m Signing comment by King4057 - "→Talkback: " |
Best to focus on the topic at hand |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
I saw you added a link in the header to WP:PSCOI. I worked on that guide extensively, and love to see it mentioned (in fact I added it to the See Also section of WP:COI today). That said, I don't know that it's appropriate to link to a guide which doesn't carry weight of policy or even a guideline at the top of a core policy. What do you think? [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
I saw you added a link in the header to WP:PSCOI. I worked on that guide extensively, and love to see it mentioned (in fact I added it to the See Also section of WP:COI today). That said, I don't know that it's appropriate to link to a guide which doesn't carry weight of policy or even a guideline at the top of a core policy. What do you think? [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]<sup> [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]</sup> 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Focus on topic at hand == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FCivility_enforcement%2FProposed_decision&action=historysubmit&diff=477577782&oldid=477571285 This] is not good. |
|||
* It's implicitly expected that editors limit discussion to the relevant topic area. |
|||
* Please [[WP:BECONCISE|be concise]]. |
|||
* In your unban request you indicated your intent was to focus on article work; I'm observing what I classify as a lot of activity in the WP: space. |
|||
* You were given a heads up that WR critics would be taking pot shots at you. There's not much Wikipedia can or will do about one off comments from IPs; best just to ignore them. <small>[[User talk:Nobody Ent|Nobody Ent]]</small> 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:00, 18 February 2012
Click to email ⇒✉ |
|
Congratulations
Welcome back. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC).
- Thanks
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Stop
Stop tagging accounts as socks of anyone, please. That is not appropriate behaviour for someone trying to stay out of trouble, particularly when you get some of them wrong. Further, don't tag IP addresses. Risker (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are other IP addresses that were tagged already sorry, I thought you are meant to have them all added? How are you meant to keep track of the ones not attached to accounts for future checking if you don't add them to the category?
- BTW, I've just been screamed at as an "anti-SOPA zealot" for trying to help you - he is from the Comcast Corporation marketing department[2] as well, I didn't realise before but I was checking into abuse of other stuff and found out.
- It is kinda disappointing how no one else apparently bothered to look through the article history (I am sure the only one I got wrong was Giggle, that was because he made a load of minor edits to it, I said sorry to PS after doublechecking and found a conflicting edit that proved he was right it's not a sock) and find all those sock edits that look pretty real to me, and most of them weren't even blocked, let alone tagged
My big question to you is, if you didn't spot those, how many sockpuppets are there working for but not giving it away by editing own article?
I have joined the Paid Advocacy Watch because of this. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Several of them are wrong. Please revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will do it because you are intimidating me about it, but this is not right... I just had a look at the Template:Sockpuppet to look for what the rules were and it does seem I was wrong to use that template and you're right there, but shouldn't the other one go on them instead? Anyway, I'll do it now but I hope you don't just ignore that stuff? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody is intimidating you. Remove the tags please, as you have no basis on which to attach them other than that those IPs and accounts have edited a particular article. Risker (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- bleh well you made me feel intimidated enough to run and revert them against policy, it's done
I hope you're happy, I did check the contributions before tagging any of them and was careful not to tag some users in the history, this wasn't an indiscriminate thing - there are just that many socks, and that's only the ones silly enough to edit its own article
I notice that there weren't any corporate edits on any of the ones attached with the article, so there are obviously a lot of accounts you don't know about... WP:PAIDWATCH is a call for action and this should be a wakeup call, seriously, read it
"You are making up some kind of new principle if you think some principle of Wikipedia requires that we ignore a problem that can be solved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)"
- bleh well you made me feel intimidated enough to run and revert them against policy, it's done
- Nobody is intimidating you. Remove the tags please, as you have no basis on which to attach them other than that those IPs and accounts have edited a particular article. Risker (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I will do it because you are intimidating me about it, but this is not right... I just had a look at the Template:Sockpuppet to look for what the rules were and it does seem I was wrong to use that template and you're right there, but shouldn't the other one go on them instead? Anyway, I'll do it now but I hope you don't just ignore that stuff? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Several of them are wrong. Please revert yourself and remove the tags. Risker (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need to go around reverting everything I said just because of this, I just saw your edits on WP:PAIDWATCH (not self promotion because my account is totally anonymous like Wikipedia Review article says, and the site itself runs on donations, mostly from me...), but I am not going to fight with you... I am guessing you are still angry at me about this, but, seriously, everyone should be on the same side on this...
