Jump to content

User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2013/January

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Return

I have returned to the internet. Please give me a few days to get to everything --Guerillero | My Talk 04:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a close call.

Phew, you dodged a bullet there: you almost got elected.  :-) I'm sure that – if you haven't regained your senses by then – next year's election will punish you with a seat. Congratulation on a very good showing. — Coren (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It were those 408 who didn't vote and even if 300 of them had casted their vote, I'm sure you would have got it through. It was really close. I supported you mate and was really hoping that you'll pass. Better luck next time, if you run. Cheers! TheSpecialUser TSU 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am not sure what my plans are for the next election. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Your promised explanation? I'm still waiting!

Guerillero, I remind you of your undertaking back in October:

"I will post a statement in the morning explaining what I did and didn't do. (It is a Saturday night and I am a college student.)--Guerillero | My Talk 01:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)"

(See this archived section of my talkpage.)

Quite an old post. Now, I accept that you were a drunk college student on a Saturday night. I understand, because I can remember such times myself, decades ago. But really – two months? You will note that I have posted nothing since then, except to vote in the ArbCom elections.

I was tempted to write a comment in the otherwise blank election-discussion section about you, to be read by voters. But I thought: "No, I am involved. And though I think this is important about Guerillero as a candidate for high office in Wikipedia, it would be fair for me to stay silent. Just wait." And wait I did. I underline the word fair for a reason. Bear with me.

From your userpage I see that you are studying philosophy. Intriguing. I know the domain rather well, having spent years teaching philosophy up to very senior levels. Even now, my closest university colleagues and some of my clients are distinguished academic philosophers. (That background might help you understand where I stand. I rarely mention my real-world activities; but you were candid about your dissipated Saturday night, so I felt like being candid in return.)

Have you learned yet about the veil of ignorance, a rather obvious but extremely useful device elaborated by John Rawls (great theorist of the nature of justice)? From the article:

It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g., slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society.

The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. As Rawls put it, "... no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like". The idea then, is to render moot those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.

Powerful idea, right? And so relevant, in so many situations. For example, imagine yourself not knowing which persons filled these roles (and I modify the technique a little, away from the prescription in the article):

Person 1: an acknowledged expert on style and a professional editor in real life, donating time and expertise to assist the consensual development of the major style resource to be found on the web: Wikipedia's manual of style

Person 2: an old hand on Wikipedia, an admin, miffed to find that a cherished but vague principle that she had inserted in MOS years ago had been replaced, and determined to get it restored even though it had been superseded, and ready to use quick and dirty methods that flout established due process

Person 3: a young college student, an admin, who is subtly manipulated into ill-considered treatment of person 1 by person 2, against all due process and without proper notification of discussion, when person 1 had stated that he was distracted by urgent matters in real life (not involving getting drunk, to be clear)

Trying to put yourself in the place of each person is a fascinating and instructive exercise. I have tried it; I commend it to you also, even if you are now beginning your vacation. The moral lessons we can learn from philosophy do not end when school is out.

Sorry to say it, but I am glad you did not get elected to ArbCom. You are nowhere near ready. Not yet! As it happens, the makeup of the Committee has been much improved by the outcome. It could easily not have been. Some of us are breathing a sigh of relief.

Happy vacation. I will watch your admin actions with great interest from now on. One request: recuse yourself from any action concerning me, ever, in any capacity. Fair enough? 

♥

NoeticaTea? 11:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I read Rawls's veil in my introduction to philosophy class but I never thought much of it. I went through the thought experiment you outlined and it was interesting. I then went back and looked at the emails that two individuals sent me. Putting myself in each place I see why my actions were not optimal. I will honor your wishes and consider myself involved in all future matters. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A well-considered and fair response Guerillero, and I thank you for it. I have now formed a higher estimation of you.
All best wishes,
NoeticaTea? 06:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Guerillero! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


cyberpower is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As one of my wikifriends, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you had a great one.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 01:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Guerillero

Freikorp (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2024. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2024 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

blocked since 2011

Hello. I have been blocked since Dec 2011. I have contributed 18,000 edits in three years to auto articles. I will abide all policies and rules on Wikipedia in the future. thanks. Barnstarbob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.188.68 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My recent editing of Pixmania that you have undone.

