who-does-work-in-parapsychology. If it was just the job-title, that would be one thing... but the badly-POV-flawed sentence on the Sokal hoax, the downplay of fellowships, the refusal to mention the Ph.D, and the elimination of mention of the 30 years and half-dozen-to-a-dozen-books... no matter the issue, the mainspace article just stays broken, and never improves substantively (enough to gain talkpage consensus! there are many edits... just none Solving The Problems... which leads to another round of talkpage frustration).
- The third problem, which I am the only one attempting to address directly (at least one other editor having expressed fear of the admin-fallout which has led to three blocks/bans that I know about in the very recent past), is the root cause of the second problem. Sheldrake has always been a controversial figure. But if you compare his BLP article in May 2013, with his BLP article now (not to mention the recently-deleted article on the BLP's ideas as distinct from the BLP), you will notice a sea-change from a slight-pro-Sheldrake-lean, to a noticeably-significant-anti-Sheldrake-lean. That is *very* bad for BLP. It is not quite an attack-page, per se, since everything on it is more-or-less-true, and more-or-less-sourced. But there is definitely WP:CHERRYPICKING, and there is definitely WP:EDITORIALIZING. Because the page is such a warzone, it has been locked against me being able to make my own mainspace edits. Barney, who has the admirable goal (in all seriousness with no sarcasm intended whatever) of educating the wikipedia readers about true science, and keeping them from mistaking pseudoscience for the real deal, mentioned bringing an admin into the picture, with the oh-so-convenient idea (okay *that* part was sarcasm) that the talkpage should also be locked, because Some People Are Dangerous IP Vandals which threaten the sanctity of WP:BLPTALK. Sorry to disappoint, but my primary goal is WP:NICE and WP:RETENTION, and I see warzones as a problem to be solved, by ending the war... not by *winning* the war, but by getting mainspace compliant with WP:BLP, and sentences that everybody can live with aka WP:CONSENSUS. Which is impossible, in the WP:BATTLEGROUND environment, which started long before I arrived.
some meta-thinking about this whole Sheldrake fiasco
|
---|
|
- So, having absolutely positively justified that charge of verbosity... <grin> ...I will await your advice. I'm against banning, and blocking, of anybody. I'm against boomerang. I'm against admin-involvement at all, quite frankly, if it can be avoided. (Thus I provide you no diffs here, nor investigate further myself to find my exact accusers, or what they said; if you think diffs from me will *help* you improve the situation, then they do exist, and if you want answers about some particular accusation, ask and you shall receive, I'll try to keep it terse.) Fundamentally, I want everybody to leave the page satisfied, at the end of the week or month or however long this basket-case takes to fix, not leave holding grudges and plotting revenge. I've been debating whether or not to call for reinforcements... but the last time somebody tried that, they were instantly brought before a noticeboard on WP:CANVASSING charges. I will not attempt to bring help to the Sheldrake fiasco, without first discussing a neutral method of 'jury selection' on the article-talkpage. (Never thought I would have to worry about such things....) Furthermore, I'm halfway convinced adding additional voices can only hurt. The talkpage is already way too crowded, and the problems and personalities too complex.
