Rick Block (talk | contribs) →Reverting good faith edits: most new users are not the enemy |
Rick Block (talk | contribs) →Reverting good faith edits: I do know who you are |
||
Line 222: | Line 222: | ||
I'm not complaining about removing the text (and, yes, I deleted the same text), just suggesting that you don't use rollback for anything that might be a good faith edit. I completely agree we get tons of advertisements posing as articles, but we must still assume good faith. I suspect we get quite a number of new users who've never read [[WP:NOT]] and don't realize they shouldn't be adding advertisements. If we have good reason to believe they already know about our policies, revert away (hell, warn then block). If they're new, IMO we should tell them not to add advertisements in a fairly friendly way in hopes that they'll become productive editors (maybe they'll even help watch for other misguided folks adding advertisements and help spread the word). Most new users are not the enemy. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
I'm not complaining about removing the text (and, yes, I deleted the same text), just suggesting that you don't use rollback for anything that might be a good faith edit. I completely agree we get tons of advertisements posing as articles, but we must still assume good faith. I suspect we get quite a number of new users who've never read [[WP:NOT]] and don't realize they shouldn't be adding advertisements. If we have good reason to believe they already know about our policies, revert away (hell, warn then block). If they're new, IMO we should tell them not to add advertisements in a fairly friendly way in hopes that they'll become productive editors (maybe they'll even help watch for other misguided folks adding advertisements and help spread the word). Most new users are not the enemy. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
:You use rollback for edits that are bad. It is all rather simple. In fact, I was around when rollback was instituted. [[User:Danny|Danny]] 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I know who you are, and it amazes me that you seem to be arguing about this. You are well aware that [[WP:BITE]] and [[WP:AGF]] are guidelines. I'm simply reminding you that reverting newcomer's edits that aren't obviously vandalism arguably violates one or both of these, per [[Help:Reverting#Rollback]]. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:21, 10 December 2006
Old talk archived at 1; 2; 3 4 5 6
main page of tpi:
May I ask you to protect the main page of tpi: again and change the title of the main page to 'Pes fran' as suggested in 'Haus bilong toktok'? Thanks. -- Caffelice
Image:250px-Elsana taleb.jpg listed for deletion
Barnstar
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Original_Barnstar.png)
A Grant Idea
I would like to talk to Danny about a grant idea that I believe would help wikipedia and the wider community but am unsure how to contact him. If he could email me at Nbruch@gmail.com I would appreciate it. Thanks
Thanks from Lafayette!
Danny,
Thanks for coming to Lafayette and presenting to our small group. I've been extremely impressed with what the foundation has done and look forward to contributing to these worthwhile projects.
Danny Morgan
Nimrod Kamer (again)
check out this:
- Captain Sudoku
- Ari Libsker
- Maayan Strauss
- Girls At The Cairo National Stadium
- Big Tuna
- Doron Sabag
- Yossi Atia
- Yoav Tal
- Ilan the Security Guard
He also recreated Nimrod Kamer you had deleted.
Nimrod Kamer (2)
Dafna Arad - was deleted and now on AfD, please speedy it.
Ari Libsker, Maayan Strauss, Girls At The Cairo National Stadium (short film by Nimrod Kamer), Big Tuna, Doron Sabag, Vaan Nguyen, Ido Gideon, Roy Arad and RifRaf are also waiting for deletion.
Please answer me.... I'm tired from cleaning after him. He used sockpuppets in AFD's so you can speedy it.
Happy Birthday!
