|
Centralized discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Proposals | Discussions | Recurring proposals |
|
||
Cold lava
- Seems to be a reference to lahar. (See this description) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Gatoclass! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Otium
This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to try to turn this into a Good Article. Any suggestions or ideas?--Doug Coldwell talk 13:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Wgfinley's talk page.
Roberta Black
Thanks for reviewing my efforts. Not everything I write is correct, and I enjoy the chance to get some well-thought-out feedback. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Straw poll over at DYK
Hey there, there is a straw poll going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about whether or not to enact technical changes to DYK tools. Your input would be much appreciated. P.s. I am sending you this message based on your heavy involvement in DYK, rather than at random. I hope this is ok. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Erratic?
I'm not sure where you are coming from. I don't rush into enforcement decisions, and always evaluate the evidence carefully before taking a decision. I won't speak at greater length or in more specific terms because you reverted your edit, but, with respect, it is wrong to state that an administrator's judgement is erratic without justification. Thank you for your comment, in any case. Regards, AGK [•] 10:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- On reflection, I figured it would be opening a can of worms, and I can really do without teh dramaz right now - as I'm sure you can! Maybe sometime I can get around to a few specifics, if you really want to hear them. In the meantime, if you do get the job, I look forward to you proving my apprehension completely misplaced ;) Gatoclass (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
DYK behavior
What exactly was the point of this remark that you addressed to User:Plot Spoiler at Template:Did you know nominations/TAT Technologies? I'm asking because I'm genuinely at a loss as to how you thought it was a constructive contribution to the DYK discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought my point was self-evident: users involved in a contentious topic area are not supposed to approve the articles of their political bedfellows, per rule H2. There has been far too much of that sort of thing occur at DYK in the past, which is why the rule was added. I simply reminded Plot Spoiler (since he appeared not to know or to have forgotten) of the existence of the rule.
- However, I'm glad to see you have returned to the discussion. What do you think of the alt hook? I think it's fine, but as the nominator I would like to have your endorsement. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps you missed the second clause which states: as are editors active in those areas. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why he ticked the DYK nom in the first place, since another editor already did before him. If your comment was an earnest reminder that he shouldn't be confirming I/P DYKs generally, I can see how that makes sense. But given that his tick was in essence gratuitous, the real substance of his contribution was his comment regarding a modified hook. And it sounded – not just to me, evidently – like your remark was aimed at invalidating his contribution to the discussion. If that wasn't the case, then ok, I suppose it could have been a misunderstanding.—Biosketch (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you missed the second clause which states: as are editors active in those areas. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
-
DYK for Otium
See User talk:Panyd#DYK for Otium. Can you take care of this. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of this. I appreciate it!--Doug Coldwell talk 22:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Apparent explanation of admin's refusal to address misuse of sources
Hi, Gatoclass. I noticed you took exception previously at AE to admin WGFinley's remarks that included the statement, "We shouldn't be drawn into their content disputes by analyzing sources in taking action." I just noticed a statement on his main user page that may help elucidate his philosophy on that score. He writes there,
- "During discussion of a block or a ban, particularly in general sanction areas the call of "didn't you read my edit, how could you not support that!" or something along those lines is heard. I can honestly say "no". Why? I don't analyze content in areas where I'm serving in an admin capacity for one ..."
If he's not reading diffs that are presented as potential misrepresentation of sources, then of course he's not going to be interested in sanctioning anyone on that basis. From these and other remarks he's made, it's my impression that it's all about form and protocol for him, and that he just really doesn't care much at all about the actual content of edits. Perhaps he sees that as a more efficient use of his time here. Anyway, I thought this might be helpful to you in trying to understand his perspective.
