User talk:E. Ripley/archive4

Talk page archive: 1-2-3

PLEASE ADD NEW COMMENTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE.

Virender Sehwag

Hi,
did you look at the reference when you undid this edit?
Amalthea 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Have replied on your talk. — e. ripley\^talk 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moved from my talk. Amalthea 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IP didn't mention any source, which was my problem with the edit. Unless I missed something, but I don't recall one. That you left a message means you must wonder yourself, so let me doublecheck. — e. ripley\^talk 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were right. There WAS a source already there that in fact did agree with the new statistics. Thank you for the note! — e. ripley\^talk 16:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a tendency with the new Pending Reviews, we tend to automatically start out with the assumption that every pending edit is wrong unless explicitly backed up by a reference in the same edit. That assumption works with the grand majority of anon edits, to be sure, but I get the impression that we also revert more good edits on the PC-protected articles.
Cheers, Amalthea 16:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's probably some truth to that observation, and given that, it's something to be extra conscious of. — e. ripley\^talk 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not sure what needs to be changed, or what conclusions should be drawn from it. It's quite possible that the selection of articles was simply not well thought out, all of the currently PC-protected articles would normally simply be semi-protected due to problems with anon edits. I'm starting to think that those are exactly the least qualified articles.
If you have any thoughts about this when you review changes please voice them at e.g. WT:Pending changes. The trial only runs for two months, and if there is no consensus that PCP is beneficial then it might well be scrapped again. Any ideas on how it's best used should be brought up now.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat conflicted right now. I want to have some more experience with how this works in practice before I make any ultimate judgments. It seems very clunky, but that could be a tech problem rather than any kind of conceptual problem. It seems silly that after I revert a vandal edit, I should have to go back into the history and accept my reversion, for instance. It does strike me that this is a bit like a very fancy and high-level vandalism patrol, which is one of its purposes of course. But the natural question there is, is this all worth it? Was the result of accepting an IP's edit changing some sports statistics worth the 15 minutes I spent on the review (and re-review), to know whether the edit was sneaky vandalism or not? I don't have an answer to that yet. As you note, the article selection may not be the best. I might not be wondering whether that time was well-spent if it had occurred as part of another article. It also strikes me as a very fancy and high-level content patrol. To the extent that that's what was intended, perhaps it's worthwhile -- I can see it being valuable for BLPs, for instance, but I don't know about beyond that. I will be letting things ferment in the old noggin as we go along and will definitely add my two cents at some point. — e. ripley\^talk 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM/A

Hello, E. Ripley. You have new messages at WP:PERM/A.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I really don’t know what to make of this. I feel rejected, loathed and unappreciated. It makes me feel like the editor does not want to collaborate. What do you think? Taric25 (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to ascribe motives, but my guess is that Anma felt like you were antagonizing her and just didn't want to see your name on her talk page anymore. After all, you had just left her a series of messages threatening, in essence, to try to get her blocked. Some frustration is understandable. Doesn't mean you aren't a valuable person though, and doesn't mean that you can't find a way forward out of your present dispute. I'm sorry you're feeling bad. Maybe it would help if you took a break? Go out for a walk, or read a book. — e. ripley\^talk 19:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I’ll take your advice and go watch some anime. ^_^ By the way, I invite you to take a look at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television) and comment on its talk page, since that’s what I would like collaborative input to reach consensus. Thank you! Taric25 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pending changes

Hi, I am trying to understand and see how this pending is working, your accepted edit at Holocaust seems to have been reverted , is that correct and if so did you understand what we going on? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you accepted it in the knowledge that it was detrimental to the content? Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are accepting edits that ate detrimental to the content and then moving on? I have not been doing that at all, I have a look and if the edit is rubbish I deal with it as I would normally, revert , as in don't accept and add the explanation as in, bad English or uncited or whatever pending changes is not to accept detrimental edits. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What reason do you see to accept an edit that is detrimental to an article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think I am pointing any finger, it is confusing. As I see it, you treat edits as normal, there is no reason to accept any addition that will need reverting immediately, that acceptance you made should imo have not been accepted but reverted, you actually edit conflicted my revert of the edit. If you are right and we should accept poor edits that are detrimental to the article I would like to get a link to the explanation. I don't think that is correct though, as a confirmed user we look at the edit as if it is accepted and can revert as we normally would if it was rubbish. We are not supposed to accept poor edits because they are not vandalism and then either revert them again ourselves or wait for someone else to come and tidy up. If the edit is rubbish revert it and forget about pending, that is my usage and understanding. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my new article on the East Bay Green Corridor?