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've hardly reverted everything you said, please do not exaggerate. Placing links to the website you have stated (on numerous occasions) that you own is not appropriate. On your user page, fine. Elsewhere, no. You're also inappropriately ascribing motives; please do not continue doing that. Nobody Ent has given you good advice. Risker (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry when I said going around deleting it seemed like you were just starting to delete more, I had just saw that edit, that's what i meant - have you noticed since you and Toddst1's conflict with the signpost[3] about Surturz feeling pressurrised to remove your names from the Baseball Bugs story and he complained that Toddst1 then went and started deleting his pages, he hasn't logged on since?
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry when I said going around deleting it seemed like you were just starting to delete more, I had just saw that edit, that's what i meant - have you noticed since you and Toddst1's conflict with the signpost[3] about Surturz feeling pressurrised to remove your names from the Baseball Bugs story and he complained that Toddst1 then went and started deleting his pages, he hasn't logged on since?
- I've hardly reverted everything you said, please do not exaggerate. Placing links to the website you have stated (on numerous occasions) that you own is not appropriate. On your user page, fine. Elsewhere, no. You're also inappropriately ascribing motives; please do not continue doing that. Nobody Ent has given you good advice. Risker (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need to go around reverting everything I said just because of this, I just saw your edits on WP:PAIDWATCH (not self promotion because my account is totally anonymous like Wikipedia Review article says, and the site itself runs on donations, mostly from me...), but I am not going to fight with you... I am guessing you are still angry at me about this, but, seriously, everyone should be on the same side on this...
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Many hands make light work
It's not your job or my job or anyone else's job to fix all of Wikipedia. It's just too darn big. So don't feel compelled to address any but the most urgent or blatant violations. There's no doubt in my mind that there are many undetected socks on Wikipedia but that doesn't keep me from sleeping very well at night. If they're so good at behaving themselves that no one detects that's bad thing because ... ? It's been strongly suggested your stay out of the Wikipedia back alleys -- in other words try to stick to main article space. If you do run across suspicious activity / possible socking or start getting into a content dispute just add note to the bottom of your talk page and some (talk page stalker) will take a look. If you end up at ANI again you're probably just done. I ain't gonna pretend it's right or fair but I know it just is. Nobody Ent 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I know I can't do everything myself but you saying that I should just ignore anything?
I was told the original unban conditions applied which were to follow policy and listen to the advice of my mentor, I think I did what any other Wikipedian should have done really?just not many people apparently bothered to look at the history much (it wasn't just the IPs missing, there were a few sockpuppets tagged as sockpuppets of sockuppets, and ones listed on the banned page but not tagged at all... It was like someone was just playing whack a mole without looking at it carefully from the outside and noticing the things I did) I hope WP:PAIDWATCH has a chance at least
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're not any other user. What did Volunteer Marek recommend you do about the sockpuppet situation? Nobody Ent 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think he's on at the moment one problem might be that my timezones can be varied and rarely US :s maybe a european meantor too could be cool, marek is cool though too --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I am in a European time zone, so I am more likely to be active when Volunteer Marek is offline. If you think something might even be slightly controversial, as the taggings turned out to be, don't hesitate to ask someone for their advice/opinion first before going ahead with it. Acalamari 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think he's on at the moment one problem might be that my timezones can be varied and rarely US :s maybe a european meantor too could be cool, marek is cool though too --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're not any other user. What did Volunteer Marek recommend you do about the sockpuppet situation? Nobody Ent 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- As indicated above, it would be a good idea to not engage with controversial issues such as tagging socks or linking to WR (someone strongly connected with a website should not promote that site here). When editors in good standing post suggestions here, why not take their advice with some kind of "ok" message? BTW while some people archive their user talk page by moving the page to an archive, that is not generally done with article talk pages. For example, Talk:MyWikiBiz now has no wikiproject or previous-AfD boxes because they are in the archive—I doubt if the wikiprojects are important for that page and I don't mind them being removed, but it is not standard procedure. No tea for me thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
TalkBack
Wanted to let you know I left a response on Philippe's Talk page King4057 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- The Neverhood (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Bill Brown
- Websense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Sex Education
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Cool bot
- File:Mr Blobby.jpg
- this is how I would make a robot look like if I made a robot
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that bot scares me a little - reminds me of the Stanford Christmas tree mascot somehow - prolly the lips. Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, --JaGatalk 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- why is london a beautiful city? because bee venom
- Wow, that bot scares me a little - reminds me of the Stanford Christmas tree mascot somehow - prolly the lips. Thanks for the laugh! Cheers, --JaGatalk 20:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- standford is that place where googles live right.