Dear Guerillero,

My recent un-constructive editing of the Pixmania wiki page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixmania ) was a deliberate attempt to get that company to stop pitching themselves as the most wonderous e-commerce site ever. My sisters family's Christmas was ruined and her little girl, who is of an age that she will not believe in Santa Claus after this Christmas was left in tears on Christmas morning as Pixmania, despite their assurances and promises, did not deliver the goods my sister ordered. And now, on January 3rd THEY STILL HAVEN'T shown up.

I accept that my editing was wilfully unhelpful and was a deliberate attempt to sully their online description of their capabilities, however it was to be for a few days only and I would've undone the edits myself in a couple days.

It's ironic when the small guy like myself goes to take on a giant corporation...who paint themselves as glowingly wonderful when there's more than ample evidence to the contrary...in defense of a little girl who's Christmas has been ruined, YOU, the great Wikipedia, goes to the defense of the corporate giant.

Irony - I'd look it up in Wikipedia but god knows what it would actually mean.

David Wilkins Ireland. Dpwilkins (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #39

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hi I'm a member of Student Robotics and wish to edit it's page Cannot upload images currently (Foremost our logo)

Thank you.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimationEE (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe

You mentioned that TeeTylerToe approached you on IRC to unarchive the ANI thread. Was it after I posted this comment? I made the comment immediately after we finished talking. I'm a little concerned that he's forum shopping for opinions he likes on IRC, because I told him exactly what to do to get unblocked but I could tell from the way he was responding to me that he didn't like what I was saying, then he left the channel abruptly. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Come to think of it, it was after you posted that message. He asked in general if there was an admin around in #wikipedia-en, I replied that I would be willing to deal with an issue, and then PMed me his request about his unblock --Guerillero | My Talk 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Thorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

Do you think we could/should publish the second issue? Also, happy new year! benzband (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. You have new messages at my talkpage. benzband (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Junkyard69

Thanks a lot for your message on my talk page. I have answered there. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello, Guerillero, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

  • The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
  • Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
  • If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
  • Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
  • Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 23:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Underground: Issue 2 (January 2013)

Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.

Cheers,

benzband (talk) & Guerillero | My Talk 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

My statement

Is my statement at RFAR too long? I checked and the original statement is 499 words (coincidentally, I wasn't aware of the limit), but I added two clarifications and I don't know how those count into it. Ryan Vesey 21:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. Your original statement is under 500 words and your clarifications are short and to the point. While the policies don't talk about replies or clarifications, the existing prescient allows for them if they are short. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lock on BSA article

Although I am ambivalent about the change that 1 or 2 people are trying to war in, I am not about the lock. To "out of the blue" fully lock such a large diverse article on such a large & diverse topic, with no discussion of such, and with an expiration of 11 days over such a small and narrow dispute is, IMHO, overreaction. Triply so with the disputed change included in the locked version. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaving edit summaries such as "take it to the talk page" while edit warring only makes things worse. It shows that people know that they should be discussing but instead keep on EWing. A discussion was opened but both "sides" seemed to want to continue reverting instead of discussing. The article is full protected to force people to discuss or go through DR. If an agreement can be made before the 10 day release date, I will remove the protection. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I was not defending any particular behavior in my post, just saying that it was all small potatoes in proportion to to overall article. Also, there were no more reverts or even edits to the article once the discussion was started. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: December 2012



Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 11:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your block of M-40

