This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Because you are a new user and not yet autoconfirmed, you're unable to move pages. Once you have made ten edits and your account is over four days old (which yours very much is), you will be capable of doing this. I've gone ahead and moved the page for you, however. – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW, in this edit[1] you described the edits by IEP students([2]) as "Edits look great!". However the citation given is incomplete (it doesn't specify a journal or date). It may be referring to [3] (I found this by googling the list of authors, which due to poor wiki markup isn't visible to readers). More significantly, I'm not sure the info added by the students makes much sense - for example what does "computing safety" mean ? While problems like this aren't uncommon in newby edits I think describing it as a "great" edit is incorrect. DexDor (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there. When asked to review the edits made by the students in the IEP program, we were mostly asked to focus on reducing the damage that they have been doing to the encyclopedia. I agree that the edits made to formal verification were not perfect, but they were also quickly fixed by another user. The edits added content to the article, did not plagiarize, and have been since correctly referenced, though not fully by the user. So yes, I agree that the edit to the formal verification page by the user was not perfect, but it has since been revised to good condition.
Furthermore, I'm referring to all of the user's edits, not just that specific edit. That user has put a lot of work into xyr userspace draft, at User:Rahulbhalerao001`/Formal verification. Again, the draft is anything but perfect or ready for the mainspace. However, it is a good start. It doesn't appear to have any copyright violation issues, which is the main concern with the IEP edits. Furthermore, I don't think that describing the user's edits as "great" is incorrect, either. We're not looking for perfection here, we're looking for edits that improve the encyclopedia. Yes, the draft needs to be revised. However, all things considered, the edits are quite good. The quality of the writing is quite high, particularly compared to the other IEP edits. The sections address approaches, applications, and issues, three good sections to include. The references are reliable, and inline citations have been included. The user has even included diagrams and tables to explain the content. So no, the edits are not perfect, but I will stand by them being pretty great. – GorillaWarfare(talk)17:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My concern is minimising the damage to mainspace articles so I've little interest in sandboxes. I've spent some time looking at this article and the cited paper and my conclusion is that the new text does not improve the article. It looks to me like the students tried to pick a few bits out of the cited paper, but didn't actually understand it (not that I understand all of it!). DexDor (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
I am trying to upload an image of my boss, Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, for his page. The image I uploaded with removed because I did not specify the copyright/license status. How do I do this? The image is taken from his biography on our department's web page and Dr. Wolpe requested that I add it.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falafel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Why did they edit your picture at the top of the page? It was down to your shoulders and now it is just your face. You had on LSU colors, is that why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.94.10 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen both versions. I believe it has to do with the A/B testing they do. They see if the banner gets more clickthroughs/donations with one over the other, because one might be more appealing than the other. I don't think it has anything to do with LSU colors; I didn't even know that they were yellow and purple :P – GorillaWarfare(talk)01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did they edit your photo again to add a purple scarf?
Search term does not lead to article, no disambiguation notice appears
Hi GorillaWarfare,
Are you able to help me noodle a problem? Very shortly, it will have gone without saying, that I am a newbie. (What tense was THAT?)
When I search "Nera," a disambiguation page appears that includes Naval Enlisted Reserve Association. When I search all-caps "NERA," which is perhaps a more likely scenario for what a user might enter as a search term, I get an article, not related to Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.
Should I not be seeing on that page a line stating "This article is about...For other uses, see....(disambiguation)?"
I don't know how to get this line to appear at the top of the article "NERA Economic Consulting."
I see three uses of "NERA" on Wikipedia:
Non-energetic reactive armour (this one is not the title of an article)
Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (the title of an article)
NERA Economic Consulting (the title of an article).
Should all of those appear on a disambiguation page?
I have redirected NERA to the disambiguation page located at Nera. That should solve the disambiguation issue; I don't think there's really any need to tag all of the pages with the "This article is about...For other uses, see....(disambiguation)?" hatnote. For future reference, though, you could create that hatnote by inserting this template at the top of the page: {{About|the consulting firm|Nera}}. This would look like:
This article is about the consulting firm. For other uses, see Nera.
Thank you for the fix. You swooped down on that helpless little problem with the speed of a Peregrine Falcon. The fastest animal, they dive at up to 202 mph during a hunt. (I learned that on Wikipedia.)
Thanks, too, for the hatnote note. Plus, since I was able to see your edits, I learned even more. Good work in bringing a newbie a bit farther along.—Bwdrennan (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say congratulations
I'm sure you've gotten a bunch of these by now, but I wanted to say congrats on being on the front page of this site anyway. You've got to be doing a good job to get there, so keep it up! :D Jmancars (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Jmancars[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion (and your reverts!) I'm trying to keep an eye on it as best I can, as I really hate protecting my talk page. I'll protect if it seems like it needs it. – GorillaWarfare(talk)23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice bunch of Rosa foetida, per the suggestion made by Drmies. Thank you for your wonderful work here. It is a shame that some people have decided to ignore this. So, to cheer you up, I'd like to offer the Rosa foetida. Hopefully you have a vase, as Jimbo sold all of his, in order to get his image off of the fundraiser banner. I wonder why... Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant(talk)00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!
Something tells me that females like small, adorable kittens..... Thank you for all the good work you've done here, and congrats on getting onto the main page. Keep it up.