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Websense
Unfortunately, it seems that you are well past three reverts on Websense. While I'm a fan of BRD as well, BRD isn't an excuse to continue to revert, especially when the discussion part of the process is ongoing. 3RR is not about being right or wrong with your changes, so much as trying to make conflicts manageable.
I guess you'll need to make a choice on how to proceed, but I'm afraid it is enough of a problem that it will need to be raised on the 3RR noticeboard if you choose to continue along this path, and given the conditions of your unblock I can't see that ending well. - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mistress Selina Kyle, I would definitely stop reverting at this point...and you should possibly consider even reverting your most recent revert; instead, continue to discuss the article on its talk page and come to a resolution. Honestly, this is not something worth getting blocked over, and you have been improving and doing a lot of good recently: don't give anyone itching to have you reblocked the chance to have your ban re-instated. Acalamari 13:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I already did stop reverting though I was trying to have a discussion and he kept reverting me, so I reverted those back 3 times
if you look carefully at the history I remembered the 3 rule and didn't do it more than that? my first edit was a revert of a sockpuppet (Clevea and related accounts of Websense) which it specifically says is excluded
--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I already did stop reverting though I was trying to have a discussion and he kept reverting me, so I reverted those back 3 times
- Unfortunately, you hit five reverts overall, ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) so even the IP proves to be a sockpuppet, you will still have passed 3RR. I'm with Acalamari in that I'd prefer not to see you blocked over something as pointless as Websense, which is why I wanted to raise it with you, but you will need to be more careful. - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, good, I'm glad you have decided to stop reverting; and yes, if the first revert was to revert a sock, that one is exempt. My comment here wasn't meant as an "official" warning from me to block you, but rather a piece of advice to prevent you from having a 3RR report filed on you that would end up resulting in you being blocked. Be aware, however, that 3RR is not a hard limit, and users can still be blocked for edit warring, rather than for breaking a 3-revert limit.
- Finally, for Bilby, the "itching to have you reblocked" part of my comment to Selina was not directed at you or anyone else involved in the dispute. When I re-read my initial comment, I thought it might come across that way, but I can assure you that it wasn't. Best to all here. Acalamari 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Perhaps there has been some confusion. 3 ≠ 5.
- You say that your first revert was of a sockpuppet; let's be clear about that. [9]
- I fixed some POV / OR / SYNTH; you hit the revert button. [10]
- I tried removing the problematic content again; you hit the revert button [11]
- Bilby undid your revert, trying to fix the POV; you reverted that too. [12]
- Not wanting to get entangled in 3RR, I tried fixing some other - separate problems in the article, including more POV and misuse of sources; you hit revert again. [13]
- How many does that add up to? I don't want drama, so I'm giving you a chance to self-revert, instead of getting this problem fixed at WP:AN3. bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) (arghhh god so annoying) @Acalamari/Bilby Ok sorry that I went one over (4 not 5 because you don't include the sockpuppet I am 100% sure that was a sockpuppet if you look at the investigation page even without checkuser it's so obvious when you line all the edits up) sorry I should have kept track better I think just got carried away, it was annoying that I was trying to do the right thing by having a discussion on the talk page like you are supposed to and he was just ignoring it and reverting anyway, it seemed like they were just paying lipservice to how you are actually supposed to do it, sorry.
- I'll just leave it alone the sockpuppet investigation stil needs to be done too, I am 100% that the first one was sockpuppets even without checkuse because as I noted in the investigation when you put the edits together it's so sooo obvious --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Threatening AN3 is inconsistent with not wanting drama. Nobody Ent 14:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) (scream)
- @br: Nobody Ent has since edited the article I noticed trying to do a compromise it looks like, I think if I go and revert that to my version that would definitely definitely be against the rules? I have no idea anymore --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the version Bobrayner wants you to revert to is this one, and unless I am mistaken (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong...before Mistress Selina Kyle makes any decision to revert herself), you reverting to that version would not count as edit-warring as you would be reverting yourself, and Nobody Ent's compromise is a result of your recent edit (however, reverting Nobody Ent's edit back to your own edit would be a very bad idea, to say the least). However, as blocks are supposed to be prevantative rather than punitive, I don't believe any blocks are necessary (for anyone who was reverting on that page) now that no one has reverted another for about two hours, so I don't think bringing this to AN3 would be a good idea. Acalamari 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oops I mean if I revert to the version before my version, sorry got mixed up, looks like you answered that as well though I think —Ok I'll just stay away sorry, I wish whoever has to deal with the sockpuppet investigation good luck because it looked like a right web of sliminess :/ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you're "trying to do the right thing", a good start would be to return to some more neutral content - that is, content which actually reflects what sources say. What do you think? (One could argue that "doing the right thing" should also include striking out ad hominems and lies, but I don't want to set the bar unrealistically high; I'm more interested in the content than the drama) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I wouldn't want to give mixed messages. Other people have advised you to walk away rather than edit; if that means article improvements no longer get reverted, I'd be happy with that outcome too. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Trying to censor criticism is not "improvements" by any definition.... You are the one that kept attacking me, as anyone looking on Talk:Websense can see with stuff like "point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay!"
