A friendly (talk page stalker) Good morning Maurice, my dear friend! Firstly, I support your comments above throughout this thread entirely. Secondly, Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
Hi! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| gives you this puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl (your choice) has made your day better. Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.
Merry Christmas and a happy 2013 11:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreeing with all editors who have so far commented that:
Your addition of line breaks is not helpful.
Your conversion of bulleted lists to numbered lists is rarely helpful.
Most of your contributions are irrelevant to the article (and that fact can been seen by anyone with a basic knowledge of the English language)
Many of your contributions are ungrammatical and undecipherable.
and reverting such contributions is not an NPOV violation. I would consider bringing a RfC/User about those edits of yours, but that process is not really set up for multiple types of errors introduced by a single user, as I'd have to come up with a separate certifier for each type of error. — Arthur Rubin(talk)08:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific about my not helpful line breaks. Is there some absolute rule specified about the line breaks usage in the Manual of style that I didn't follow? Whenever the line breaks that I have inserted were not helpful AFAIC the matter has been discussed and solved. The "POV or NPOV ? comments on talk pages that I have recently posted have nothing to do with line breaks.
As stated before you seem to highlight the "not helpful" sides of my contributions on Wikipedia and you have *NEVER* mentioned one *SINGLE* positive thing I have done in the last 10 years. You are not *Mr. Perfection*. WP:NOTPERFECT states "(...) Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another (...)".
You stated in your edit summary change performed on the Analytic–synthetic distinction @ 11:28, the 17th December 2012: "Reverted good faith edits by Maurice Carbonaro (talk): Too diffecult to separate the bad edits from the good; my score is 2 bad, 4 neutral, 1 (perhaps) good. ([[WP:T... (...)" that is, IMHO, your opinion. My opinion is 2 good, 4 neutral, 1 (perhaps) bad.
I have posted a RFC for comments so we can compare other comments about my "irrelevant ungrammatical and undecipherable contributions" to the articles (because you know how to spell "diffecult" right?) But let's suppose for a moment that my English was *really* poor: shouldn't a wikipedia administrator address users with a *basic* knowledge of English to the wp:EMBASSY or not?,
It is standard practice for editors to periodically review edits made by someone after they have been identified as possibly causing problems. Please talk only about the issues raised (adding line breaks; converting bulleted lists; mostly irrelevant contributions; ungrammatical and undecipherable). For example, your comments above and at Talk:Fornax are totally inappropriate: the admin status of another editor is not relevant; Wikipedia does not have a set of rules to cover every situation; it is part of the job of any editor that unhelpful edits must be resisted to avoid degradation of the encyclopedia. Your edit at Fornax (diff) inserted the underlined text in
To discuss that revert on the talk page, please talk about the edit and not the person who reverted you (reverting and discussion is standard practice at Wikipedia). The heading you chose for the talk page ("POV or NPOV?") makes no sense—the two links go to the same page; the two links are totally irrelevant; the heading is nothing to do with the edit or the reversion. Please read and try to understand policy pages before linking to them—WP:NPOV has nothing to do with a disagreement between two editors over whether "of the celestial sphere" belongs in the article above. Have you read and understood the linked article? Do you believe it is relevant to Fornax? That is what should be discussed at Talk:Fornax. This account was created in October 2006 so there is no point in a "welcome" now—what should an editor do if they notice another user who is degrading articles? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO This is the attitude I would rather prefere sysops should use with other editors (please mind that i'm not saying yours is "Non Plus Ultra'"). I am starting to believe that I should become more involved with RfA. Please keep me posted in case you have intention to become an admin in the future and I will surely endorse your election. It's just that I didn't stand Rubin's general attitude towards me right from the beginning because it seems that he tends to escalate tensions up to the point that we end up in mutal wp:PAs ("Your English knowledge is bad", "You clearly haven't got a clue of what you are doing" and so on). AFAIC he definitely needs a sabbatical. MauriceCarbonaro12:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried dicussing your edits with you. You doesn't understand what I consider basic (and, in some cases, even simple) English, and, as you (have) claimed to be a native English speaker, it would be in bad taste to suggest to suggest further that you need help with English, especially after I'd done so a number of times.