appears very harsh, if it is all based on his one revert to the Boy Scouts page. As ordinary users we do voluntarily work here - M-40 has done so since 2008 - and should be allowed to make a mistake now and then without harsh sanctions. That´s about showing respect for the users who contribute here for free. I did something similar to M-40 yesterday, when I made one revert to the article about Austrians where an edit war was going on as well. As I understand blocking is not supposed to be punitive, but should only be used when it is absolutely necessary to avoid harm to Wikipedia . Could you explain to me why you felt assure that going in dialogue with M-40 would not be enough to stop him from unconstructive edits (of which he appears to have had just one)? (I avoid using the full username, so this discussions won´t turn up in a search for his name). With regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You have an edit(IP), revert (B), reinstate (IP), rollback, reinstate (AA), revert (M), reinstate (AA), Revert (B), reinstate (AA).
Nine edits in all that are adding or removing the same content. As an outsider to this dispute I saw an IP making a change, a named user standing up for that change, and a pair of editors working together to keep the old version of the page in place, see this report. I merged the two editors edits together and got three. Marauder40 had a clean block log and got only a 24 hour block, Belchfire who is a chronic edit warrior got another week block and AmherstApple who has a clean block log got 24 hours. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Why were the blocked editors not given a warning first, especially the editors with clean block logs? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
A block for someone with a clean block log is a big hit/decision. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The IP adding the information is clearly the same user as AmherstApple. Horrible blocks all around since no warning was given to Belchfire or M40 and AA didn't change anything after being warned.
Why wasn't the IP blocked? Why block if you're going to lock the page? --Onorem♠Dil 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure how clearly the IP and AA were the same person. I have seen a similar pattern of edits in other places where an IP was reverted and a named user steps in. My block of Marauder40 was poor but I disagree that there two others were. Three reverts is not an entitlement and Belchfire, most of all should know the edit warring rules. Locking the page forces conversation and it pops up on watchlists as an independent item that dose not get overwritten like an edit summary. In most cases, it brings in new editors then the disputants and makes some sort of rough agreement happen on the talk page that is good for the article. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Given that M-40 is "highly considering permanent retirement from this site", do you really think your block can be adequately categorized as simply "poor"? Try ill-considered and demoralizing, and one might be getting somewhere. You should be apologizing to M-40 for your block. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to file a SPI...but given the IP added the info twice, was reverted twice, and then the AA account just happened to be created shortly after and continued to war over it minutes after creation, I'm not going to lose any sleep over my not AGFing about the situation...but whatever. In any case, since you also locked the page, your blocks all appear punitive. I understand entirely that 3 reverts aren't an entitlement, but I still think it was a horrible block...but whatever. Have a good weekend. --Onorem♠Dil 00:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
From what I've seen, some editors take having a clean block log very seriously. What Wikipedia needs is a procedure for expunging an editor's block log of blocks made in error or blocks just plain unjustified. Don't the U.S. court systems have methods of expunging the record of someone who has been exonerated? Why can't Wikipedia develop something similar? Yes, it would probably require the blocking admin to admit making "an error", but is that unreasonable? A bad block in one's block log should not just sit there forever as a permanent badge of shame. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom procedural question

I am involved in a proposed ArbCom case, and wish to ask one of the named parties in that case to refactor a comment they made about me outside arbitration. Am I allowed to post to their talk page, or is there somewhere else I should post the request? Thundersnow 13:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, found the clerks board. Thundersnow 19:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

.Marauder40

You have blocked this editor (admittedly only for 24 hours) for edit warring. I do not see it. One reversion on one page and two on a different, albeit related, page do not seem to me to qualify as a blockable offence. Would you care to take another look?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Anthony Bradbury. And even those reverts were to the longstanding version. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It looked like tag teaming at the time. Looking again, I will give User:Marauder40 the benefit of the doubt. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
As AmherstApple has been tagged as a sock of a defacto banned editor and indeffed. You may want to reconsider your other administrative actions in this case in light of that. Monty845 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #40

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Update on block at BSA article

So, as this has played out (going by wp:duck on the IP) One "side" of the dispute is/was one blocked user working through socks inserting the same thing 5 times, the other "side" was three folks reverting that edit to the last stable version. And with the socks gone, (including the sock account indeffed) now everybody else is having a routine editing discussion while the version put in by the now-blocked sock is sitting locked in the article. I don't see any dispute in progress. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Guerillero | My Talk 21:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low Readership: Low to High Readership: High, while for quality the scale goes from Low Quality: Low to High Quality: High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs   Cleanup
Readership: Medium Quality: Low 58th Virginia Infantry   Readership: High Quality: High Need You Now (song)
Readership: High Quality: Low Madcap (band)   Readership: High Quality: Low Ksenia Semenova
Readership: Medium Quality: Low 1st Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment (3 Years)   Readership: High Quality: Low Star King (TV series)
Readership: High Quality: Low International Thespian Society   Merge
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Robert J. LaFortune   Readership: High Quality: Low Parent Teacher Organization
Readership: High Quality: Low Obama Style   Readership: High Quality: Low Sexual intimacy
Readership: High Quality: Low Alec MacKaye   Readership: High Quality: Medium Brushed DC electric motor
Readership: High Quality: Low Seven minutes in heaven   Add sources
Readership: Medium Quality: Low POLARIS (seismology)   Readership: High Quality: Medium Punk subculture
Readership: Medium Quality: Low Faith: A Hymns Collection   Readership: High Quality: Low 24th Georgia Volunteer Infantry
Readership: High Quality: Low 16th Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment   Readership: Medium Quality: Low 51st Georgia Volunteer Infantry
Readership: High Quality: Low The Manikins   Wikify
Readership: High Quality: Low Embrace (Embrace album)   Readership: High Quality: Low Penny Mallory
Readership: Low Quality: Low Rhos Blaen Carrog   Readership: Medium Quality: Low Staatsanwalt Posch ermittelt
Readership: High Quality: Medium Stuart Stevens   Readership: High Quality: Low Tripod position
Readership: Medium Quality: Low 20th Regiment Indiana Infantry   Expand
Readership: High Quality: Low SCG Stadium   Readership: High Quality: Medium Climate change in Australia
Readership: High Quality: Low Steady Diet of Nothing   Readership: Low Quality: Low 42nd New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment
Readership: High Quality: Low Randall L. Stephenson   Readership: High Quality: High School uniform

