User talk:750editsstrong

Deletions_and_editor_retention

Original: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention

Full text:

Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.

I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.

Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.

Sadly I see only one solution

I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.

If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.

Thoughts?

Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing. The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[1]
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors. "Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[2]

hello and welcome to my talk page. 750editsstrong (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam (band)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Adam (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 22:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Adam (band), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Adam (band). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. While the speedy tag has been removed by another editor, removal of speedy deletion tags by the author of an article is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your main account

750, it appears that you made this account to test how Wikipedia functions for new editors. While creating test accounts is certainly acceptable, you do need to disclose that they are the same. In your statement, you claim to have edited for 12 years, but none of those accounts you linked have edited even close to that long. We need to know your main account, and your real main account, the one that has edits in 2003. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus against "Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion"

After Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, there was an enormous amount of criticism of the project, and a clear consensus emerged that the project was a mistake, and amounted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Whether you or I agree with that assessment or not is irrelevant: it was the consensus reached in discussion, and we have to accept it. Please do not continue your one-person re-run of the experiment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me that consensus please? Looking thru the talk page and its archives, I don't see a clear consensus either way. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adam (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ansh666 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Snowager (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Snowager (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked User:Black Kite. you are one of the most blatantly repressive editors to the detriment of wikipedia. Why not sit down and talk about the future of Wikipedia, and how YOUR edits are harming its continued growth and development? You can block me all you want, but you can't silence an idea. 750editsstrong (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

750editsstrong (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

750, we are discussing it. The idea isn't silenced, and we've been discussing it for years. Being respectful and civil goes a long way. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though blocked if you want to contribute to the above discussion, or to the deletion discussion for Adam (band), you can write your comment here and it will within reason be copied to the relevant discussion. 'within reason' just means that off-topic and unconstructive posts are more likely be ignored, but that is up to the editor doing the copying.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Lookijng forward to the upcoming discussions about abam (band) in the weeks and months to come. 750editsstrong (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source material from adam band

Source Adam (band), userfied here:

adam (band)

'''Adam''' is a [[Netherlands|Dutch]] band most well known for their [[viral video]], "[[Go to Go]]" in which the band members have [[orgasms]] while singing.

=="Go to Go" Video==
{{paraphrase|section|date=January 2015}}

In the video "Go to Go", three of the five Adam band members have orgasms while singing the song.  They are shown staring into the camera, singing and trying to get through their lines as they use a vibrator off screen. As the song progresses they have increasingly more difficulty in trying to remember their lines as they build to a musical climax. They struggle to finish the song, giggling and eventually become speechless.<ref>David Harding, [http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/video-female-dutch-band-shown-orgasms-singing-article-1.1787131 VIDEO: Female Dutch band shown having orgasms while singing],  ''New York Daily News'', (May 10, 2014).</ref>
==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Dutch musical groups]]
[[Category:Year of establishment missing]]
[[Category:All-female bands]]


{{Netherlands-band-stub}}

750editsstrong (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of a new section at WP:AN

Has been reverted. Please stop forum shopping/spamming this discussion. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages

Please don't warn editors about blanking their own user talk pages as you did at User talk:Ansh666. Editors are allowed to blank messsages on their own user talk pages - see Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for the relevant guideline. Thanks. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Dave! 750editsstrong (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please read WP:SPAM and WP:FORUMSHOP. It is I believe rather obvious that your recent postings to multiple places regarding the same topic is a rather obvious violation of both, and could reasonably be taken as sufficient grounds for some sort of direct administrative action against you on that basis. Please desist from any further such activity, including giving falsw warnings, or I think that this might well be the final warning you receive before your conduct is raised at one of the appropriate administrator noticeboards. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you don't want to discuss the core issues, obfuscate the issue. One of the easiest ways is to attack the messenger. Now we are no longer talking about Adam (band) or the way new editors are treated, now we are talking about WP:FORUMSHOP and sockpuppetry. Nevermind the validity of the points made, about how wikipedia is harmed by how established editors treat new editors. I get blocked and the status quo continues, as it has for years....right? 750editsstrong (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The removal of the ANI thread was really the last straw. I advised you to calm down and instead, you did that. I think you need to find something else to do with your time, you do not seem well suited for this environment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

750editsstrong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On January 6th, I came to WP:AN to argue against the speedy deletion of Adam (band) within seconds of creation. Editors deleted my WP:AN comments within seconds. The first editor who deleted my WP:AN comments then put my article up for deletion. So here we are today.

The way this issue is being treated is --Passive Agressive Wikipedia 101--. Everyone who has been here for as little as a month knows how this works, including the editors who block and delete my comments everywhere:

When you don't want to discuss the core issues, obfuscate the issue. One of the easiest ways is to attack the messenger. This is how it is done in this case: Now we are no longer talking about Adam (band) or the way new editors are treated, now we are talking about WP:FORUMSHOP and sockpuppetry. Nevermind the validity of the points made, about how wikipedia is harmed by how established editors treat new editors. I get blocked and the status quo continues, as it has for years....right? If I bring up the policy violations, the numerous violations of several of the key editors involved in this, I am just falling into the obfuscate the trap too. We stop talking about Adam (band), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deletions and editor retention, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment.

I have an idea guys! Lets just finally discuss the core issue which lead to this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deletions_and_editor_retention (Which User_talk:JohnBlackburne who complained about me in this WP:AN put up for deletion).

750editsstrong (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I completely agree with the decision to indefinitely block you. From what I can gather, you're only interested in arguing with people, and have no interest in helping with writing an encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Vandalism as per WP:VANDAL of the ANI report against him as is commented on at WP:ANI#User:750editsstrong and apparently being an admitted sockpuppet of a banned editor are I think grounds enough for this request to be declined. The core issues involved are the violations of conduct guidelines by the editor in question, and at this point I don't think any attempt to obfuscate that is likely to be effective. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I would call it vandalism, just more pointy-ness. Putting that aside, I don't actually see a request to be unblocked here, just more repetition, verbatim, of what he has been saying other forums. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this issue (yeah, you'd be surprised how much I know what's going on) and although Beeblebrox needs no support I want to go on record as fully endorsing his block, Orangemike's TPA withdrawal, and PhilKnight's decline. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]