HAve a great one :)
Elonka
If you feel so strongly about the issues you raised regarding the Elonka article, why haven't you ever tried to do anything about this blatant piece of vanity, David Mertz, created by its own much less notable male subject, who edit warred it to remove information that might embarass him in his current political role, and has created spamlinks on this page and his userpage to a site where he begs for money?? VivianDarkbloom 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposed deletion: Wikimedia Quarto
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Wikimedia Quarto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:Wikimedia Quarto. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI, an article that you speedy-deleted (and which I agree with you was a vanity page)[1] popped up again, and is now going through a more formal AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bennett. I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to weigh in with an opinion. :) --Elonka 05:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you might like to see my comments Talk:Antonia_Bennett#Non-deletion_review. Unfortunately, I did not see it on time. Danny 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the article's existence is worth re-examining. I've replied to your comments, and also invited participation from editors at Deletion Review. My own recommendation is to start a second AfD and just get wider participation this time around, which should result in a pretty resounding "delete" and put the matter to rest. For what it's worth, I strongly strongly agree with you that Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion, and I can point you to many places where I have argued vehemently against such things. I'm very sorry if I ever gave you the impression that I felt otherwise! --Elonka 17:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Danny, thank you for participating in my RfA. Though the nomination turned out to be unsuccessful, I still intend to continue with my support of Wikipedia. I firmly believe that this is an amazing project with a bright future, and I very much enjoy being a part of it. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I do find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 07:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove links from catsuit
Hi, I see you've removed all the external links from the catsuit page. Whereas they may not all be suitable, I think some are. If you really think every one is inapproriate, should you remove the 'External links' section too? Happy to discuss, can pick through the good&bad sites if you like --Mortice 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
name change request
Hi Danny, I need to change my username. Would you please help me out? Tootles.. =p --Dan Asad 05:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Changing_username is what you want. :) Cowman109Talk 06:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Rollback by you
I'm a little puzzled by your rollback of an edit to Keysar Trad. Would you be able to explain why you did it? Thanks, Andjam 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Danny. I do not understand the purpose of keeping track of all of the images deleted under FUC #1. The volume is pretty staggering, and whatever use the list has will surely diminish as it grows to unmanageable size. Could you comment on the talk page? ×Meegs 10:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article/list is up for deletion discussion again. As you started the article back in 2004, I'm dropping you a courtesy note. GRBerry 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Larry Gluck/Mission: Rennaisance, why did you delete without discussion?
I am curious as to why you deleted articles on Larry Gluck and Mission: Rennaisance without any discussion. These articles were sourced, just starting out, and had many other articles in the mainstream press and other notable websites. Gallup 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Pacific Western University
Why is the Pacific Western University article protected? -- Fyslee 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Emails
Danny, thanks for your email, which I have replied to. I seem to be having some trouble with my emails lately, so please let me know that you did / did not recieve my reply. Adam 00:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there
I've noticed that you're an admin in commons, but you're not active there. I left you some messeges in commons:User talk:Danny and I would like to chat with you.
Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Counter Records
I was just adding some further information to the Counter Records article to expand it, and it disappeared from under me. Can this be reinstated please? Gram 16:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
About your revert in Ice Hockey page
Hi Danny,
could you please explain me why you have remove my link additions and modifications in the Ice_hockey page ? Thanks in advance.
Puck.ch 16:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. I understand. Thanks. You can remove (or archive) this talk section. And one more time, sorry for the trouble.Puck.ch 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Challenges
Hey Danny, just wanted to let you know that I recently listed Wikipedia:Challenges, which you created, on miscellany for deletion. You can find the discussion here. Also, what was rationale behind its creation in the first place? Is there any appropriate village pump proposal? Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yiddish Wikipedia
Danny, I'm not literate in Yiddish so I can't follow this up myself, but could I possibly prevail on you to comment at Talk:Yiddish_language#the_destruction_of_the_yiddish_wikipadia, since your name was mentioned? - Jmabel | Talk 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Dead link at Dub of Scotland
I saw you found a dead link on Dub of Scotland, so (since I added them), I've removed the rest of the dead links to the site. Thanks for spotting this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Illustrated Wikipedia
Could you help me out here and here? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm creating a stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustrated Wikipedia: do you want to add yourself as a participant? Your input would be valuable in any case. TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Requesting unblock... just an FYI :) Glen 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Was there a reason he's blocked for a month so quickly? I saw he added the link once as anon, and then again with a new account, although an abundant assumption of good faith might allow for the interpretation that he never saw the warning at his anon talk page, if he created an account. Has the article or link been a problem in the past, or something? Or is this a trend towards harsher spam enforcement I haven't yet heard of? Or am I just a bloke for not knowing the contents of the secret office communication you mentioned? :p Luna Santin 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Not to comment on the whole trend, but in this particular case he's acknowledged that his edit "might" have been bad, which makes me think we may be able to work with him and get a good editor out of the bargain. Would you object to lessening the duration, if he agrees to avoid that sort of thing in the future? Or is that naive on my part? Luna Santin 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Block of User:Timecop
I'd like an explanation, especially for the "will be done from office" reason for unblock 2 minutes later. To me, this looks like a personal attack. --timecop 06:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
please integrate Yiddish translation for fundraising
we are a small community, but we have a few hundred daily readers due to the interesting news on the front page. [2] and money may come in as a thanks from them. thanks.--yidi 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I need your assistance in Wikimedia Commons...