I've been a WP editor for over 4 years, and I have over 5k edits. Like you, most of those edits are related to copy-editing and policy enforcement. After scanning your recent talkpage history, I want to thank you for what you've put up with thus far, and admire you doing so with quiet reverts. I try to donate to WP every year; but I must admit, this year's campaign, until recently, has been somewhat off-putting. Thankfully, your testimony and your lovely smile melted my resolve, and inspired me to triple my regular donation. I am certain that your contribution will do a lot to help the Wikimedia foundation reach its goals. Thank you, and keep up the excellent work as a Wikipedia ambassador! -Verdatum (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I assumed you meant it nicely. Thank you. I think some of my TPSers are being a little more protective of me in light of the recent attention, as I've gotten a number of slightly lecherous talk page posts. – GorillaWarfare(talk)19:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Slightly lecherous"? You are truly a master of understatement, which is a wonderful trait. It was the response to Dylan Hsu's quip by an IP that crossed the line, in my opinion. So I removed both as a precaution. Sorry, Dylan. And sorry to you, GW, if I have been overly protective. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We started using your banner in the UK this morning and you're raising more than him there as well. Actually, quite a lot more. Thanks! :-) The Land (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't realize it was a legitimate question. All my work for Wikipedia is unpaid, of course. I'm not sure what makes you think it's a fake, but I apologize that it seems to have offended you. – GorillaWarfare(talk)22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And the reason I find it "fake" is because I hate seeing annoying ads atop a Wikipedia page, and you seem to block a ton of users... ĐARKJEDI1023:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fundraising banners can be hidden by visiting this page, which sets a cookie in your browser to hide them. Furthermore, I don't believe you should be seeing them as a logged-in user. As for blocking users, I'm not sure what that has to do with my fundraising appeal. – GorillaWarfare(talk)23:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Wikipedia...still wanting money because of their greed. As for the fundraising appeal, why the heck did they choose you? You block people and revert people's edits. ĐARKJEDI1023:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very counter-productive, actually. You've blocked like over 700 users, and 150 of them probably would be useful, and another 300 probably were blocked because of poor grammar. Shame on you. ĐARKJEDI1023:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Civility? Your asking for civility? Your the one who blocked 500 users and your likely a bot. I mean you edited at: 12:52, 12:59, 16:04, 16:09, and at 16:15 twice. Plus, sometimes you edit 30+ times a minute, which every normal user knows is impossible. ĐARKJEDI1023:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am advising that you keep a civil tone as well. Making two edits/minute is quite easy to do. It is also actually quite possible to make 30 edits a minute. I have done so on several occasions, and I am not a bot. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point to this discussion? GorillaWarfare has done exemplary work here. Unless you have specific problems, there is really no point in bringing up the rate she does it. Implying that she is a bot is fairly insulting and a borderline personal attack. So far, all you have done is brought up non-issues. Alpha_Quadrant(talk)23:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a block on the IP (or encompassing the IP) from which I occasionally edit. I work at a school, so I presume that the intended blockee was a school student somewhere in our system.
The error message that I'm getting when I try to edit is:
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your IP address has been automatically blocked because it was used by another user, who was blocked by GorillaWarfare. The reason given is this:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TROLLERv1".
The reason given for TROLLERv1's block is: "Vandalism-only account".
Start of block: 11:31, December 8, 2011
Expiry of block: 11:31, December 9, 2011
Intended blockee: 153.107....
You may contact GorillaWarfare or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
Note that you may not use the "e-mail this user" feature unless you have a valid e-mail address registered in your user preferences and you have not been blocked from using it.
Your current IP address is 153.107...., and the block ID is #3735415. Please include all above details in any queries you make.
I've removed the last couple of numbers from the IP address, but hopefully you can figure out what I'm talking about. If you could please fix the block (at least so that it doesn't affect me ;), I'd appreciate it. Cheers. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]06:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked
Autoblock any IP addresses usedY
Watch this user's user and talk pages
See WP:IPBE for instructions for getting IP block exemption. Why you are able to edit here, I don't know. Maybe you IP changes as you move from different computers in your school if the school has different network connections not affected by this autoblock. Are you able to edit any other pages? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: it was from the same computer, same login session. There were a couple of pages that I couldn't edit. I tried WP:ANI first and then your talkpage. I first noticed it on some miscellaneous article with a typo but can't remember which or why any more, heh... I suppose the above quoted edit notice does invite me to contact GorillaWarfare? It'd probably be better to point people to WP:IPBE as you suggested?
In any case, problem solved. Well, I imagine it is... Until I get to work tomorrow morning. Thanks all for your help. Thanks GorillaWarfare for hosting this conversation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]10:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I didn't undo the autoblock myself was because I didn't want to tread on another admin's' shoes :) Anyway, you've got a good cause to give the kids in your school a stern lecture! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Strange to see that it allowed you to post on this talk page and blocked you elsewhere, I've never had any issues under the IP (Education Department's proxy) but have had issues on public WiFi hotspots in the past. The IP block exempt should work no matter how hard the block on the IP is. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no, that's cool.
Pretty sure that it wasn't my school. Heh. I'm still battling the "wikipedia isn't reliable" mentality with most of my colleagues so my class and one or two others are the only ones who have even seen wikipedia. In any case, one of the Year 1 classes was in the computer room today; doubt it was them, more likely the high school up the road. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ]11:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, TPSers, for handling this for me while I was offline. Sorry that you were affected by the block, Danjel! It seems everything is sorted now, but if you need anything more, don't hesitate to contact me :] – GorillaWarfare(talk)17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per your userpage
"...So if you have any questions or just want to say hi, you can!"
Well... Hi. =)
And congrats on being featured on that toolbar with the little "x" at the top right corner. If only I were as famous as you...
By the way, this is perhaps an awkward confession, but... I had always assumed you were one of these. I guess that's because I've never visited your userpage before. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Thank you :] And yes, many people do assume I'm male. My username is admittedly a bit masculine-sounding, and the odds of any editor being female are relatively low. I'm pretty used to people being surprised that I'm young and female. – GorillaWarfare(talk)17:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
(Belated) Congrats on Your Recent Top Panel Notoriety
Hi GorillaWarfare. That's some handle(s) you've got there. Wow, 18000 edits already? Do you ever sleep? Do you live on caffeine drinks and hot pockets? Just wondering. I tried to post earlier but apparently some 'slightly lecherous posters' caused an edit block on you home talk page. Anyway congrats on all your hard work here (along with all the other authors too). Hey, maybe you should write a book or something too? Keep Up the Good Work Schweetie. BTW, did donations increase with your picture showing on the panel? ('Probably donations went way up' is my guess:) Cheers. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.197.231 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for several years now; my edit count is a little more reasonable when that is taken into account. Furthermore, some of my editing is semi-automated. Thanks for the congratulations. I'm not sure exactly how well the banner performed, particularly in regards to the others. – GorillaWarfare(talk)02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I guess the wiki-nerd query /assessement is/was premature. How'd you get started? Is wiki editing addicting? How does the semi-automation work as far as your wiki-count totals go? Do they count as if you did it in person? What edits do the semi-automatd bots make (that you created)? Looks like the donations take per person being shown on the top panel is a mystery. (Do you know if a DVD copy of wikipedia can be purchased somewheres? (That would be another way to raise some dough for wiki). How'd you come up with your handle? Are you a truculent person (as opposed to your sweet demeanor emanating from your smiling pic)? Inquiring minds want to know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.198.27 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I started editing by just adding small amounts of information to articles about topics I was interested in at the time: unicycles, Disturbed, Evanescence, etc. It was pretty poorly formatted, unsourced, etc. However, as I got more involved in editing Wikipedia, I learned the policies and guidelines so that I could become a productive editor. I would definitely say editing is addicting, but probably not for everyone. As you can see, some of us put massive amounts of effort into editing Wikipedia.