I've informed him about this comment, btw, in case he'd like to clarify in any way. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the specific incident, but it's bad form to make assumptions about WGFinley's motives. Has anybody asked him what his view is on the issue of source misrepresentation? Whilst I may have overlooked one thread or another, it seems that the only person who has consulted WGFinley is Nableezy—and WGF would be entitled (don't necessarily read: correct) to ignore that exchange, considering the tone of Nableezy's comments. I believe it is more than appropriate to challenge an administrator if his decision was wrong, but I don't like the idea of you or another user chasing up other editors and speculating about his views without directly asking for clarification. That's not genuine scrutiny, but an inquisition. Just my two pence, AGK [•] 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- AGK, all due respect, but my tone only became heated after repeated failures by WGFinley to answer basic questions about continual factually incorrect comments he made. An admin is required to justify their actions, and in this case WGFinley refused to do so. Look at the threads at AE, see where I repeatedly, and politely, raised the fact that he was saying things that were plainly false. He never responded. After being ignored by an admin seeking to either a. sanction me for reverting socks of banned users, and then b. ignoring the repeated lying about sources to push a fringe POV, my tone admittedly grew harsher. That does not, in any way, justify an admin refusing to rectify basic errors that raise serious questions of competency and whether or not he should be involved in administering, or even commenting, the topic area. If I were to say that I do not think WGFinley is competent to be an administrator I would be assuming his good faith, otherwise I have to believe that he understood that a user was lying about sources to push a fringe POV and refused to allow him to be sanctioned because of his sympathy with the user and that POV. If the admin had simply responded and shown that he understood the issue neither assumption would be necessary and my tone would have remained mild. nableezy - 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's for a second assume Nableezy used a harsh tone (which I think was justified after repeated attempts to get WGFinley to address the matter at hand), would that explain WGFinley not answering the same question posed by other editors? It is obvious to see either a) the dude made a mistake and was not willing to suck it up and admit a error in his original judgement or b) he does indeed sympathize with POV of the user who was being reported. Effectively, T Canens and Ed were calling for a topic ban based on the fact that JJG blatantly misrepresented a source, but WGFinley filibustered the matter by refusing to even look at the point. -asad (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is all really simple. Nableezy's first attempt to discuss my position on this issue on my talk page was this missive[1]. When you start out with "You simply do not know what you are talking about" and then insult me about counting on my fingers, that's a clear personal attack and not something I'm going to respond well to. I never said what JJG did was right, I said I didn't find it sanctionable, there's a difference. Since I was stating my point of view and not taking action I don't owe an explanation, particularly after a direct personal attack. --WGFinley (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
-
- You may have read the counting fingers comment as a personal attack but it didn't read that way to me or I might have said something myself. IMO it was just his way of emphasizing the point that dispute resolution is not such a simple exercise. So I think you are misreading that comment.
-
- With regard to the wider issue, I'm aware that your reading of policy is not without foundation, if that were not the case, we would probably have ironed out the problems with dispute resolution long ago. My point to you is that your comments were out of step with prevailing practice at AE, where the most experienced admins have long been taking into account issues like questionable sourcing, misrepresentation of sources etc. in coming to their conclusions. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- That actually wasnt my first attempt to discuss that issue with you. That diff was in relation to your arguing that I should be sanctioned due to the number of times I reverted socks of banned editors in a different AE thread. The first time I attempted to raise this issue with you, after repeated ignored requests at AE, was this. To which you responded with this where you, once again, completely ignored the point. You still have not told me why you said on AE what you claimed was the sole thing that Jiujitsuguy did, you still have not told me that you read the diff that shows him lying about a source, and you still have not answered why you dont treat the deliberate distortion of a source as being more serious than Nableezy's tone. I still welcome you to answer those questions. nableezy - 06:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- asad in particular, and Nableezy and Gatoclass have a point. WGFinley's sympathies are manifest when he can say (presumably, with a straight face) that he is "... aware of the type of behavior JJG gets drawn in to...". Should we include falsifying sources in the list of acceptable behaviour now? Really? As Gatoclass points out, WGFinley's comments are completely out of step with the current practice at AE. Indeed, while the Nableezy and Jiujitsuguy requests were open, there was a request for Pantherskin on the same page; notice the closing action and comment, I'll repeat it here (emphasis mine) "Pantherskin indefinitely blocked due to evidence that that the cited book does not contain the material that he stated." How is that any different from JJG's actions? It has nothing to do with the quality of the sources he used, it is all about deliberate misrepresentation of sources and introducing factual errors in to an encyclopaedia. Timotheus Canens has now been hounded[2][3][4] from the encyclopaedia and we're left with WGFinley, who steadfastly refuses to answer reasonable questions about his comments, admit when he is wrong and is out of step with the current AE process. The P-I topic area and AE are the worse for it, and the encyclopaedia is all the worse for loosing another editor over it. 86.174.1.16 (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
req for opinion
Hello Gatoclass. Do you feel the events outlined here are grounds for an RFC/U? nableezy - 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think they are sufficient grounds for an RFC/U. I think you are not paying sufficient attention to the fact that different people can have genuinely different views about the same facts. To begin with, though JJG's edits misstated the sources, you ought to have some appreciation of the fact that when someone has a particular bias, he is going to have a tendency to see those aspects that support his POV while missing those that don't. This has happened to me when interpreting sources as I'm sure it has to everyone. My point is that while JJG was certainly careless in his reading of those sources, I think it not impossible to AGF that JJG did not deliberately set out to misrepresent them. Against that, of course, is his record of misrepresenting sources, which should also be taken into account in an AE case. However, considered separately, as you have done in your draft RFC/U, I don't find it to be such a persuasive case.