Can you help me translating and stuff..? Please...? Yuval Y • Chat • 00:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Debatepedia.com query
Hi, I noticed that you went to the DC Meetup, and that you're a dedicatd Wikipedian. I'm the founder of Debatepedia.com, the new wiki debate encyclopedia, and am working out of DC with a group of Georgetown students and professors. I was hoping to get your suggestions, and maybe meet up in person, if you'd like. Brooks Lindsay 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Öhhhh? Why did you revert my edits on the Gävle goat?????????
??????????? FreddyFred 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please restore ASAP! FreddyFred 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Grrrr! Don't bother, I'll do it myself! FreddyFred 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, give me at least an explanation!?!?!? FreddyFred 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, lets us say you where pissed at the youtube link, I buy that. But why did you then revert all the references I put up? Dosen't make any sense? I'm going to restore all the links and text before your revertion (like it diden't take me enough of my time to write it in the first place!). I'm going to leave out the youtube link, if that is going to make you happpier and consult with others before I may or may not put it up again. I put the video on there as a link because it is relevant to the article and enhances the understanding of the impact of the Gävle goat. It is Swedish folk culture, which is now also spreading world wide. The keyword qwhen I work on an article is: RELEVANCE......... 00:42, 7 December 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreddyFred (talk • contribs)
Gabites Porter Consultants
I strongly protest against the deletion of the above article. You did not even take the time to announce the deletion (the page was on my watchlist, so I would have added content if I was aware of any such moves), or notify me, as the creator of the article. I think your behaviour leaves something to be desired! MadMaxDog 06:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In any case, please revert the delete, and I will attempt to both provide more info to flesh it out, as well as provide links. If you do not, I will recreate the article. MadMaxDog 06:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Traffic Design Group
The summary of this delete added insult to injury. Excuse me, said company has existed for 30 years, produced hundreds of designs built in the real world, including parking buildings, shopping centres and motorways and has several millions of turnover per year. But according to you, it is 'Non-notable spam'? But tiny software companies are notable, here, huh? MadMaxDog 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
As above, please revert the deletion, and I will work on improving the article. MadMaxDog 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, biatch! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.166.70.11 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi Danny - saw your reply to antilived. I'm the one who originally raised the question - for the reason that the image has a moire, which suggests (but does not prove) it is a scan, not a photograph. We (i.e. the wikipedians on WP:FPC) don't wish to make any trouble, we just want to know why that photo has a moire pattern over it. We would very much like to have a better version uploaded, without the artifacts... Greetings, Janke | Talk 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wannsee
Danny, do have Eberhard Jackel, "The Purpose of the Wannsee Conference", in a form which you can send to me? You have my email address, and I can give you a fax number if you need it. By the way you never replied to my email of 19 November. Adam 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Dr Santa - talk 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Reverting good faith edits
Hi - The addition to Denver, Colorado that you reverted with this edit does not look like obvious vandalism suitable for using the rollback function. In general, I think it's good form to not use rollback for anything except very obvious "bad faith" edits and for any other situation a regular edit with a summary providing a rationale is warranted. I realize this takes slightly more effort, but I think is much more polite - WP:AGF and WP:BITE and all that. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Are you complaining that I removed the same advertisement text that you removed (though I also removed the link to YouTube). Let's be clear. We get a spam link every three seconds. We are not even beginning to catch the ads that are going into articles posing as encyclopedic content. Perhaps if we were to deal with the problem instead of worrying about the feelings of spammers, we would make some headway. Danny 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not complaining about removing the text (and, yes, I deleted the same text), just suggesting that you don't use rollback for anything that might be a good faith edit. I completely agree we get tons of advertisements posing as articles, but we must still assume good faith. I suspect we get quite a number of new users who've never read WP:NOT and don't realize they shouldn't be adding advertisements. If we have good reason to believe they already know about our policies, revert away (hell, warn then block). If they're new, IMO we should tell them not to add advertisements in a fairly friendly way in hopes that they'll become productive editors (maybe they'll even help watch for other misguided folks adding advertisements and help spread the word). Most new users are not the enemy. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- You use rollback for edits that are bad. It is all rather simple. In fact, I was around when rollback was instituted. Danny 04:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I know who you are, and it amazes me that you seem to be arguing about this. You are well aware that WP:BITE and WP:AGF are guidelines. I'm simply reminding you that reverting newcomer's edits that aren't obviously vandalism arguably violates one or both of these, per Help:Reverting#Rollback. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)