As for spelling; Twinkle rollback exempts the "reason" field from ANY spell-checkers, including those built in to the browser. I correct spelling in my comments when I notice it, but correcting spelling in edit summaries is not possible once the edit is completed. — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a world in which every single pigeon on the planet is given free access to the sum of all pigeon knowledge. That's what the carrier pigeon above is doing... using Pigeon Inglish. Maybe you think this is absurd? Well... now imagine if this wasn't possible.I appreciate that you tried discussing my edits with me: that's what talk pages are supposed to be there for. I have noticed that italic type that you inserted for the "tried" word which usually it's meant to change the semantics: maybe you meant to emphasize your attempts? If you doesn't think my English is that one of a native but bahseek and seempol, whot kan eye sey veneriblemastir addymeen? Maee-bee eye shoody putty userboxxy dat I havvy Pigeon inglish insteddy andy thatty I laik smoukin pot?. BTW I removed *that* "native english" userbox some days ago because you keep going back to this claim of mine instilling doubt that my English is not that one of a native: it would be strongly appreciated if you would *think* about removing the "pot smoking-bigotry userbox". But... wait a sec, please: aren't these Ad hominemWP:PA? Shouldn't we be focusing on the articles and not on the contributors? Twinkle here, twinkle there, edit summaries... whatever, okay: let's both seriously consider about consensually bringing these matters to wp:ANI and seriously try to end these slow paced personal attacks once for ever. Please let's try to have a relaxed week-end. Cheers. MauriceCarbonaro17:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall whether I've talked to you about this before, but all your edits are marked as minor edits. This clearly violates the guidelines, unless you consider your edits to have no value.... — Arthur Rubin(talk)16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you never talked to me about this before and yes 'all my edits are marked by minor edits. I appreciate you making me notice this and will try to make my edits more valuable. BTW the fact that "you don't recall" should be a warning that you have serious *Working Overloads* with your "volunteering" on Wikipedia. As I stated before everyone here on Wikipedia is a volunteer.... or should be one. You sound treating other editors like they are regulary employed with a fixed wage where you are the employer... Cheers.
If I warned you in 2006 or 2010, I shouldn't be expected to remember....and your talk page is too active to be sure that a warning hasn't previously been given in the archives, or in something which you deleted rather than archive. — Arthur Rubin(talk)03:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, please do not mark all of your edits as minor. Per WP:MINOR, "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word". Marking genuinely uncontroversial wikilinking as minor is fine, but policy explicitly says that anything which changes the meaning of a sentence, adds an element to a list, adds a tag or that contributes to a talk page, should not be flagged in this way, as other editors may overlook your edit. If you are unsure whether or not your edits count as minor, it would be better to simply mark none of them as minor. --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opz sorry: I apologize. :/ Bad habits are hard to quit. Unfortunately up to a while ago I considered "minor" these changes compared to other editors changes that were making substanstial changes to articles modifying entire paragraphs. Have you noticed anything positive that I have done recently too?
May I suggest that you add a script to your personal .js which prevents you from marking an edit "minor"? You're still doing it. Since you seem to be unaware that your Wikilinks are easter eggs, and hence not-at-all minor, and seem to be unaware that some of your (apparently minor) changes in word choice significantly affect the meaning of the sentence, it might be best for you to prevent yourself from marking an edit "minor". — Arthur Rubin(talk)09:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo there Rubin. The fact that (some) of my Wikilinks are easter eggs seems to me wp:POV. For example this one on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction where you reverted my edit for this reason... but for the sake of peace I will pretend that some of my wikilinks are the so called "easter eggs".
As for automated scripts (which it seems you use a lot for "checking" other users edits) I honestly don't like them so I will try harder to concentrate in marking "minor" what's "minor" (for me) hoping that someone else will not loose his/her temper in taking them for "Major".