- Given the above, I have to conclude that it was therefore not altogether unreasonable for WGF to take the view that the evidence was not strong enough to take action against JJG. This is especially the case given that WGF has stated on his user page that as a matter of principle he pays minimal attention to the content of edits in his adjudications but prefers to focus on procedural breaches. His responses to you are, I think, consistent with that position. So in summary I think this RFC/U is weak and unlikely to achieve anything useful.
- With regard to the broader question of WGF's attitude to you personally, I am increasingly of the opinion that it is problematic. However, that is not the thrust of your proposed RFC. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- My problem isnt with the judgment that JJG didnt in fact misrepresent the source (though I have to say, using a source that says Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. and writing that The summit of Mount Hermon straddles the borders of Lebanon, Israel and Syria is a pretty clear cut case), though WGF doesnt appear to have even addressed the issue much less make a judgment on it, my problem was with him saying I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. when none of the diffs showed any content about a ski resort at all. The refusal to back up the statement or admit the error is what upset me. He made a statement on the content of a diff, and that statement is false. None of the diffs is about the location of a ski resort, but WGF never, despite repeated requests that he do so, explain why he wrote that was what he thought the content of the diff was. I dont know, maybe the is more trivial than it seems to me, but I cannot get around that sequence. nableezy - 05:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with you that JJG's edits were factually incorrect; the summit straddles two borders according to the sources, not three. However, JJG did find a source which described Mt Hermon as "famous as Israel's highest mountain" and this was obviously sufficient justification in his mind for adding "Israel" to the mix. But I think you should consider that, from the POV of someone who is not terribly interested in the topic area, like WGF, issues like whether or not a source is factually accurate in its description of Mt Hermon as "Israel's highest mountain", or whether "the summit" of a mountain straddles a border or it is just, perhaps, the lower slopes that straddle it, are nuances unlikely to leave much of an impression as clear examples of POV pushing - especially on an admin with a stated reluctance to look at such evidence in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
-
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Unique attack transports
Category:Unique attack transports, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Gatoclass,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Undue paragraph or section
Would be nice to get a clarification to your concern.[5] JaakobouChalk Talk 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Partisan Pigs.
Hi. You mentioned a while back that you were going to look at the sources of this "conspiracy" on the zoological conspiracy theory page. I have withdrawn from editing the page, but I would be very grateful if someone would have a look at the basis for this claim. Specifically, how can the story be a conspiracy "propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites" when the allegation was reported credibly by CNN [6] in the context of confirmed settler violence and harassment of a Palestinian village. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Donna Eden
Hi, I noticed you removed the delete-proposal tags from this page. I'm not sure why this page was retained, however in it's current form this page is a stub on a non-notable topic. Any suggestions how I might escalate this since I do not think anybody is willing (or can) make this article worthy of wp. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article passed an AFD some time ago so there was consensus that the topic was notable. I haven't looked at the article for a long time but IIRC there were some sources around which were sufficient to establish notability. However, since you've made the request, I will try to find time to have another look around for sources over the next week or so. Gatoclass (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding suggestions that I cherry-picked quotes or used Eden's quotes out of context, please permit me to provide a rationale:
The quote from Seattle Times was the only quote from Eden in the entire article. All the other quotes were attributed to different individuals. The article was about "Offbeat" health-practicioners - it was clearly the journalist's intent to highlight what was offbeat about each of the article's subjects.
The quote I used from the Ashland newspaper was actually the first line of the article, I can only assume that the author put it first because it succinctly outlines the basis for Ms Eden's beliefs. Once again the suggestions of cherry picking and use out of context do not stack up.
I'd respectuflly request once again that you withdraw any suggestions from the talk & afd pages which might be construed as an allegation of bad-faith editing.