Yes - that's is for sure. I think some editors love to power trip to by doing reverts and generally whacking whole sections of somebody's edits just for the wiki power & control aspects (as revealed in the tone of their comments).
Huggle screencap Semi-automated editing is different than fully-automated bots. The tool I use most frequently is Huggle. You can click on the picture to the right to see a larger version of what the interface looks like, but it basically shows diffs between the previous and current edits to the page. It filters the recent changes feed for edits that appear to be vandalism, and then whoever is using the program determines if the edits need to be reverted. It is treated the same as regular editing, because the person using the tool is still fully in control of what edits their account is making. This method still requires effort on the part of the editor, but allows editors to find large amounts of vandalism pretty quickly, and speeds up the amount of time it takes to revert and warn the user.
What percentage get vandalized and does that editor know the definition of vandalism? Maybe it was just an honest attempt to convey 411? I've not been here that much but it does seem like there's a steady stream of numbnuts posting various nefarious cr*pola.
If you're looking for some information on how the fundraiser is progressing, you can see meta:Fundraising_2011. As of yesterday, we've raised US$19,558,237. Regarding how my appeal fared, Megan said on that page, "When we put the appeal live in the US on Monday morning, we saw a boost in donations." Sounds good!
Not bad at all. I think one driver is that tech. ezines/ articles want you to pay $25 - $30 to buy the whole article. They are assuming that guv agencies (& universities) have budgets for their staff to make those buys. But what if they were all free? I would bet in the long run the rate of technology develpoment would double or triple since the information is flowing more easily. So to some degree wikiP may be acclerating knowledge flow (however imperfect) and may be accelerating the rate of technology development by presenting the high spots of a subject so that any reasearcher can better target sub-areas to pursue further.. Same for search engines (like goggle). I know of a case in a medical situation where very young doctors where referred to a wiki page, read it, changed their testing procedures and then recalculated the proper response based on those tests. They were warned the article may be worthless tripe but in that case it was spot on and everything worked out well. One revenue stream for wiki may be to feed doctors at hospitals subscriptions to access medical related articles. So this example shows a speed up in technology to a degree which amounted to senior doctors teaching younger doctros via wiki (though I'm sure they would deny it (despite the time stamps on the new tests they ran:))
I don't know of any DVD copies of Wikipedia for sale, but they probably exist. The Wikimedia Foundation itself does not sell them. There are some potential issues with releasing DVDs like this, in that the content would need to be thoroughly screened. If someone posted copyrighted material on Wikipedia and it got transferred to the DVD, selling it would be a pretty major problem. That being said, if you're interested in accessing an offline version of Wikipedia, there are some ways to do that. This page has information on downloading database dumps for this purpose.
OK- Cool. Generally as long as the content samples is 'small' the copyrighted material would fall under the 'fair use' clause. It's just when it's wholesale long sections of copyrighted material is used that it may become a problem. I'm sure that kjust like colleges have software which looks for plagiarized work it could be mod'd to check wiki articles for other copies out on the web using say google to look for it. A word count match could ID the art. as 'plagiarized' and then revert the article to remove it. This could run say once a week (or whatever depending on available resources.) The search engines may want some $'s though if you're constanting tapping on their servers. The net affect is to purge wiki content of plagiarized material in a regular basis in which case the idea of selling DVD's for an instance of the entire wikipedia content may become more viable.
Regarding my username, it just sort of popped into my head. I used to edit under the username "Theunicyclegirl", but I lost the password to that account after about a year of editing with it. I didn't have an email address associated with the account, so I couldn't recover it. I needed a username for use with this account, and "GorillaWarfare" seemed somewhat clever at the time, I guess. I wouldn't say I'm particularly truculent, though I can be somewhat stubborn.
OK - I'll scatch the idea that you are a 'fanged ravanous lioness when crossed' that was merely giving veiled warning via your handle :P
Also, for future reference, when you post on a talk page you should sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your post. Right now your signature is just your IP address, but if you create an account, it will show your username when you do this. You can even customize it! – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK though I don't know if I'll being doing too many edits like you have been doing so I don't know if it's worth it for me. However, it's a rather trippy idea that so many people may be reading your brand of edits though they may get reverted shortly thereafter (probably by some guy living in his mom's basement typing in his underware and tripping on the high of wiki 'power-deleting'!. There's plenty of net chatter of how ppl quit editing wiki when their stuff gets deleted. Maybe a study is due on how much is being legitmately deleted versus arbitrary whimsical power tripping deletes wherein the deleted party merely folds up by 'going away forever'. Knowledge lost? Who knows.
BTW, is getting whacked by a trout a wiki-thing going on?
Perhaps some do, but it's also important to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. Sometimes completely removing a poorly-formatted edit is less labor-intensive than fixing it, and can sometimes be legitimate. I'm not sure what percentage of pages get vandalized, but vandalism is pretty high. It's true that sometimes editors are just uninformed about formatting, etc., but it's usually pretty obvious when that's the case. We have a set of warning templates that we use, some of which are phrased to be kinder and more understanding to new users.
Well you know quite alot all the wiki rules. Is there a primer page for wiki editing? Also do you realize that you are at risk of becoming a wiki employee. :)
Regarding Wikipedia charging a subscription fee for access to medical articles, I'm pretty sure that's not in the cards. Keeping Wikipedia as a free resource is a major goal for the Wikimedia Foundation, and all its articles are accessible by anyone with an Internet connection.
Yeah - you're probably right. Why would anybody pay for possibly sketcxhy info. anyway?
Regarding copyrighted material, I'm aware of the fair-use exemption. I was referring to larger-scale plagiarism that occasionally occurs. We do have methods of finding and removing this material, but all of the articles would have to be thoroughly searched before being added to DVDs. Another problem with DVD media is the size of the file. Even just a set of DVDs containing the current revisions only of mainspace English Wikipedia articles would have to include seven DVDs. If the largest dump was used (all revisions, all pages), the set would have to include over 1,000 DVDs. I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation is planning on releasing DVD versions of Wikipedia, but I suppose I could be wrong on this.
Yes that is a ton of info. Who could even read it all?
As for creating an account being "worth it", I just would like to point out that it's completely free and requires very little effort. Futhermore it will stop users from viewing your IP address, which does divulge some personal information about you.
Yeah - I hear you (though others use the same IP as well-depending). I don't have any plan on continuing to post per se but maybe if something catches my attention.