I know how lately it has been difficult is to find Administrators volunteering for Wikipedia. For example I don't long for being one. Maybe because it is generally considered to be a bit too stressing(?). May I please suggest you to stop wikihounding me and intervene just when someone eventually formally complains for my behaviour calling an administrator? Actually what you can do in this case is just a wp:30 because you have been hyper-involved with me lately. Well, let's agree to disagree that I will not have properly answered on talk pages first... I am saying that for you because in keeping this behaviour I wonder how can you get all this burden and sleep properly at night. Haven't you also got the problem of looking for a job? As well could you please try to be also positive when talking to other editors? It just seems to me that 99,99% of the time you are out there pointing out the "bad stuff" that other people do. Obviously wp:bite doesn't apply with you because I have been on Wikipedia three years more than you so, IMHO, you are the "newbie" here and I should be the one trying not to "bite" you. Thanks. Let's try to have a nice and relaxed week-end.
I follow you around because it's still the case that more of your edits are wrong than are appropriate. In fact, for many of the edits, I cannot conceive anyone with a professional knowledge of English failing to understand that the edits are wrong. Quoting from Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding:
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.
Your related problems include wikilinking to a similarly-named, but completely different, concept; and (asXerographica) did) adding indirectly related, or similarly named to potentiall related, articles to "see also". — Arthur Rubin(talk)19:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sanity of the user that maintains this talk page has been questioned by this admin.
With all those "My related problems" what should I do then? Set an appointment with a shrink? Oh well... just in case you didn't catch my drift that was a rhetorical_question. I am not in the mood for other wp:pas from you today. BTW, have you recently googled your name and surname on youtube?
It's not a personal attack, merely observations on your edits. And the YouTube guy is banned from all Foundation projects, not just en.Wikipedia. If you think I have any influence to suggest that if he wasn't an idiot, you would be crazy. — Arthur Rubin(talk)12:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Center-right coalition, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. McGeddon (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting a political phrase to surrealism might strike you as funny, but Wikipedia is not a joke book, and making a redirect which you know someone else will have to repair ("Obviously... please feel ABSOLUTELY free to undo... :O)") doesn't help the project. If there's nowhere meaningful to redirect a redlink, just leave it as it is so that other editors can consider creating the article, or remove the link. --McGeddon (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As I stated b4 I am really sorry about it." - I know it's hard to follow conversations where one person is using floating image captions for their comments, but your only response at the time I left that comment had been to say "Hey, come on... that woz funny! :D I didn't mean to be cheeky... :O/" on my talk page. It looks like somebody has stepped up and tried to write a Center-right coalition article now - perhaps you could contribute if you have an interest in the subject? --McGeddon (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are invited on four current FDC proposals
Hello! As you may know, we've opened the community review period for the current funding round in the Funds Dissemination Committee process. I noticed that in the past you expressed interest in the FDC, since you were a nominee for the ombudsperson. I'd like to invite you to review the 4 proposals (totaling $1.3 million USD) that were submitted to the FDC, and to ask questions and share comments about those proposals. You can help to ensure that they have high potential for impact regarding the movement's goals. The FDC especially values comments by community members and will take them into account when they prepare their recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions! --Katy Love, Senior Program Officer, Funds Dissemination Committee, Wikimedia Foundation, 22:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please find out the purpose of links on Wikipedia. As has been explained on several occasions, articles should not link words just because a link can be dreamt up. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for leaving a message on this talk page.
I will try my best to respond to your "March 2013" comments once per time:
I have added Job opening. Applications welcome next to "rector" in the infobox at the University of Catania article because "Mr Recca" resignation were the consequences of a political scandal that saw him involved. I am not willing to explain in details what happened because honestly I don't feel in the mood for it. If you are interested please feel free to google "Recca Catania mail" keywords and have the news articles translated in italian language with some automated software (no, fortunately there are NO other mainstream global media articles about him in other languages).