- If you have advice, please offer it. This is not the worst article I've ever seen on wikipedia -- in fact it is *incredibly* well-sourced if a bit disjointed -- but it is, bar none, the worst talkpage I've ever seen, including all of the 2012 senate and house and presidential election pages. Those were a walk in the park, by comparison. Sorry to talkpage your ear off, thanks for improving wikipedia, appreciate you not chopping my access off, and instead just giving me some friendly TLDR advice. I'll do my best to take it to heart, even if my answer to you here on *my* talkpage seems to flout the general idea. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh god. Maybe on a good day I'll read all the above. I have some health problems, and don't want to make them worse. :p. I'm afraid I don't have any advice about the article. I should think very few people are prepared to read that talkpage by now, and I agree that throwing more people at it can only hurt. I should mention that you and I don't seem to be on the "same page" (see what I did there?) a lot, since you apparently regard VeryScaryMary and Iantresman as forces for good on that page (unless I've misunderstood you) and I frankly don't. I thought I understood what you meant by WP:NICE, but maybe not, if you see IRWolfie as affiliated with it. Whether or not, Wolfie didn't leave because of the Sheldrake page. See the current disaster on his talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
- Heh heh heh... yeah, sorry about wall-o-text. Please feel free to skip the above entirely; I'll try and tone down my floodgates on the Sheldrake talkpage. (And in fact, you can skip the rest of *this* message, which is explaining who the forces-of-good and the forces-of-misguided at the moment are, if you care to know the gory details.) I realize that Iantresman and VeryScaryMary tend to lean a bit on the pro-Sheldrake side... everybody has bias so that's no shame... but calling the man a biologist, since he spent 21 years post-undergrad doing that (and still is experimenting and a visiting professor and winning grants and such) is *fair* rather than pro-Sheldrake. Up until this summer, that is just what the page said, right at the top, as well as listing the N books that Sheldrake has authored over the past thirty years. Since the emergent behavior that looks like the Grand Sceptic Conspiracy but is really just disconnected individuals all reacting to the external-TEDx-censorship-furor, Sheldrake is *never* allowed to be called a biologist except in the decades-past-tense, *never* allowed to be called a highly successful author. That's distorting the truth, and playing into the hands of people who want to see Sheldrake as the persecuted genius.
- So, yes, absolutely, at this moment both VeryScaryMary and Iantresman __are__ forces of good-for-wikipedia on the talkpage right now, because they want the article to say the plain truth! That makes the skeptics the bad-for-wikipedia guys, trying to distort the truth for POV reasons, and turns them from defenders of reason (and champions of wikipedia!) into defenders of we-pick-the-sources-that-says-what-we-likes. That makes Sheldrake look good, and wikipedia look bad. But at least a few of the skeptics are so frustrated they're also stooping to personal attacks, and sarcasm as a drive-away-others tactic, and especially IDHT... which as a WP:RETENTION champion is what drove *me* nutty enough to dive in headfirst, and I'll stay till it looks fixed. (Even those that do not so stoop... stay complicit through silence.)
- Grrrr. The longer the talkpage warzone goes on, the better Sheldrake looks, which is the opposite of what the pro-skeptic forces want. As for IrWolfie, he *is* on the WP:RETENTION members list at #67, and he *does* do some good things, like leaving personal notes on talkpages rather than template-spamming (ahem... more on milquetoast another time perhaps). But although honestly interested in WP:RETENTION, he is not above trying to use the ban-hammer to create a win for skepticism, or watching silently while other shred pillar four... Not Good. He's a very competent editor though, just prickly about specific topic-areas, and the rest of the forces-of-reason on the Sheldrake page are also crucial to wikipedia's long-term health... just misguided in tactics, where Sheldrake is concerned (his highly respectable science-credentials coupled with his telepathy-like theories push the Big Red Button of raging emotion). The way to silence mystic voodoo is not to censor it, and drive away proponents from wikipedia, the best way is WP:NICE, and reliance on sources, not WP:9STEPS. I'll skip reading IRWolfie's talkpage, but they *are* an asset to wikipedia, if they can just keep WP:NICE in mind. p.s. Is it true you know the famed Bishzilla, awesome titan of the deeps? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bishonen: It is worth it to read 74.192.84.101's lengthy posts, especially the ones in this section. I am agnostic on VeryScaryMary and Iantresman, but their posts here are civil and thoughtful, as are 74's. Lou Sander (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- 74.192.84.101. Well, if you'd looked, you'd know Wolfie is no longer an asset to Wikipedia. He's left. :-( I've met Bishzilla, yes, and even travel in her pocket sometimes. Cosy! Bishonen | talk 22:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC).