There are measures in place to avoid arbitrary deletion of articles by rogue admins. Admins are not admins for life – we can be desysopped if we are clearly abusing the tools with which we are trusted. Furthermore, if someone believes a deletion discussion was closed in error, there are avenues (WP:DRV) to address this.
Good - I'll keep that in mind.
Yes, "trouting" is a Wikipedia thing. Not exactly sure about its origins, but you can read about it at WP:TROUT.
Only in computerland huh?
One other question: if two ppl are editing the same page at the same time but there's no overlap in what's being edited is the wiki software able to handle that? Or does it give the first person preference and block the second editor (possibly losing their edits).?
BTW - Yes- I like some of the music by the band pages you've edited (No Metallica?). However have you ever heard/read about 'subconcious programming' ideas? Supposedly in some susceptible ppl they can be 'programmed' by the lyrics of a song. If you believe that then and you think you may be susceptible then you may want to limit which lyrics you get exposed to (continuously - as in autoreplay toggled on etc.). It's just a thot.
BTW - just another stray thot, wikipedia, aside from all the deletion hound editors, may be recreating the conditions of the 'Tower of Babel' in that information is moving around across language barriers at a faster speed by way of reading this website. If you believe the Bible story then no limit in knowledge would ever be reached. In this way, wikipedia is a pivitol if not vital resource in pushing this along. And your part of it (and a big part according to the User edit line count page too:) BTW, if new material is added in English is it added to the other language versions too? If so then is a mahicne translation used or other editors?
BTW, can I turn off the signbot (appends the ip) or is that a sysadmin function?
Anyway, thanks for your replies. Also since I've saved copies you're welcome to dejunk your page here by removing most of (or all) of this section of your talk page. :)
WP:Getting started is a great resource. There are a list of pages there that are quite helpful. As for edit conflicts, they only really occur if two editors are editing in the same few lines of text. Otherwise, the software can merge the two edits together with no issues. If they do occur, the second editor will get a notice saying there has been an edit conflict. They won't lose their changes. It gives a box with the text as they wrote it, and another with the text as it was edited by the first editor. It's relatively easy to merge the two together manually.
New content added to the English Wikipedia is not automatically added to other languages. It can be manually translated by editors, but it is not machine-translated. If you can read two languages, go to an article that exists on both language versions of Wikipedia. You'll notice that the content and writing is often somewhat different. Some articles are translated, which is encouraged, but some are written from scratch.
SineBot isn't a function or a gadget; it's a bot account. You can opt out by typing !nosign! in your edit summary or by placing {{NoAutosign}} to your user talk page, but I wouldn't recommend it. You really should sign your posts, or else it gets very confusing for those trying to read a page. – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your replies GW.
Yeah I figured the double editing software was likely handling more than one editor working at the same time.
BTW, Do you speak a 2nd language?
BTW, Does WP have any plans to put a 'easy button' tab on the english page to port the material through babel fish translation and dump it to the language of the viewer's choice (on the other language WP in)? And vice versa?
It looks like sinebot gets fooled when I nest my comments inside your original comment block. Hmmm.
BTW, I've seen some science articles that remain in just one language though they may have some appeal in other languages. Have you ever used babelfish? Some of the translations are hilarious (if you run the result back through the other way to the original language)
BTW is there a page which shows which WP pages are the most viewed (and stacked in order)?
BTW is there a utility to stack all historical edits on a topic into one big document for saving (out)?
I saw your TUSC notice below. Is spoofing a big problem here on WP?
I speak a small amount Spanish, but I'm certainly not fluent. I don't believe that Wikipedia has any plans to encourage machine translation, just because of its inaccuracy. Machine translations are often pretty garbled. You can check out Wikipedia:Statistics for pageview information. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "stacking all historical edits on a topic"... explain? As for the TUSC notice, it was just to create an account so that I could use a tool to move images from Wikipedia to Commons. – GorillaWarfare(talk)04:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok - thx for replies. ref: 'utility to stack all historical edits on a topic into one big document'. I guess it's not in the pipeline to be created. This utility would allow a person to hit a tab on any topic page and it would creeate a document which consists of not just the latest version of the article but all the previous articles all the way back to the first version of it. In this way, a reader could trace through all the changes that happened to it to get it to it's current version. The alternative, is that a person would have to tediously open up all 100's or thousands of previous versions (& diffs) and then manually load them into a single document.
I just glanced at TUSC and misunderstood what it is for. Why'd you yank notice of it.?
Looks like Cullen328's (below) HoneyDo list is not long enuf as he has time to pull on your skirt to clamor for your attention. Doesn't he have somewhere to Edit? (Anyway, tell him to buzz off since I've got dibs on you (on account of I'd seen you first:) lol.
Sorry for the delay; I could have sworn I'd already responded to this... I suppose somehow all revisions could be compiled into one document, but I'm not sure it would be as helpful as you're envisioning. Each small edit would result in the entire page being reprinted, which would make the document very lengthy.
The note on my talk page about the TUSC thing was only to authenticate the account. I removed it because it wasn't really serving any purpose past that.
OK - thx for replies. Maybe compiling all the previous 'diffs' without the full article (versions) would thin the resulting doc. down to were it would be useful in 'online mode' versus 'printed hardcopy mode.'
As far as the Cullen328 remark goes I obviously see that he was getting snarky with me indirectly by showcasing his propaganda that his alpanumeric ID ('Cullen328') imparts anymore factual information about his true identity than my totally numeric 'IP' ID. Also, he was following the rule of "Be rude to Strangers".
Also, apparently, by his own admission his mother never taught him to "be kind to strangers" either.
So his cute remark maybe an indirect attempt to get you to buy the idea that what he writes on his User page is (f)actual fact and not fanciful fabrications to lull the gullible into complacency as to who he may really be. My advice is to not believe a word he writes until his background is totally checked out by 3rd parties.
My caution to you is to not fall for it unless you check him out first hand. If you think me calling him on his hyprocrisy and manipulation of you was being uncivil then I have to starkly disagree. If Cullen328 wants to be treated 'civilly' then he would be wise to act 'civil' (to other legitimate users having the same level of ID as he has (which is virtually mostly 'not much').
I run into clowns like 'Cullen' all the time who wave precepts of supposed accomplishments and adoration (see his User page blather) about but when you go looking for true facts oftentimes you find them quite lacking across multiple categories. I find Cullen's remark offensive, manipulating (of you), crass, obnoxious, noxious, and self-deluded (on the idea that his ID conveys any more factual ID than mine (being IP only). Cullen, should post his real street address and picture verified by a third independent party and then just maybe he has cause to make an offensive and rude remark about me like that (in an indirect way by playing you with a compliment) and by following the rule: "Be rude to strangers". (For all we know about Cullen328 he's locked up in the big house and typing through a shared internet terminal during his 'recreational' period).