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

BelchFire

Your block of BelchFire is unjustified. Did you even review the situation? You have one editor clearly violating WP:CRYSTAL and you end up blocking several other editors as well for trying to uphold WP guidelines? What kind of message is that sending to editors in general? You have abused your power. Arzel (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Reviewing his edits, I still feel that the block is justified. The only policies that make edits exempt to the edit warring guidelines are the copyright and BLP guidelines. Keeping the old version around is not an exemption. He has two reverts on the Boy Scouts of America as part of a larger([1]/[2]) and various issues on Sexuality in Star Trek ([3]/[4]/[5]), ([6]/[7]). While he cites copyvio concerns in the final two diffs, the block quotes are not long enough to cause issues. Blocks are made to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior." You can not edit war into a discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that is one of the most asinine explanations I have ever heard. You are basically saying since he was blocked before the Sock was confirmed the prior action cannont be reviewed. This is the kind of logical response for which Admins are not needed. Admin action, like what you have taken here, could just as easily be done by a BOT because you have not taken into account any additional information. Additionally, he did not violate 3RR on the BSoA article. Furthermore, what do the other articles have to do with this article? Frankly, it appears you are trying to after-the-fact validate your block rather than just admit you made a mistake. Arzel (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The block was for edit warring not for the three revert rule. The edit warring guideline states: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and the notice at the top of ANEW states Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. [...] content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. I have discussed this as length and I feel that I have justified my decision to the extent that community mores state that I should. I have relooked over the relevant page histories and diffs many time and I have come to the same conclusion; I am not reversing my decision. If you would like to discuss this further you can ask the active administrators or appeal my block to arbcom via email. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Which guideline is that which applies to the 2 reverts? The invisible 1RR guideline on an article that is not 1RR? Or is being one of three editors that reverted the same edit done 5 times by the socks to the stable form "tag teaming"? This is admittedly using after-the-fact info, so the situation was less clear at the time. Back then it was just "greater caution should have been applied". North8000 (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The stable version of an article is not given any extra protections by the edit waring guidelines and the block was for edit warring not for the three revert rule. The edit warring guideline states: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. and the notice at the top of ANEW states Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. [...] content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. There were two active ANEW reports at the time of my block and I saw the other report at the time of my block. I feel that I have justified my actions to community standards. If you would like to dispute my block further, you can ask the active administrators or appeal my block to arbcom via email. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I was actually much more upset about what (unwarranted) happened to Marauder40 in that same batch, plus this points out the randomness (arising from vagueness) of the policy/guideline, which is a bad thing. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

  1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
  2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
  3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.
Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

wiktionary:Java

How do you put up with it? It's complete nonsense.--v/r - TP 14:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This Month in Education: January 2013



Headlines

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription · Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Margaret McKenna DYK

Hi Guerillero. Your attention is requested at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret McKenna. Thank you for starting her article by the way. Gobōnobō + c 00:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick follow up. I had another question on one of the alts, but the other looked great. Let me know if you revise the first one. Cheers, Gobōnobō + c 04:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That 1RR template: expired now

Hi Guerillero. Time to remove Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, yes? It has expired. I have already adjusted the notice at the top of the talkpage itself.