- Sigh. See, *this* is why I hate warzones, because of casualties we cannot afford. Gotta go trick-or-treat now. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- What you really need to do is to write your walls of text so that you get it out of your system, put in the tiny edit summary which sums up what you've said, then delete the wall of text, and press "Save page" You seem to be good at summarising into that small box, so much so that I stopped reading the walls of text days ago. All my love - Rox. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- (please see edit-summary :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You see, I'm right. You could edit mainspace too. Create an account, and we could hold you to account better too. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- (Ummm... edit mainspace without WP:NINJA insta-reverts?) Well, sure, I could create 74zillaKrakenFromTheDeepsTheOneWhoSwallowedBishMwwuaahahaaa, and link it to this IP, and make myself a userpage, and so on and so forth. (There's some practical difficulties, nothing *too* horrid.) But that's never been interesting to me. And philosophically, I've always been in favor of the-encyclopedia-anyone-can-edit. Creating an account violates that principle. In the last year or so, however, is when I became a WP:NICE nazi... and it became very clear to me, from looking at WP:RETENTION and the RfA process and metaWiki stuff, that wikiCulture has become a caste-system. I intend to fix that, and part of doing so means I *need* to be Just Another Anon, 74-blah. There's actually another user I noticed on the Sheldrake talkpage, QTvX-whatever aka Josh, that has a philosophy somewhat similar to mine. Anyhoo, I'll stop typing now, and concentrate on distilling the essence into my edit-summary. Also, imagine that I'm resonancing my edit-summary in your direction, morphically implanting it so you can actually remember what it said *before* you bother reading it, which will *really* save you a lot of time, going forward, now won't it? :-) Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you on the talkpage. p.s. If my IP were to dynamically get re-assigned tomorrow, and 47-blah showed up on the Sheldrake talkpage, posting huge walls and demanding wp:nice, could you *possibly* not think it was moi? Methinks the trouble here is that some folks aren't too 100% sure I'm not secretly tumbleman, back from the dead, out to transhumanize myself er elzzz... I'm not o'course... but I'd say that if I was riiight? Sigh. You know that story already, though, methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You see, I'm right. You could edit mainspace too. Create an account, and we could hold you to account better too. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh. See, *this* is why I hate warzones, because of casualties we cannot afford. Gotta go trick-or-treat now. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Wars and rumors of wars
There is a rumor that the BBC has, within the last day or so, interviewed a well-known author/lecturer/scientist who commented pretty specifically on a well-known BLP and its argumentative talk page. It's only a rumor, of course, but keep yer eyes on the telly. Lou Sander (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I've always heard, do not fire until you see the whites of their eyes, is the old rule. Plus, the teevee is not my friend -- I keep a sharp eye on 'em, to make sure they stay off. I'm hoping the rumors are wrong, but I won't be too surprised if they turn out correct... bound to happen sooner or later. I'd rather any mainstream coverage that DOES happen, wait to happen until *after* we get the article cleaned up by NPOV standards, though. The talkpage discussion may finally turn into something that will substantively improve the actual text of the actual mainspace article... rather than just a bunch of talkpage heat, with little light, and no mainspace progress, goto ten. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Further review of my source shows that "BBC World Service" might be radio instead of teevee. My source is impeccable, but is a more-or-less primary one. I don't want to share it here, but could do so by double top secret email. (No sharing Source's contact info, fer example). It might take your breath away, which might be a good thing, since I hear that long-windedness is disruptive, cause for banning, etc. (though I don't have a WP:RS on that). ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- As a old time radio nut Lou, you know full well that BBC World Service is radio. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
RE: justice wikia
Hi. I opened a RFC that Qwyrxian suggested. --MorrowStravis (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh ho, a race, is it? :-) Well, there's nothing wrong with that, of course. But there is a long backlog there, as you probably noticed. If you want to help, pick one of the questions you see there, and offer them some advice, that will restore your RfC-karma back to even-steven. <grin> I have a few minutes, so I'm posting over on the article-talkpage, where you announced the link to your RfC. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I replied on the two pages. --MorrowStravis (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)