Anyway, since you have previously pointed out the WP:Help page I can certainly plod around over there to answer any future questions I may have about WP. BTW, since you are so industrious in this WP editing area you may wish to check this link out:
If you get some ideas maybe you could create some ebooks which may help you offset any of your schooling bills etc. It probably took lots of time to do 18,000 edits (for free for WP), why not harness some of your talent and create an ebook or two? (It's just a thought). Good Luck. (Your welcome to move this section of your talk page into the history page since it's obviously an atypical entry- which attracted one ill-mannered troll.)
Cradle of filth
well ok, so if some of it was not constructive, it still needs to be greatly updated, can you give me a pointer so i can better bring it up to date. please respond on my talk page thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.126.189 (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
furthermore, is the revision itself unconstructive, or just the number of revisions it took me to get to that last point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.126.189 (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least, that's what my mother told me at least 1000 times. Your willingness to engage in a long, informative, and friendly conversation with an IP editor is a real credit to you. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have moved Hartley College, Point Pedro to Hartley College back stating that there is no other pages on Hartley College. This is true, I do have to agree. Yet the University of Southampton originated from Hartley College which was the Hartley Institution to Hartley University College to University of Southampton. Hartley College, Manchester went on to become the Hartley Victoria College which intern became one of five colleges that made up the University of Manchester. Hence I believe that there should be a disambiguation page for Hartley College and a location based page for Hartley College, Point Pedro. Cossde (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Southampton has been going by that name since 1914 – I feel like it's unlikely anyone would still think it went by the previous name. I have added a hatnote to Hartley College, though. As for the University of Manchester, I'm seeing no mention of the former name in the article. If you have a reliable source for it, it could be added, though! – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I noticed that you reversed an update to the Scientology crime syndicate "NarCONon" Wiki entry. What was your reasoning for that reversal, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK GorillaWarfare, it was I, sort of, who didn't ask the question, as the history of the talk page hopefully reveals--I was hoping to spur the editor on, maybe to avert an indef block. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.
--GH2 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Hi I am new to editting on wikipedia and I saw your pretty face and I thought I should say Hi. How old are you, where do you live (city, state). I live in Shawnee, Oklahoma. And what pages do you usually edit. I like Saturday Night Live and the rapper Eminem. Talk to me. And do you like Eminem and SNL. Let me know.--GH2 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GH200 (talk • contribs)
Hi there. I don't like to give out my age or location on Wikipedia, as I try to keep my personal life somewhat separate from my Wikipedia identity. You'll find that many Wikipedia editors feel similarly about divulging personal information, and I'll warn you that many would be off-put by your asking. I'm very much a maintenance editor, doing a lot of anti-vandalism work, so I edit quite a lot of random pages. However, two of the most in-depth projects I've worked on recently are Epic Meal Time and The Satanic Bible. I'm not a huge fan of either Eminem or Saturday Night Live, sorry :/ – GorillaWarfare(talk)06:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Highlights
Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261
Report on coordinators' elections
Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives
I was preparing to address Imzadi's GNG concerns in this deletion discussion when you closed it, so I'll instead raise the points here:
"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content."
No original research was necessary to extract content from any of the 14 known sources.
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
Some of the 14 known sources were definitely trivial in nature, but in at least two the subject matter appeared to be a significant topic.
"Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."
The aforementioned 14 sources were each carefully selected for editorial integrity.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."
Excepting a couple of sources that may have been published by local governmental sources, no material constituted any perceptible violation of this principle.
"Presumed means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."
There's little doubt that this subject was in the vane of what Wikipedia is. Named geographical features are usually counted as notable, and most major facets of transportation hold up in practice.
I have no personal attachment to this particular subject, but I honestly take issue with our constant, systematic mishandling of foreign langauge topics. — C M B J07:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'd raise this at WP:DRV if you feel that strongly about it, but I'll warn you in that I highly doubt it will be restored – I doubt that an article on a similar intersection in the Western world would survive either. Also, note that the transportation link you refer to says nothing about individual aspects of roads, just the roads themselves. Ed[talk][majestic titan]07:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of comparable Western articles surviving, this is hardly an apples-to-apples analogy, as the function of various social constructs can vastly differ between cultural regions. Also, the first principle of DRV is that contributors should discuss and attempt to resolve issues with a closing administrator before invoking such a costly process. — C M B J08:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contacting me about this first. However, I don't believe that I closed the discussion incorrectly. I believe that the consensus was to delete the article, and as such I stand by the deletion. I would suggest DRV if you are still unsatisfied. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare(talk)16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only two of six participants other than myself had participated since substantial new information was introduced to the discussion. And of those two participants, only one appears to have attempted review of any such source material. The debate was ongoing and the correct action would have been to relist for at least one more cycle, which is what I request. — C M B J00:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I think my closure appropriately reflected the consensus. Although the discussion was not unanimous, rough consensus was in favor of deletion. Though your work in trying to save this article was certainly admirable, your argument had a number of issues. Your point that "This is a major intersection in a provincial capital that appears to likely be named after the June 5, 1963 demonstrations in Iran, which suggests that it's a pretty big deal in context." is not backed up by policy. There is no precedent stating that major intersections are inherently notable, and simply being named after a notable event does not lend the topic notability (see WP:INHERITED). Your statement that "We now have 14 sources—six cited in the article, eight on the talk page—that at minimum substantiate the veracity of this subject." is denying the antecedent. See WP:GHITS regarding your mention of the number of Google hits. You mentioned precedence for "similar transportation and landmark" articles, but none of the examples there are actually very similar to intersections. The sources that you added might be helpful, but you must keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia. It's very difficult for any non-Farsi/Persian readers to evaluate the sources, particularly because machine translations of languages like this are often next to indecipherable. Non-English sources are certainly acceptable, but the suggestions WP:NONENG would have allowed others to evaluate the sources to determine if they support the notability of the subject.
""This is a major intersection in a provincial capital that appears to likely be named after the June 5, 1963 demonstrations in Iran, which suggests that it's a pretty big deal in context." is not backed up by policy."
This assertion was indeed anecdotal and perhaps less than prudent, but it was at the time intended to counter the similarly subjective "just another intersection" claim. I personally thought that it was interesting and relevant that the place was named after one of the most significant political events in modern Iranian history. Oft-times, places—especially public places of protest in capitalcities—are named after such events when they play a direct role in them, which is why I stressed the need for us to find someone capable of determining whether that may be the case.
