User talk:AlmostGrad

Welcome!

Hello, AlmostGrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Streisand effect may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlmostGrad, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AlmostGrad! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AlmostGrad! Thank you for your contributions. I am TheOriginalSoni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suburban Express article

Hello,

While I do want that article to stay in the best shape possible, I must warn you that your recent additions to the page (about his Reddit activities) are potentially as damaging to the article as his original comments. We at Wikipedia put Verifiability over everything else, and your claims, though possibly true, are not sourced. I ask you to remove it, and let someone with less COI to edit that article. I suggest that you simply suggest edits at the talk page of the article. That will be the best way for you to go forward.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will remove the doxing and impersonation stuff and suggest it on the Talk page. AlmostGrad (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOriginalSoni, I read the Verifiability page, and it seems like the source does not necessarily have to be a published news article referring to the evidence, but the evidence can directly be used as a source too (My understanding is that primary sources can also be cited, though secondary sources are preferable[1] - is that correct?). In that case, I have direct evidence of doxing[2] (this is also an example of impersonation of a real person who wrote a negative review of the company on Yelp[3]), impersonation of reddit accounts[4], threat of lawsuits by mail[5] and on Reddit[6], and demands by email to remove unfavorable information about the company[7]. I am not sure how credible Imgur/Reddit links are considered here, but the published articles in Boing Boing, Ars Technica, Popehat, Techdirt, The Daily Dot, etc. were themselves written on the basis of such material. I also understand that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, a neutral third party will be the best judge of what is relevant, important and deserves to be included.

P.S. I followed your suggestion and created a Talk page entry[8].

I also don't know if this is the correct place to discuss this (or whether you will be able to see this or be notified of this message). I have only been on Wikipedia for a week and am still figuring things out. Thank you for your patience and helpfulness! AlmostGrad (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and Welcome! [I thought a personal welcome should be in order, since you are still figuring things out :)]

I recieved a notification for your message. Because of the way notifications now work here, just linking my name (as you did) on your talk page while submitting the message is enough to alert me. [Beware though, that it might not work if you dont sign. Also, if you're unsure, you can directly come to my talk page, and leave me a message there.]

You are partially correct in this case. Athough our policy states that secondary sources are preferrable over primary ones, there is a very different interpretation of it than what you understood. Primary sources are much less reliable than secondary sources, and per this section of our policy, "Questionable claims need strong sources" (Not exact paraphrasing, but thats the widely accepted consensus).

What this means in our context, is that while primary sources "can" be used, they are generally used only for simple factual matters and almost never for seriously contentious issues like these. From our (Wikipedia's) point of view, while unlikely, anyone can make or forge such sources, which would undermine their authenticity. Which is why we cannot add your claims to the article unless you have other more reliable and (preferably) secondary sources saying the same.

I hope your doubts are cleared now. Feel free to contact me again if you need more help. I may not be available at all times, so the Teahouse and the Wikipedia IRC help channel #wikipedia-en-help ^connect are also very helpful.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni. I didn't want to go to the Teahouse because I wanted to ask someone who was already familiar with the issue, the edit wars, the COIs, etc., and I thought some new person at the Teahouse would first need to educate themselves before being able to answer my questions. I think I understand the difference between primary and secondary sources now - secondary sources use the same materials as I have provided (the news publications[9] did, they did not definitively know it was Suburban Express by getting IP addresses from Reddit and tracing it back to the company, they inferred that from behavior, much like the sockpuppet investigations on the basis of behavior on Wikipedia), but secondary sources are unbiased and have some distance from the issue and are considered more credible than someone with a COI presenting primary sources - is that correct?

Hello TheOriginalSoni, I have some more questions regarding Verifiability and the Suburban Express article. The two secondary sources on which the Competition section are based are not accessible (the Daily Herald and Russell's Guide references), and the third reference is a self-published document on the company's own webpage. As per the articles/sections on offline sources and self-published sources, shouldn't material which is controversial and challenged be removed? Without direct access to the articles, it cannot be verified if the content in the Competition section is actually what the articles say, or is a favorably-interpreted, exaggerated, cherry-picked version of it. AlmostGrad (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I've replied at that talk page; I'll just paste it here-

Hello,
Please note that there is nothing stopping anyone from citing any sources that are not available online. Editors are free to cite offline sources, as long as they provide enough details so anyone with an access to a decent library can find and verify those sources.
Also, Primary Sources, while discouraged, can be allowed for indisputable non-controversial facts.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Given your last few edits, I ask you not to edit that article AT ALL. Given the history of that article, its been through a lot to become nearly neutral, and you edits are making them VERY non-neutral. Please ONLY use the talk page to suggest edits, as I've also suggested NegatedVoid to do, but refrain from directly editing the article. You can also suggest edits to CorporateM, but directly editing the article seems to be a bad idea.