Finally, I share your concern that quoting Eden might present her as "a crank", however I think almost any close reading of her published works would lead us to conclude that her beliefs are fringe. I think your issue is with the sources of myself, rather than my selection of quotes from the sources. As a compromise I'd propose that we could remove both of these sources entirely from the article. Perhaps we could also work together to find reviews of her work which are more neutral in tone? --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
AFD
While I disagree with your analysis of the available sourcing at that AFD, I would like to commend you for making reasonable policy-based arguments and for remaining polite. Your efforts strengthen the community and the encyclopedia. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Your request at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
Regarding your request for the thread to be closed, it would be a clerk and not a bureaucrat who does that. It is common for Clarifications to sit for quite a while. If you really want a closure, ask an Arbcom clerk to see what they can do. In the meantime, nothing prevents you from adding your own comments in the AE thread that you asked about, just add it there as 'Statement by Gatoclass.' My suggestion would be just not to act as a *closer* of the AE unless your Clarification ends with a definite result. If you had asked me (and not Arbcom) I would say there was no involvement unless you had been actually editing within AA. DIGWUREN is best reserved for 'typical Eastern European disputes,' which can include Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. Very often these disputes have something to do with WWII.
That is my definition, anyway. I suppose that Armenia and Azerbaijan were part of the former Soviet Union but I don't think there is any precedent for use of DIGWUREN in that specific conflict. As another example, ARBMAC might be considered to overlap with DIGWUREN but ARBMAC is more specific, so it is always used whenever it applies. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- You've decided to drop the idea of participating in this AE. I had been hoping that more people would show up to help with the analysis. But speaking hypothetically, and not necessarily for this specific request, what would you think of a 500-edit minimum requirement that might be imposed on a troubled article as a discretionary sanction? This would exclude most socks. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I was hoping someone else would contribute too, but I guess after I put up my request to wait until the request for clarification had been closed, others probably decided not to bother. I felt I had to bow out though because I would need to review the evidence all over again at this point, and I just don't have time to do that right now.
-
- Regarding the notion of a 500-edit minimum requirement, I guess it might help reduce sockpuppetry, but it may also alienate potential good faith new contributors. I suspect determined socks could probably run up 500 edits pretty quickly if they really wanted to anyhow. But in some circumstances I suppose it might be worth a try. With regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh case BTW, it might be a bit stale to impose sanctions, I haven't had time to review the talk page but at least the contributors don't seem to be edit warring over that massive 30k addition anymore, which is what brought the page to AE in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Just now I saw you had proposed '500 mainspace edits outside the topic area' as a criterion in this edit to the AE. Since a minimum-edit requirement could be the most efficient way of shutting down sock editing, I've also taken this proposal to T. Canens' talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the notion of a 500-edit minimum requirement, I guess it might help reduce sockpuppetry, but it may also alienate potential good faith new contributors. I suspect determined socks could probably run up 500 edits pretty quickly if they really wanted to anyhow. But in some circumstances I suppose it might be worth a try. With regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh case BTW, it might be a bit stale to impose sanctions, I haven't had time to review the talk page but at least the contributors don't seem to be edit warring over that massive 30k addition anymore, which is what brought the page to AE in the first place. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you think you could have a look at this?
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— M. Mario (T/C) 10:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Gatoclass. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
siddha yoga crisis
Hi , there are two articles on the subjects siddha yoga and siddhayoga, while the one i was removing links the article is much like a private business in India siddha yoga , where some preachers open their own Ashrams and continue to get donations and sell articles , the siddha yoga does not have other official source other than there own website and self published sources , so i am a good intention editor . now how to deal with this mess ? Shrikanthv (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Caucasian Albania
Hi. Thanks for closing the request on C. Albania at AE, it was there forever. I think the new remedy should also be logged here: [7] Regards, Grandmaster 17:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition
You an administrator who is quite active at WP:DYK, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Kundalini page
As an admin, why would you delete the only material in the article that comes from actual PhD's in ancient studies?Atiyogafan (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- please discuss on the talk page of the article. Atiyogafan (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK
Is it possible to nominate the same article with two DYK or more? I already have a DYK veryfied and approved for Yuderqui Contreras, but I have other two of them on mind, should I submitted? ... that 2012 Olympian Yuderqui Contreras have been six times Weightlifter of the Year? Osplace 01:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:
- The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
- To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
- If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
- A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
- HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
- Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
- When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Kundalini
Well, the ANI thread archived off again, but RTO is a confirmed sock of Fatehji (who was almost banned). I'd posted the relevant links on the ANI thread before it archived. I've also asked EdJohnston to take a look as he'd filed the SPI earlier. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes indeed... "cheers". It's nice to see how you two are communicating and colluding together, as you clearly have for years... I have explained in the talk pages long ago this was no "sock" as this was not for purposes of masking myself. This was over a year ago due to a password loss and I never used the account again. Case closed.