- On the other hand, I wouldn't want to give mixed messages. Other people have advised you to walk away rather than edit; if that means article improvements no longer get reverted, I'd be happy with that outcome too. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you're "trying to do the right thing", a good start would be to return to some more neutral content - that is, content which actually reflects what sources say. What do you think? (One could argue that "doing the right thing" should also include striking out ad hominems and lies, but I don't want to set the bar unrealistically high; I'm more interested in the content than the drama) bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oops I mean if I revert to the version before my version, sorry got mixed up, looks like you answered that as well though I think —Ok I'll just stay away sorry, I wish whoever has to deal with the sockpuppet investigation good luck because it looked like a right web of sliminess :/ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the version Bobrayner wants you to revert to is this one, and unless I am mistaken (someone please correct me on this if I am wrong...before Mistress Selina Kyle makes any decision to revert herself), you reverting to that version would not count as edit-warring as you would be reverting yourself, and Nobody Ent's compromise is a result of your recent edit (however, reverting Nobody Ent's edit back to your own edit would be a very bad idea, to say the least). However, as blocks are supposed to be prevantative rather than punitive, I don't believe any blocks are necessary (for anyone who was reverting on that page) now that no one has reverted another for about two hours, so I don't think bringing this to AN3 would be a good idea. Acalamari 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- @br: Nobody Ent has since edited the article I noticed trying to do a compromise it looks like, I think if I go and revert that to my version that would definitely definitely be against the rules? I have no idea anymore --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Then started and kept reverting rather than discussing, despite being told about WP:BRD, that is far worse, it's not meant to be "what you can get away with" whilst paying lipservice to the idea behind the rules, the ones that aren't fixed are just as important...
- I am going back to Talk:Websense where discussion should have been in the first place if you hadn't deliberately started edit warring... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop lying and misrepresenting me. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Why are you calling me a liar? That was a direct quote from the page, as anyone can see if they look at talk:Websense --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop lying and misrepresenting me. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am going back to Talk:Websense where discussion should have been in the first place if you hadn't deliberately started edit warring... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 16:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Mistress Selina Kyle. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SilverserenC 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have replied - and noted that this is the only message I have ever received from you, when the page says at the very top that you are meant to try resolve issues by talking with people civilly rather than using the board as a "dramaboard" which is showing contempt for the good people that try to seriously mediate or debate on issues they disagree with... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hi Mistress! Response on my Talk page. King4057 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mistress. Hopefully I'm adequately articulating where you take issue with the article over on the CREWE Talk page? I'm just trying to be helpful, though I'm sure I just sealed the deal on ever getting a job at any PR agency participating in CREWE ;-) King4057 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Mistress. I thought you might want to check out my suggestions on the Talk page and see if you felt that would make the article more balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by King4057 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
CREWE
I just want to be clear that I was not trying to hide views that I disagree with, I was collapsing a discussion that was seriously off-topic and dealt with individual editors' opinions about the subject rather than published sources or constructive criticism of the article as it is written. It's important to keep this talk page free of the drama that goes on in the real world happenings of CREWE and its supporters/detractors. Unless views are expressed in reliable sources or directly pertain to the article, we have no business discussing them on the article's talk page. That's just basic Wikipedia policy that the talk page is not a forum. I hope you better understand why I collapsed the conversation, and why I would do it again if it continues in that manner. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 06:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Link to the plain and simple conflict of interest guide on WP:COI
I saw you added a link in the header to WP:PSCOI. I worked on that guide extensively, and love to see it mentioned (in fact I added it to the See Also section of WP:COI today). That said, I don't know that it's appropriate to link to a guide which doesn't carry weight of policy or even a guideline at the top of a core policy. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 07:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Focus on topic at hand
This is not good.
- It's implicitly expected that editors limit discussion to the relevant topic area.
- Please be concise.
- In your unban request you indicated your intent was to focus on article work; I'm observing what I classify as a lot of activity in the WP: space.
- You were given a heads up that WR critics would be taking pot shots at you. There's not much Wikipedia can or will do about one off comments from IPs; best just to ignore them. Nobody Ent 19:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)