Thanks,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOriginalSoni - OK, I won't edit it, but can you tell me why you say "last few edits"? I removed the doxing and impersonation part as soon as you told me to do so, what else was wrong in your opinion? Do you suggest I don't even make corrections - for example, the 3rd reference has a wrong date (2019) now. AlmostGrad (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was slightly concerned with your linking of his name to the website, and very concerned with your question above. Your COI seems to be coming in the way of editing, which I do not want. So I think you suggesting edits is way better.

Corrections should be fine, but anything substantial is probably better discussed.

I have PMed you on reddit via a throwaway. Please respond to that.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to my reddit PM as soon as you come back. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Land express

I added some references to Lincoln Land express. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincoln Land express. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Shitty Watercolour, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shitty Watercolour for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shitty Watercolour 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/Shitty Watercolour 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. Neo12345292 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trudy Haynes

Hi, A while ago we were working on an AfD on Trudy Haynes. It turns out that the original submission was copied from answers.com. See this output from Dcoetzee's Duplication Detector. What is not wholesale copying is a result of the editing work that we did. - tucoxn\^talk 11:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Hi, if I've understood correctly you have some kind of offwiki dispute with the owner of Suburban Express. If that's correct, I want to draw your attention to our BLP policy, which states:

Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to engage in or continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other feuds and disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to the other parties to the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual, or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the possible conflict of interest.

I hope as a new editor you can focus on issues not related to this person or company, in your own interests as well as his. The best thing now is to allow completely uninvolved editors decide how to handle the various claims and sources, both on talk pages and on the affected articles. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fair of you to ask me to stay away from the discussion while soliciting input from the party with a CoI in the other direction? I have disclosed my CoI from the very start (unlike the editors who have advocated for Suburban Express), and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and advice I was given, I have not edited the article in a long time - I have only made suggestions on the talk page. In fact, I am not violating the policy you have cited above, if I understood it correctly. AlmostGrad (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

I have a lot more experience than you around here, so you might watch and learn. ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Website

I did see the page you pointed out, plus a bunch of others, but I felt no need to be more specific than I was. I really don't want to look at that kind of stuff. Thanks for the note, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policing other users talk pages

Good day,

Please familiarize yourself with WP:TPO to get a better feel about what you should do and refrain from doing on other people's talk pages. Further, the discussion is now rapidly moving all over the place. While I don't necessarily agree with SlimVirgin's point of view about who should provide input on the article, since you do have an off-wiki dispute with Arri, it would be preferable to limit comments on his talk page to factual information that can inform a potential unblock decision. The rest belongs elsewhere.

Thank you for your understanding. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post

I have mentioned you in an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on hold at Arri's talk page

I posted a message at User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, but deleted what I posted because I saw a previous comment:

I've placed this discussion On hold per private discussion. L Faraone 19:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

But I don't know that "on hold" means: does it mean I can't post anything there? Are you in the private discussion or at least know it exists? And should I add the comment back? The really confusing thing is that 24.15.78.1 raised the dispute to ANI while even the discussion is supposedly on hold, so now I'm clueless about how Wikipedia deals with "on hold" discussions. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what that means, I took it to mean the unblock decision is on hold, but it specifically says "discussion", so I am not sure. I have commented after that message was posted, as have others, and no one complained, so I think your comment was okay and you can add it back. AlmostGrad (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest comment on Talk:Suburban Express

Pinging @CorporateM: as well for this:

Folks, Arri was blocked because of a tendency to needlessly personalize and escalate disputes. Would you consider addressing the issue with @Biosthmors:'s editing directly and amicably on his talk page, and on WP:COIN as a second step, instead of re-populating the article's talkpage with the same kind of feuding subheadings that have distracted from article improvement for so long?

Both of you have been on the receiving end of ad hominem argumentation about this article and have been in the shoes you just placed Biosthmors before. I understand there's a lot of history on this article, but if the goal is to produce a proper neutral encyclopedic article, maybe a less confrontational approach would produce better results... and be a more than welcome change of tone, no? Just my 5 cents of course, but I'd recommend refocusing that discussion on whether the Chinese news sources add to the article on its talk page, and engage with each other in more appropriate venues. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Eisenkop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vestal (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) 08:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work on Unidan. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bluerasberry! AlmostGrad (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Peoria Charter Coach Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Joliet, Bloomington, Department of Defense, Normal and News Gazette

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty Watercolour

Well, if it's just up to me, sorry but no. There are some absolutes in the username policy, and "no profanity" is one of them. It is so explicit and so unconducive to a hospitable online environment where effective collaboration is possible that the user's intent is irrelevant.

However, if you really think the community would accept your reasoning, if you think I'm being inflexible, feel free to start a username RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ben Eisenkop, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. Ravelair (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minyong Kim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The News-Gazette. 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) 09:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Minyong Kim) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Minyong Kim, AlmostGrad!

Wikipedia editor Calaka just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you :)

To reply, leave a comment on Calaka's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AlmostGrad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge

Yes, I agree to merge. We also need to make redirection. -- saraband2004

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AlmostGrad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]