- So.. the glaring open response is why would you not answer the question above? It looks really bad for you now when you delete PhD of studies material and never offer any explanations... One of these days you will have to make a choice... Take interest in the subject and make constructive adjustments, or move on. Harassing editors and PhDs and deleting stuff you don't personally like makes you look very ugly. A wise man once said: the better man is the first to say sorry. So, I offer my hand in truce to shake and work together... But if not, then you must move on to other things that interest you... It's up to you... RogerThatOne72 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated.Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Southard at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with the nomination & hook. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
T.J. Southard ref
Take a look at this for some more information about his business and family. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I already found that reference along with several more :) IMO there is not a lot I can use in that particular reference for the Southard article, but if you've yet to take a close look at it, I think you will find some useful info about the Ellen Southard - namely the division of ownership, and a number of voyages she appears to have made to the captured Union port of New Orleans in 1863.
- Naturally I regret that we were not able to collaborate more effectively on the Ellen Southard article, but perhaps it is for the best as the time I have available for pursuit of my wikihobby is at present quite limited. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Re-opening polls anytime?
You halted two limit proposals that I started, so I must discuss first. However, I don't know what to say about DYK/GA, especially with drama in WT:DYK. I don't fully support GA-promotion as a criterion for DYK, but I believe that another consensus may concur with Erasurehead's closing rationale. If so, shall these polls be re-opened? --George Ho (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
DYK/BLP Hook
Hi, I was going to drop a sternish reminder at DYK that content should be more than just rubber stamped for the main page. They should be looking at the content to make sure it doesnt violate the wider WP policies. Can I confirm what you deleted/edited the material under? I would have gone with WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPNAME all of which apply (or applied since you have done a decent cleanup job!) to the offending material. Thanks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T. J. Southard, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mersey River and Virginia reel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 November 2012
- News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in
- Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question
- WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles
- Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect
- Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah Boys to Men
Hi there Gatoclass, would you mind if I were to ask you to review Template:Did you know nominations/Ah Boys to Men? Cos I saw your nice name on the list of admins active in the dyk process. Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence & Foulks, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Albany, Newburgh and Tender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AARON• TALK 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 November 2012
- News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain
- Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons
- WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting
- Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation
- Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Another look
Hi Gatoclass. You passed on Template:Did you know nominations/Ginger: The Life and Death of Albert Goodwin due to lack of coverage, but we've done a bit of a refocus/rewrite. Would you be able to take another look? Regards, The Interior (Talk) 06:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A hook
Hello. Can you please explain this hook change? — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Matthew Arundell
Hi Gatoclass. After you reviewed the DYK nomination of Matthew Arundell and posted some careful comparisons, I said I would do some reworking of the article, and this is what I've done. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
DYK for T. J. Southard
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Help
help me if possible I have this problem so well
Gatoclass |
---|
{{{Infobox polygon}}} in english
from left to right I think the Template is incorrect click here to see [8] in somali --abshir (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I'm totally unfamiliar with that template, I suggest you inquire at WP:HELPDESK. Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 December 2012
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner
- Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables
- WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire
- Featured content: The play's the thing
- Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The notoriuos wiki troll ( Iaaasi) returned
Hello!