"There is no precedent stating that major intersections are inherently notable, and simply being named after a notable event does not lend the topic notability (see WP:INHERITED). [...] You mentioned precedence for "similar transportation and landmark" articles, but none of the examples there are actually very similar to intersections."
"Your statement that "We now have 14 sources—six cited in the article, eight on the talk page—that at minimum substantiate the veracity of this subject." is denying the antecedent."
It is not a logical fallacy to highlight that circumstances surrounding a discussion have changed, especially when those changes pertain to newfound material and several arguments revolve around the idea that there is no supporting material. I went out of my way to be fair with this and purposely exposed vulnerabilities in my own argument by suggesting that the new content may reasonably be debatable.
"See WP:GHITS regarding your mention of the number of Google hits."
Again, this mention was necessary to contrast the number of available Farsi GHITS because, in English, what few hits existed could be traced right back to our project. WP:GHITS refers to arguments based solely on the merit of search results alone, which is more or less the very pitfall that I was attempting to argue against.
"The sources that you added might be helpful, but you must keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia. It's very difficult for any non-Farsi/Persian readers to evaluate the sources, particularly because machine translations of languages like this are often next to indecipherable. Non-English sources are certainly acceptable, but the suggestions WP:NONENG would have allowed others to evaluate the sources to determine if they support the notability of the subject."
I recognize how difficult it can be to evaluate non-English subjects and material, which is why I think that we need to do much more in educating contributors about how to best deal with them. We've reached a point where even benevolent, experienced contributors are making serious errors in evaluating them on an extremely frequent basis. And aside intrinsically favorable nominations such as those related to corporate spam, autobiographical self-promotion and other common cliches, the resulting effect is that the process inadvertently inflicts net damage to our project in some of its most sensitive, underdeveloped areas.
"If you think that my explanation of my reasoning is still not sufficient, you should take this to WP:DRV. As I said before, I stand by my closure."
While I acknowledge the possibility that all newly available material may not have survived scrutiny, I still think that closure less than 24 hours after substantial new information is added to a discussion or article would rightfully fall outside normal parameters. To put things into perspective, I'd be procedurally justified in recreating the article with the same new material at this point (even if at risk of a re-nom) and that's indicative of a discrepancy in my books. We all make bad calls from time to time—and in this case maybe I am, or maybe you are—but I'll go ahead and see it through to DRV. No hard feelings. — C M B J09:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thank you for taking the time to calmly and carefully discuss this with me. I have provided the sources that were requested, and linked to this discussion. I'll keep an eye on the DRV to see how it pans out. – GorillaWarfare(talk)18:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Hi GorillaWarfare, may I ask your intervention to the edits by user User_talk:96.247.228.104? The guy has violated WP:nPOV, WP:ALSO, WP:STYLE..; he reverted my repairing twice in less than 24 hours, and he is mocking the orientation given at Revision history (he has repeated there what was justified to him). More specifically the guy it is trying to impose what he regards important to him (POV), so he is eliminating related links (plain and peripheral links related to the theme added by other users) in “See also” of “Psychedelic experience”, and adding doubtful links (“Superintelligence?, Collective intelligence?). Thank you for your attention. Academictask (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see his edits as overtly problematic. In fact, I think he is right on some things–that article probably shouldn't link to every drug that can provide a psychedelic experience, as the list could be extremely long. What I do see, though, is edit warring and violation of the three revert rule. Because the edit war seems to have stopped for the moment (I presume he went offline), I don't think blocks of either are you are necessary to stop disruption. However, please stop and discuss this issue with the user before you continue to edit war over this. Perhaps seek a third opinion. – GorillaWarfare(talk)15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely every chemical shouldn’t be linked over there, there is no question about that. See, the previous list in that session, was alpha organized, and under my outlook, had a reasonable size and pertinent articles, which he completely messed up. So, the fact is: his removal of links is totally based in his POV and only this violates the guidelines. Every user that has edited there, has to go back, and re-edit his edition because was deleted by him? I hope not. He messed the alpha sequence, included unrelated links, deleted related links, and settled the sequence of what his POV regarded important. I ask you: to link an article there, every user will have to discuss with him? That user it is the owner of the article? Obviously not, however is that bad attitude he is performing right now, and this must over because harms and discourages other users willing to make improvements in the article, as well as in any article.
Besides, I think it is not anymore up to me discuss these issues with him once he mocked the question in the revision history. You are the 3rd party here (by the way, thank you for answering), so I leave this to you now. I think I made my WP part. I am not only worried with that article; I can tell you I am worried with his bad attitudes affecting Wikipedia now and in the future. He should not be stimulated but harshly warned to prevent a worst development of this situation. This guy certainly it is offline now, meanwhile think well and please do the right thing. Academictask (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on the user's talk page instructing him to discuss this with you before editing the page any further. The user in question does not own the article, but neither do you. Please come to an agreement on how to proceed from here.
Well, neither do I am an expert there, nor I think this necessary. Just let’s use common sense, this should be enough for all us. About ownership, it is him who is performing this, not me. I have no previous edits in that article, I was only trying to repair his arbitrary edits over other users. As I said, I already made my part over there, I am out of that since I have told you. To make clear: I am out of this, so it is really up to you, or you can delegate this to others (what would be a shame because you have a fabulous profile in Wikipedia). All best. Academictask (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed today some weird things, would be possible you bring to me some enlightenment to these three next items?
I – the user Kam_Solusar it is sweeping articles and removing references which are based on books whose main source it is Wikipedia itself; he states that these are not reliable sources. I don’t get it. Wikipedia it is not a reliable source??? Sounds inconsistent and therefore absurd to me.
II- anyway, I don’t see any improvement from this, on the contrary, this kind of edit seems to me very harmful to the articles. I mean, don’t you think that it would be a lot more useful and collaborative if he replaced the references (if really not reliable), for new and reliable sources? Too much hard work? Sure it is, we also can call this, respect with who created and expanded those articles, which only God knows, who still is available as volunteer to do that again, if so.
III- If all this is all right, then never mind. If not, could you stop him or at least start a discussion with the whole community to reach a consensus?