You offered to check out my new article on the East Bay Green Corridor... and I want to take you up on it! This is my first article. Thanks in advance for your help and advice! Tarastar42 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Tarastar42[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AnmaFinotera

Hi, I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:AnmaFinotera. Would you please take a look? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

procedures for contesting

Procedures for contesting a merge, that is. On 7 May, you responded to my note about Pappy O'Daniel being merged with the Radio Show of his son and band leader. asking which show. I updated a response with a link to the archived page. I also am unfamiliar with disputes and how to iniate one. I do not wish to start a wiki war. K3vin (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your time and attention. I am a bit ADD, and hope I have clarified things a bit better on the O'Daniel article. K3vin (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and after all that, had I checked my watch list before responding to may talk page, I'd have mooted most of what I wrote today. K3vin (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schiff 3O

Hi, I am, like you, a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Just a FYI: The disputes regarding Peter Schiff keep getting relisted at the 3O Project for some reason, even though you are already on the job there. There have been responses to your inquiry made at Talk:Peter_Schiff#Clearly_more_at_stake_here_than_just_a_wording_issue. Good luck with your work there. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		That you checked back in after your original 3O, and then began a more detailed discussion unprompted is just amazing. Your diligence in diving into a very detailed subject is certainly worth recognition. Thanks for your efforts to get us so close to a resolution satisfying for all parties! BigK HeX (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		To E. Ripley, for your outstanding fairness, clarity of mind, and neutrality in settling an editing dispute on Peter Schiff. I deeply respect your opinions on this page, and hope, should need be, you would be willing to lend your perspective in the future. Thank you!!! Screwball23 talk 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! or Diannaa ^TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! --Diannaa ^TALK 12:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption?

Hello E.Ripley, I am in need of adoption. I am working on a project that requires some attention due to the ease of falling into the category of advertising. Are you up for a challenge? Grimmbones (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hello Ripley, I am currently working on a page that is for a holistic wellness resort. I have taken a look at other wiki pages such as The Four Seasons, Chiva Som, Starwood and Anantar hotels, and wish to have something similiar but with more of a historical profile into the building of it - preserving the natural surroundings - something not done on Koh Samui in Thailand, and a brief on the Historical monument on its site. A Monk's Cave. I have started a draft, and would like some input on it. As well as, as I progress, as it will be difficult to combine the encyclopedic content, and the profile of the establishment and it's founders without becoming advertorial. I believe that it is a worthy project, and could use some guidance to complete it. Thank you kindly :)Grimmbones (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun

Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 04:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalaya

Hello Ripley, Thank you very much for your input. I understand your critique completely, and will now make an attempt to sort it all out so that I have included some unbiased and relevant sources. If it's ok with you, I would like you to have a peek, when you have a chance, after I have made some drastic changes to the profile. I'll give you a shout. Thank you once again :) Grimmbones (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flapper

I almost put "snorted" in myself, but I'm interested in knowing what they called it at the time, and wondered if "sniffed" wasn't perhaps historically correct. If I think of it later, I may do a little research and see what I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of looking for this, the information I found convinced me that widespread cocaine use by flappers (whether called "shiffing" or "snorting" or whatever) was probably not an historical fact at all, so I've removed the reference. I also did some general cleanup to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank You

Tank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PucciniVivaldi (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OUTING issue

There's a thin line between COI investigations and WP:OUTING, and I think you may have crossed it here. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict between WP:COI and WP:OUTING is an unresolved one, and the evidence E. Ripley presented is fairly convincing to me in showing that the editor has a serious conflict of interest. What options are open? Can one say "I have compelling evidence that the editor has a COI, and I will make it available to ArbCom on request"? And what does one do if the editor refuses to acknowldege the conflict? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Response Mine Interactive

Hello E. Ripley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Response Mine Interactive, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The awards and finals are enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, E. Ripley. You have new messages at Constitutionguard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Waldir ^talk 10:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]