→Objective title formats: new section |
|||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
==Question== |
==Question== |
||
Hi, I want to ask is there any way to find all latest changes by users in WikiProject Azerbaijan? There was toolserver tool but now they removed it, I don't know what to do.--[[User:Yacatisma|Yacatisma]] ([[User talk:Yacatisma|talk]]) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, I want to ask is there any way to find all latest changes by users in WikiProject Azerbaijan? There was toolserver tool but now they removed it, I don't know what to do.--[[User:Yacatisma|Yacatisma]] ([[User talk:Yacatisma|talk]]) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Objective title formats == |
|||
Hi there. You rescued [[Chicago XXXVI: Now]] from lameness, thanks. When I wrote it, I did email a couple members of the band to voice my frustration as an archivalist. I guess Robert doesn't like the roman numerals, and has been trying to jack that process at least as far back as ''Sisyphus''. After having spent days writing the whole thing, I was too frustrated to engage that, and I was waiting for someone to do something. ;) When you did, I finally went looking for policy on the subject. I found a bunch of semi-vague stuff. I'd have to look it up again, but it's vague. I believe it was talking about examples with particular albums, and falls back to using common sense and just making sense. And then there's the concept of "popular" usage, but I'd say that requires quite a set of examples from RSes to establish. In the case of Chicago XXXVI though, it's popularly used about 4 different ways because they named it so dumbly. Quotation marks ''inside'' an album name?!!! It looks like a name chosen to placate a committee. Wat. Another example is the periodic "debate" at [[Talk:Macintosh#Requested_move_08_July_2014]], which of course exists with absolutely no given evidence and in pointless defiance of longstanding consensus on exactly the same issue on the same page, with nothing having changed since then. To me, those two issues (Chicago album and computer name) are the same issue. It's just a matter of nicknaming and branding, which are inherently cosmetic. We don't rename "Mountain Dew" to "Dew" even if they refer to it as that in all the ads and on the shelves and inventory systems. So, do you have anything concrete on the naming of titles objectively vs. brands? Thank you very much indeedily. — [[User:Smuckola|Smuckola]] <small>[[Special:EmailUser/Smuckola|(Email)]] [[User talk:Smuckola|(Talk)]]</small> 01:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:12, 9 July 2014
Archives |
---|
FYI, in case you want to keep apprised
[1] MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Told by Bbb23 to inform you about the report. You can share your opinion here. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay you can do your investigation. Truth always wins. I am not a Liar. With regards. Siddheart (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- My opinion is that it is very bizarre that so many editors with the same rhetorical style have shown up with an interest in making the same content edits to Ambedkar. You're either all the same person, or there is some coordinated campaign elsewhere to get people to use new or sleeper accounts to push a POV. Several editors have messaged me asking for assistance with the Ambedkar article, but each of them has conveniently ignored my inquiry about where they came from and how they heard about this article. So I'll put the same question to you, User:Siddheart. You made one edit back in 2011, and then you suddenly resumed editing three years later with a keen interest in the Ambedkar article. Why is that? --Spike Wilbury (|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for being kind. I swear by the womb from which I am born that I am not a sock dear User talk:Spike Wilbury of which I found out the meaning of Wikipedia itself > Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I am not a POV pusher at all. I am from Maharashtra.
You may dig out the history of Caste system in India and you will find only 2 leaders. 1.Gandhi and 2. Ambedkar. These were the main. Ambedkar is the chief architect of Indian constitution and was born in a low caste family. He became the first law minister of India. He had the highest education among Indians (than anyone else) during his own time from Columbia University etc. You can watch yourself on wikipedia and also contemporary figures of his time. He wrote thesis in London. He was an Economist, barrister and he played an important role in forming Reserve bank of India. Barack Obama when he visited India said that we must draw inspiration from a Dalit (Low caste)who could lift himself up. Professor Amartya Sen (Noble Prize Winner) calls him his father in Economy. He has been righting on the problem of rupee and other related things.
I don't even know why I have to tell such things . He is already popular in Indian Politics. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi payed respect to his statue on his 4th April Birthday. Dalai Lama has the portrait of Dr.Ambedkar inside his office. He converted to Buddhism and he is a major Buddhist revivalist in India. He is being respect in the Indian Buddhist communities and also in Dalit (Low caste communities).
You can keep a watch on Dr. Ambedkar's page accordingly. I rarely come on wikipedia and I edit it. I have been reported as a Sock Puppet which I think is not fine.Every-time any change is made,he is labelled to be as a Sock Puppet. I also invite you to investigate other users both negative, positive or neutral editors editing on Dr.Ambedkar's page. Please check all other users too. I hereby raise this. I can sense that some of the users keep on reverting some of the changes whenever any positive comment is made about him. Please also dig out who were the users (if you wish to) those who did Sock puppetry on wikipedia. I am not one of them.
With Best regards and thanks for your generosity shown towards me. Have a nice day. :) Siddheart (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- He's just going to lecture about 'ambedkar', and ignore the real question. If I saw same editing pattern, I will tell you. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not creating any nuisance or anything else. Bladesmulti, will you please forgive me if I ever made any mistake in contributions to wikipedia. I just editied two pages. You are seeing an editing pattern.I welcome that.I admit that one user who's name is Astronautabhinavstar is a sock puppet and an Idiot (sorry to say that).