The well known chauvinist romanian wiki-troll User:Iaaasi returned (with a new croatian fake identity) He is now active alias user: Irji2012 He is often active in Hungarian-related aricles, he enjoy edit-warring deleting good sources and sentences from important articles, and he like to break the rules of wiki even 3 revert rule. Can you arrange about this notorious wiki-troll? Thank you! Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.49.97 (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Promontory Forts of Cornwall
Have the recent edits to this article addressed your concerns? If so, probably time for the next step; if not, something needs to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
PS Commonwealth
Hello there. I wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed your article on PS Commonwealth and that next week I'm hoping to be able to add/correct some of the information in the "Models" section. The model that Tiffany & Co. took to be exhibited in Paris is the model that was presented to Captain Jerome W. Williams and is currently owned by The Mariners' Museum. It's such a wonderfully written article that I felt awkward about working on it without letting you know first. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Neochichiri11 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, that's fine, you are welcome to add or correct any info in the article so long as it is adequately sourced. And thanks for the other comments, glad you enjoyed it :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
WT:DYK#Lead hooks
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion after your switch in Prep 4 of my choice for a lead hook with your own. There are principles involved that you may not have considered, or felt important, but I wanted you and the DYK community at large to be aware of another perspective. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Human rights movement
Gatoclass, I've tried to jumpstart the discussion of this DYK submission. As you were the one who removed it from the queue in early December, I imagine you'll want to contribute your thoughts. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 17 December 2012
- Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook
- News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results
- Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes
- WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany
- Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass
- Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/1
I noticed that you replaced one lead hook with another. I wonder if you can fix the "(pictured)" thing and remove credentials of the replaced hook from queue, and I wonder if the replaced hook can be placed into one prep area. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Give me a chance please, I'm not through organizing the queues yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Some DYK issues
Gatoclass, I wanted to be very sure that you realized that the current lead hook in Queue 6, Italian Hall, has "today" in its wording. That means it should run during the US daytime on December 24, the day it is commemorating. Since it was put in the special holding area almost a month ago, it deserves to run in the US daytime queue, whatever that ends up being.
Poeticbent seems to think that running Italian Hall in the same set as Pasterka—especially as the lead hook—is insulting to Catholics. I don't see it, but if the two can't appear together, I think Pasterka ought to have the earlier slot and Italian Hall the later because of the time zone issues, if they're both going to be lead slots, and at this point I don't think it's fair to demote Italian Hall.
Of the others, the Sri Lankan sports/Christmas hook should run in the first Christmas slot (the one with India at 05:30), and the US ones should go in the second. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't subscribe to the view that hooks should be run during daytime in particular countries, especially for US hooks since there's so many of them, indeed this was a strategy that was rejected multiple times in discussion when I was contributing on a more regular basis here. Moreover, I have an objection to such a negative hook running as a lead on Christmas Eve, and it's only acceptable to me as a lead if it runs earlier in the day (UTC) rather than later, which is why I put it into that particular queue. Gatoclass (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- But the hook text is wrong if it runs then. If you aren't going to move it, then you need to fix the text. I suggest that "today" becomes "on December 24". Otherwise, most of the people in the US who read it will assume the event happened 99 years ago on December 23, because that's when they'll see it, and we shouldn't run hooks with wording that we know will be misleading due to when they're being run. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I did. Thanks. Technically true, but less reader friendly for the US audience. I'll leave it now. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
Anantashayana Vishnu
The above article is still under DYK Prep area 4, but I just got a message, under your signature, on my user page stating that it is posted on the DYK Main Page. It is not there in the Main Page. It does not even have the text of the DYK. There is some confusion. Can you kindly check" to rectify the issue. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 12:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 December 2012
- WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire
- Featured content: Battlecruiser operational
- Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 December 2012
- From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum
- News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter
- In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?
- Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined
- Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy
- WikiProject report: New Year, New York
- Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review
- Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 January 2013
- News and notes: 2012—the big year
- WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year
- Featured content: Featured content in review
- Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/6
Is there a point on protecting Queue 6? If so, we are experience low activity nowadays, especially with 100 verified hooks left. --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Tower Road
I haven't yet thanked you for starting this AfD (I'm not bothered by the close). I'm actually glad to see someone following up on a DYK concern--I am hesitant to nominate articles for deletion that in my opinion qualify for it, and this (as you noted, and as the close also confirmed) was certainly no obvious candidate for deletion. It's still languishing at DYK, where I just opined (I have a big mouth, I know) that it needs two reviews still to pass. Anyway, thanks--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I've mentioned you here. Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 January 2013
- Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat
- News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme
- Special report: Loss of an Internet genius
- Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style, accessibility and equality
- WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy
- Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012
- Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months
- Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 21 January 2013
- News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward
- WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics
- Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review
- Arbitration report: Doncram case continues
- Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 28 January 2013
- News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate
- Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics
- Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012
- WikiProject report: Checkmate! – WikiProject Chess
- Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests
- Arbitration report: Doncram continues
- Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 February 2013
- In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry
- News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance
- Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes
- WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun – WikiProject Norway
- Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)