As for creating the Schrödinger's pussy page as a redirect to Schrödinger's cat I have stated very clearly in the WikiProject Epistemology page that my aim was to have the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment more popularized and one of the ways of doing so is to make the very-VERY technical subject funny. Unfortunately it hasn't been appreciated.... Johnuniq (talk) is back again scolding me in public for (allegedly) misbehaving...
BTW I hope that the book that you are advertising on your user page is not self promotion because this could take you directly to wp:ani.
Even if your facts were correct, that link is (as usual) inappropriate. In addition, if you are not willing to supply a source, it would be a BLP violation even if reported properly. — Arthur Rubin(talk)14:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your comment on MZMcBride's talk page lead me here, and after reading the last several months' worth of comments and your contributions I am appalled by what I have found. The first problem is that the majority of your contributions are not constructive. This would be less troubling if they spanned a shorter period of time, or other editors had not made so many fruitless attempts to guide you toward making more useful edits.
The second problem is tone of your interactions with these users. When another editor raises a valid concern, your response is typically combative. You mock them, cite irrelevant policies in a disingenuous manner, and make ad hominems. I did not come across a single occasion where, when another user approached you about a problem with your editing, you took their concern seriously. One recent example is your interaction with Johnuniq. When this editor approached you about you about a BLP violation that you introduced into University of Catania, you refused explain the rationale behind your edits, writing, "honestly I don't feel in the mood for it." You then threatened to report Johnuniq to ANI over an innocuous link on his userpage.
It is never appropriate to insert humor into the encyclopedia. The redirect you created at Schrödinger's pussy looks like it may be kept under the rationale that it is harmless, but the general pattern that it represents is not acceptable. Links that you create need be in compliance with our guideline. When editors criticize your actions, you need to make an effort to learn from what they are telling you rather than responding with attacks and sarcasm.
I have blocked you from editing in order to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. It is not in the best interests of this project for you to be allowed to edit unless you can indicate that you understand the above and agree to drastically change your behavior. ⇌ JakeWartenberg07:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo there JakeWartenberg,
I understand the above and agree to drastically change my behavior.
In the future please consider stating what's allegedly "going wrong" before drastically blocking users.
Thanks. MauriceCarbonaro07:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Ragusa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragusa (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.
This user's talk page access has not been revoked. If there is no response after a while I will simply remove it. — Hex(❝?!❞)02:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I missed that. Tiny font! So wow, longer than me. Maurice, if you're reading this - sorry if I seemed harsh; it's just that I spotted a sockpuppet using the userbox recently, so wanted to double-check. I hope you manage to work out the issues that lead to you being blocked. — Hex(❝?!❞)20:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This reference used in the article appears to put it at 1984. If you want to mention a specific law that is mentioned in the film or by its production team in interviews, then sure, write about it in context with sources, but a loose "guy hacked a computer, there was a similar very specific law about this from the same period, so let's imply that there's a connection" is misleading to the reader. I'd double-check any unintuitive wikilinking I noticed on my watchlist, this is nothing personal. --McGeddon (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really just link to the WP:NPA policy in the same paragraph as telling me "as I said before... in the future please try to behave more like a human being rather than some Turing test software"? You were recently blocked for this unhelpfully aggressive tone - an inappropriate personal comment is in no way cancelled out by a friendly "so let's all have a nice relaxing weekend :)" signoff. You might enjoy taking that tone in spoken conversations, but it crosses a clear and simple line of WP:NPA here at Wikipedia. Comment on the content, not the contributor.
I don't know what websites you're used to, but it's completely standard on the English Wikipedia for editors to leave each other comments on talk pages rather than sending a private email first. (If your "Before posting a message please check if the... lightbulb is out." talk page section is trying to tell people that, it is a little opaque, and perhaps inappropriate.) But there's no element of deliberate "public scolding" there, it's just - at least in my own experience - the default way to talk to other editors, and undoubtedly a good thing. If you're here for praise, I'd maybe suggest joining a Wikiproject and talking to some other editors about work that needs to be done; Wikignoming (and I speak as one myself) is a thankless task, and you shouldn't take it personally if the bulk of your edits don't get singled out. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