Spike brother I edit wikipedia sometimes only and through internet cafe. I have no particular reasons why I resumed it. I just made an Edit and saw it reverted. I hope we can move further because doubt has no cure. With regards to both of you from the bottom of my heart. , Siddheart (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
small update edit
Hi Spike
I dont get it, I add a small update edit link to 2014 scientific compilation site,
with a dozen contributors and you have a conflict problem? I just don't get it.
The only real conflict is that it contrary to the old incorrect views. You are only
preserving out of date incorrect info. Its 2014, time for some updates !
Thanks
S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stexxxx (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- My problem is that there is no indication of why this web site should be considered a reliable reference. Please read WP:RS for more information about reliable sources on Wikipedia. Additionally, if you are involved with this site, you have a conflict of interest and should not be inserting links to your web site on Wikipedia. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
User going straight back to warring after block
Greetings Spike. Recently, you blocked Soffredo (talk · contribs) for editwarring on Elizabeth II. After coming off the block, they within days went back and tried to get their change in again. Can you inform them that the talkpage is a place to reach consensus, not a place just to post their opinion while they make whatever edits they want despite a consensus against on talkpage? Regards, CMD (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, it seems that the user is engaged in discussion now, would you agree? I will keep an eye on the article, but hopefully they will keep discussing at this point rather than trying to make the change again. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't agree they're "engaged in discussion", they're simply reiterating the same thing again and again without addressing the responses of others. This is part of a long history of ignoring the input and opinions of others, and frankly the fact that even a block didn't put them off is indicative of their attitude. Even the times they use the talkpage, they ignore it. For example, they started the discussion Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#IAEA_membership_.2F_designated_name and then simply ignored it and went ahead and made the changes without an edit summary a few days on. The current Elizabeth II is not the first attempt to push their viewpoint through there either. The previous discussion can be seen at Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox. CMD (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- What I meant is that they are at least posting to the talk page instead of making the edit. Whether they can be talked down or made to understand consensus is a question which will be answered when they either drop the issue (good) or make the edit again (bad). I'm loathe to take any action at least until they attempt to edit against consensus again. Then I would support a block. I will drop them a note. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand that blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and thus you not taking action in this instance makes sense. It's the long term trend though, rather than specific instances, which is harder to address. Hopefully your note will help. Regards, CMD (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- What I meant is that they are at least posting to the talk page instead of making the edit. Whether they can be talked down or made to understand consensus is a question which will be answered when they either drop the issue (good) or make the edit again (bad). I'm loathe to take any action at least until they attempt to edit against consensus again. Then I would support a block. I will drop them a note. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't agree they're "engaged in discussion", they're simply reiterating the same thing again and again without addressing the responses of others. This is part of a long history of ignoring the input and opinions of others, and frankly the fact that even a block didn't put them off is indicative of their attitude. Even the times they use the talkpage, they ignore it. For example, they started the discussion Talk:List_of_sovereign_states#IAEA_membership_.2F_designated_name and then simply ignored it and went ahead and made the changes without an edit summary a few days on. The current Elizabeth II is not the first attempt to push their viewpoint through there either. The previous discussion can be seen at Talk:Elizabeth_II/Archive_29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox. CMD (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Republika Srpska
Following this, we now have this identical revert. Would you be willing to keep any eye on developments there? Writegeist (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I am watching it. It looks like this new editor has been warned of discretionary sanctions for Balkans articles; I am going to do the same with CarRadovan. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I want to ask is there any way to find all latest changes by users in WikiProject Azerbaijan? There was toolserver tool but now they removed it, I don't know what to do.--Yacatisma (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Objective title formats
Hi there. You rescued Chicago XXXVI: Now from lameness, thanks. When I wrote it, I did email a couple members of the band to voice my frustration as an archivalist. I guess Robert doesn't like the roman numerals, and has been trying to jack that process at least as far back as Sisyphus. After having spent days writing the whole thing, I was too frustrated to engage that, and I was waiting for someone to do something. ;) When you did, I finally went looking for policy on the subject. I found a bunch of semi-vague stuff. I'd have to look it up again, but it's vague. I believe it was talking about examples with particular albums, and falls back to using common sense and just making sense. And then there's the concept of "popular" usage, but I'd say that requires quite a set of examples from RSes to establish. In the case of Chicago XXXVI though, it's popularly used about 4 different ways because they named it so dumbly. Quotation marks inside an album name?!!! It looks like a name chosen to placate a committee. Wat. Another example is the periodic "debate" at Talk:Macintosh#Requested_move_08_July_2014, which of course exists with absolutely no given evidence and in pointless defiance of longstanding consensus on exactly the same issue on the same page, with nothing having changed since then. To me, those two issues (Chicago album and computer name) are the same issue. It's just a matter of nicknaming and branding, which are inherently cosmetic. We don't rename "Mountain Dew" to "Dew" even if they refer to it as that in all the ads and on the shelves and inventory systems. So, do you have anything concrete on the naming of titles objectively vs. brands? Thank you very much indeedily. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)