Note: I am aware of VDM Publishing and I strong oppose its opportunism. I totally disapprove it and in my opinion its profits should be fairly shared with Wikipedia, but this doesn’t mean that "its" books are not reliable. JuneEleven (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kam_Solusar is correct; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is explained well at WP:CIRCULAR; citing Wikipedia in Wikipedia would be self-referencing. Furthermore, because Wikipedia is a wiki, it falls under user-generated content. As for whether or not what xe's doing is harmful, it is not. Removing sources that do not meet Wikipedia's policies can be helpful. An article with a large number of unreliable sources can appear verifiable and well-researched when, in fact, it is not. Sure, it would be helpful for xyr to research and add new sources, but there is no rule against removing bad references without adding good ones. – GorillaWarfare(talk)20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hummm, OK understood, and thanks. However I deeply disagree by many reasons, namely the removal of references without replacement. I think all this should be better (re-)discussed. But hey, Wikipedia was not made in seven days, moreover who said it is done? See ya, and thanks again. JuneEleven (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GW, I am here for admin assistance on dealing with Sitush (talk·contribs). This user appears to ownNair, Ezhava, and a lot of other articles, and has been edit warring at Yadav the past few months, but has been under the radar with all of this. In fact, he warns his EW opponents at Yadav, as if he's trying to get away. You seem familiar with these situations, but not with this user, but tell me if I'm wrong. I'd also like to admit that a lot of his actions are equally weird, and unique, and seem to violate some PAGs. As you can see I haven't edited these articles very much (as I'm trying to avoid a conflict), and have also requested him, but he doesn't appear to be online now.24.107.242.174 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice that this user has a lot of things they don't deserve, such as rollback, and user page semi protection. And no, his user page has hardly had any vandalism, unlike Reaper Eternal (talk·contribs) said; that looks to me like admin abuse.
Sitush is an editor who insists on following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when editing articles on contentious topics, such as those about Indian castes. He insists on the neutral point of view and use of the highest quality reliable sources available. He, quite properly, rejects original research and interpretations based on personal experience. His integrity has brought a lot of criticism his way. He is an enormous asset to Wikipedia, in my opinion. Cullen328Let's discuss it22:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have already stated here that you plan to begin a discussion on the user at AN, so I'm not sure what additional help you are requesting from me. However, I'm inclined to agree with Cullen here. Sitush has contributed a lot of valuable work to Wikipedia, and I feel that he responds to concerns and opinions that conflict with his very well. Regarding your concerns with "things he doesn't deserve", what has he done to indicate that his rollback rights should be removed? Furthermore, what is the issue with the protection of his userpage? WP:UPROT does not place much of a restriction on who can and cannot have his or her user page protected; it is rare that a user would have to edit someone else's userpage. – GorillaWarfare(talk)23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cullen and GW. IP, I think that you are misunderstanding the protection on my page: I did not request it and I had forgotten that it had protection. Both my user page and my talk page have at various times been subject to a unilateral decision to protect made by various admins, these being a consequence of some pretty horrific personal attacks etc. If you go through the history then you will see some revdels, although they are only the tip of the iceberg and - again - I did not request them. The most recent bout was on my talk page on 23 January.
I am unsure to which particular actions the IP is referring, although presumably there is something that has tipped the balance and caused their feelings to be vented. Nonetheless, feel free to take me to AN or any other noticeboard. I am not always correct but continuing things here will, I feel, achieve nothing. - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You all don't seem to get it. The issue is the edit warring and ownership, not the protection or rollback. I was merely commenting on Reaper Eternal's summary, which seems bizarre. I'm not saying he is a bad editor, he's a very good one. I was just referring to some of the stuff that's happened in the past six months that has not been admin-review. Anyways, I will explain it all at WP:AN; Sorry if I stumped you guys.24.107.242.174 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While checking the articles that the IP mentions, I found that one of the articles in question, Green Leaves, has been the target of a complicated cut-and-paste move that's beyond my ability to understand completely. If you have the time, could you please look at the "Complicated history merge" section of WP:AN and participate if you're able? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting the file uploaded by Yamaaan (talk·contribs) that had questionable copyright. That user has been blocked today for repeated copyright infringement. Although many of his/her uploads seem to be covered by fair use claims, you may want to investigate those that aren't. I don't think this user understands (or wants to understand) Wikipedia policy on copyright. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I was wondering if you can help me with a small dilemma over at the article Miss Chinese International Pageant 2012. I have been reverting random, unsourced trivia from there but there are a couple of random IPs who keep reverting them back. If I do it again, it would have been 3 times and I remember the Do Not Revert 3 Times rule from way back when. To top it all off, IP 198.105.46.51 left me a nasty message on my Talkpage saying I have a "desperate need to control Wiki" because I am the major contributor on that article and it is on my watchlist. Sigh~ Can you advise me on the next step? Music + Pageants (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the edit and left a civility warning for the IP that left you the message. If they continue to edit war, a block may be necessary. I'll keep an eye on it, but if it continues and you don't see me doing anything about it (I'm pretty busy with school), you may want to leave a post over at WP:ANEW. You definitely are in the right here, though. That unsourced trivia should not be added to the page. – GorillaWarfare(talk)23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GorillaWarfare. The Public Interest Registry (a non-profit that runs .org) is doing a video production related to .org's 25th anniversary. Wikipedia is one of the most well-known .org domains and they want to interview a few active Wikipedia contributors on camera.
This is along the same lines as Michigan State University in your Talk page above, except it sounds like they also want to share with the audience a bit about how Wikipedia works, how editing works and so on.
The producer has been looking at contributors on the ads and those with the most edits by volume, but didn't know how to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia. His contact is: David Eberts <debertscloudraker.com> if you're interested.
I haven't looked at all their edits (just a half dozen or so), but this looks like an account was hijacked. And what are you doing still up? Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern about vandalism on my talk page. As it turns out there is a very contentious debate on a Wikipedia article. This has extended to my talk page wherein Jayjg was removing an anonymous authors posts. The anonymous author got frustrated at his repeatedly removed posts and posted what may have looked like vandalism. I'd appreciate it if you could leave these posts on my talk page until I can review them and figure out what to do. Thank so much! Gsonnenf (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I will do so. I should point out, however, that I blocked the IP for 31 hours for personal attacks, and Jayjg reblocked the IP for 2 years as a proxy. – GorillaWarfare(talk)13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, you should probably know that the "anonymous author" is, in fact, the banned editor User:Joe Circus, editing through proxies. He's admitted it openly, and Gsonnenf is well aware of this. Jayjg (talk)21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, GorillaWarfare. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
It is my understanding that all the content I added to Amanda Aguirre's wiki page was deleted because you have some concerns about copyright issues, being that some of the material appears on another website. ALL the material (text and photo) was originally produced by Amanda Aguirre and was copied and pasted directly from her resume (of which she gave me a copy) to both sites (with her permission). The material is not copyrighted. Please restore the content to the website at your earliest convenience.