NoeticaTea? 03:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been removed --Guerillero | My Talk 03:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Hello

Hello,

I see that you commented on the page User talk:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball. Might I ask if you would be interested to join the project, and to leave your feedback on how we can better it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #41

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Toil

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Ball

Hello, The page is up and running. We also have a Wikipedia:Rolling Ball/Hang Out Zone for everyone to discuss whatever they want. You are also requested to watchlist/keep and eye on the Hangout page so you can keep track of whatever everyone's talking about. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring diffs

You have Charles M. Robinson in there twice; what was the second one supposed to be? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I will fix that. [8] and [9] were what I was trying to get at --Guerillero | My Talk 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick question on your Arbcom principles stuff...

Particularly the "using affiliations as as an ad hominem" piece - that item does not seem to come from NPA directly, and you have it tagged as adapted from another ArbCom case. So what is the status of that principle in relation to the community at large? Is it enforceable as part of general policy, or is it only in ArbCom's sphere? MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

After watching my fair share of cases, principles give the essence of policy and are not direct quotes from policy pages. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret McKenna

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This isn't moving anywhere positive. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Guerillero, on 1/19/2013 on my WP:NPOV Administrator's noticeboard discussion you posted: "I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here." [10] The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." WP:CONS indicates: "This page documents an English Wikipedia "policy." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous re WP:CONS being a "policy." WP:NPOV indicates: "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other "policies" or guidelines, or "by editors' consensus." Therefore, WP is clear & unambiguous that WP:NPOV is "not" "coequal" with WP:CONS, but "supreme" to it, & that WP:NPOV "cannot" be superseded "by editors' consensus." . Yet volunteer & Admin editors are attempting to do just that. There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this "policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," on the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/20/2013

You can't wikilawyer your way out of this. For example: The WP Administrator's noticeboard indicates: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads. Therefore, please advise if you disagree with WP:NPOV since you arbitrarily blocked my editor grievance. Otherwise, I will post my grievance re you enabling editors refusing to comply with WP:NPOV. I suggest you read my favorite summary of NPOV.
You can post to your heart's desire but that doesn't change that you hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was on Guerillero's user page, not Tarc's page. But anyhow, you can't WP:LAW your way out of this by getting on a WP:SOAP soapbox. WP:DR indicates: "This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. " Guerillero's user page indicates: "My editing style..." "I change what I am focusing on editing..." [11] Therefore, it looks like Guerillero is an administrator/editor, & I have a dispute with him as an editor. WP:DR indicates: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators." "Assistance in resolving disputes → dispute resolution." WP:ANI indicates: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Guerillero is a "user". Tarc, I do not see a cite for: "That applies to the person bringing objections not the people replying to threads." Your "favorite summary of NPOV" reminds me of the Thanksgiving turkey: [12] "Turkeys are highly vocal, and 'social tension' within the group can be monitored by the birds’ vocalisations." Tarc, I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV. Exactly where are those quotes from on WP? Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one. However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view. This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." Guerillero, please cite the support for your statement: "[Y]ou hold a minority opinion and are trying to make it seem equal to the majority opinion." Because I do not see anywhere where I have not been open to WP:DR "This page in a nutshell: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages." If administrators are unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV, I will be happy to proceed to: WP:DR. "There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute: other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Wikidata weekly summary #42

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Updated demo system
    • Improved design of sites code in core
    • Fixed SQLite compatibility
    • Worked on implementing references handling in statements user interface
    • Useful error messages will be shown in statements user interface in case of data value mismatches
    • Switched the demo system to Labs’ puppet
    • Selenium tests for length constraint, claim edit-conflicts
    • Setting up dispatcher script on internal test machine
    • More work on wikibase.getEntities() function for Scribunto/Lua-Templates
    • AbuseFilter is now working with Wikibase
    • The change dispatcher script is now ready for use on the WMF cluster
    • Initial implementation of {{#property}} parser function for the client
    • Created a widget for the client to connect a page to a Wikidata item and add interwiki language links to a page
    • Preparing a page to list unconnected pages on the clients
  • Discussions/Press
  • Events
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
  • Open Tasks for You
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Guerillero/Archives/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Reading --Guerillero | My Talk 19:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Replied --Guerillero | My Talk 20:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Guerillero/Archives/2013 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Please update list

Hello Guerillero. I noticed your username listed at Wikipedia:Did you know/Non-admin participants. Please update your level of participation as an administrator either actively involved or willing to help. Thank you.—My76Strat • talk • email • purge 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guerillero/Archives/2013/January&oldid=1088787021"