Unless the material has been explicitly released under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia's (see WP:COMPLIC), you can assume it is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright policies. As that page says, "The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it." Furthermore, spoken permission is not enough, as there is no way for us to verify it. If you wanted, you could have her release copyright in a formal way that we can verify (see WP:CONSENT). However, I would not necessarily suggest doing this. The text that you added is very promotional and would likely have been removed anyway for violating our neutral point of view policy. Even if you do get permission to use this text, it will probably be removed anyway.
My suggestion would be to use this resume as a source document and write an encyclopedic article using this source. Omit any promotional bits, and include any relavent information with citations. – GorillaWarfare(talk)17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW,
Thanks for the quick reply. How can I access the deleted content? A lot of money and time went into creating, formatting and coding it.
Presuming that you are Lulu393 (and, by the way, you should try to only edit when you are logged in so there isn't confusion like this), this conflicts with your earlier statement that " ALL the material (text and photo) was originally produced by Amanda Aguirre and was copied and pasted directly from her resume". – GorillaWarfare(talk)21:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GW,
A few things:
- Only users who are logged in can edit/comment on your talk page; therefore, I am always logged in as lulu393 here.
- The content copied/pasted from Amanda's 5-page resume (originally produced by her) needed SIGNIFICANT formatting and editing to make the content more concise and user friendly. This took A LOT of work on my part. Especially adding the html coding for online formatting.
- I would be happy to email you Amanda's resume if this would help clear up the confusion.
Logged-out users can, in fact edit this page, shown both by your edit here and the log for the page, which shows its last protection expired in December. It's not a big deal; just thought I'd clarify.
The content that you added to the Wikipedia page has been directly copied-and-pasted from her resume. Any formatting that you've added was simply <br /> tags. Even if Aguirre allowed us to use this content, the way you formatted the text would have to be changed to meet Wikipedia's standards.
I can view her resume, as it is available on the web, as well.
The resume is actually not available online. It's a 5-page document that Amanda e-mailed to me. I mix and matched the information that was on her resume with information about her on the internet on a couple of different sites. Thus, it would extremely valuable to regain temporary access to my work so I can save a copy. How can I access the deleted information?
I've revision-deleted the edits because they are in violation of copyright, and only administrators can view these revisions. I'd be willing to email them to you, but it appears you do not have email enabled on your account. I am unwilling to restore the revisions, as they are in such blatant violation of copyright. – GorillaWarfare(talk)21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GW,
If you would, please email me here: alucillea at gmail dot com
I have emailed you the content. Please do not re-add this content in its current form, as it is a copyright violation, and too indiscriminate and resumé-like for the Wikipedia page. – GorillaWarfare(talk)00:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet no one knows if you're a dog, but I think you're of the female persuasion. Against kitchen slavery, and for women's writing: this award presented to a deserving woman. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Participation:
We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report:
Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.
Special thanks:
Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.
Hey! Dylan, a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador here. We are working in an undergrad Theatre course at Louisiana State University and are creating four new articles on the plays we are studying. We have drafted them in our sandboxes and hope to move to live in the next week or so. The students are all first-time WP contributors and are looking for someone to give us feedback on their articles. We know they are not Good-Article status, but our objective is to get solid information up so these plays have a place on WP. Would you be interested in helping? You can find the articleshere. We hope you can help! Dylanstaley (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your feedback! The students had a fabulous critique experience and their articles went live today. It's dedicated people like you that make the WP EDU program possible and successful! --Rburdette (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that—the HAU page was using a status indicator page that was out of date for me. I've since fixed it. As for the page, Salvidrim is correct in that requesting at RFPP is generally a much quicker option. Anyway, I have unprotected the page as you requested, as I see no one else has done so. – GorillaWarfare(talk)16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GorillaWarfare! On Tuesday of next week, we'll be holding an editathon at Simmons College for Women's History Month. I think I may have mentioned to you that I was planning this a few weeks ago. The event is being advertised to library science grad students as a workshop for new editors. While this will mostly be newbies from the Simmons GSLIS community, I am hoping some local Wikipedians will come join in as well, and I'll be begin to spread the word and put an announcement in the geonotice soon. This is all going to be very informal, but, in particular, I would appreciate if you could be there to help me assist the new editors.
It's in the evening, so hopefully you can make at least part of it. We have the room reserved from 4:30 to 8:30. There's more complete information on the event page, if you didn't click through. :-) Dominic·t09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a superuser for helpmebot, I'm hoping that you can help with this. I want to suggest that the bot's welcome message in -en-help make it clear that helpers aren't always available. I think that saying "a helper should answer shortly" is unrealistic. How about, "Helpers are volunteers and they aren't always here, but if they're around they should answer shortly"? Pine(talk)10:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too early for the students to be submitting. I do go over notability but it usually takes hold on rewrite. Thanks for the heads up, Crtew (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that subjects of the articles your students are writing are notable, though. If they are not, why bother writing the article on Wikipedia in the first place? – GorillaWarfare(talk)20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable, and not only for his SIGCOV, but there is no clear statement about why he is important and the article lacks suitable evidence, like the awards his newspaper won. I'm going to take it out of submission. It's way too early to submit. The student jumped ahead of himself. Crtew (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regards dear Moderator:
Im writing because some moderator found the article need more reliables sources, when I added the MTV link, few Local News Paper rotating in Puerto Rico and some internet articles (not blogs) could you help me to improve the page? I the guy incorrect? Is possible to keep that wiki. Puerto Rico is part of United States thats why I include that actor on the English Wiki. Thanks! Mroxidizer1 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't worry about him being from the United States—"English Wikipedia" only means that the articles are in the English language. We have many articles on people from all over the world. The article is now undergoing a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Fraticelli, so you should explain there how you think it does not meet our deletion policy. You should mention that you are the author of the page. – GorillaWarfare(talk)20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may not had respected all the wiki rules, but as far as the subject of "tyrant" is concerned, the present text is an absolute historical mischief.
In ancient Greece tyrants where democratically elected in dire circumstances to put state matters in order.
Some come trough, others did not and therefore where properly banned by the citizens.
History cannot be understood if one shadows it with its own value systems. Proper comprehension wold become strongly biased.
The entire article is riddled by subjectivity and "modern days" appreciations.
Tyrants where an all important aspect of ancient Greek history, by keeping Greece and what wold become the western world, free against eastern invasions and its true totalitarian rule.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
_by_Ron.jpg)
cloudraker.com> if you're interested.
