This is an archive of past discussions about User:Vertium. 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.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This image was dated 1961 and therefore out of copyright. I believe there is no license issue associated with this. I will update the tag accordingly. Vertium (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Vertium! I have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and I would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page or visit the Academy's information page. ~~~~
Sure thanks for your help. is there a way that i can see what was originally there so i copy it to word with out starting from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMCheerman (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely, you can look at the page history and see your last post. As a favor, I'll post it to your talk page as well. Also, please remember to sign all your posts to Talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. Let me know if I can help. Vertium (talk to me)09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Vertium! I'm Chip123456 (we have met?) and I'm happy to say I will be your academy instructor and it's great to have you on board! First of all as I'm sure you are aware vandalism is an everyday occurrence in Wikipedia, and we need to know how we deal with it correctly. We use The Four Steps of counter vandalism and that us to Identify it, remove it, warn the user and if need be, if they persist report to WP:AIV. I would suggest going through the links and also read WP:VAND. My first question is, have you got any questions? I'll be happy to answer! Once again, it's great to have you on board! Later on, I will go through your contributions so we have something to discuss about! Below is how to warn a user!
Warning users, this maybe complicated to understand at the beginning as there are different types and levels of warning. To issue warnings and file reports, I use Twinkle. It's easy to use and you can preview the warnings before issuing them to the disruptive editor. I'm just going to go over the warning and reporting process with you! Below is an example if an editor who is vandalising on Wikipedia:
1. User has wrote 'Chris is gay LOL! :)' on Heathrow Airports article. This is their first edit on Wikipedia. Issue them a general note for vandalism (which van be found on twinkle by clicking the TW tab near the top right of the page and click on 'vandalism'). If you don't have twinkle, give them the first level warning under vandalism on WP:WARN.
2. The user has reverted your revert and has replaced the vandalism. Do the same process as above but give them a level 2 warning ( labelled as a caution on twinkle)
3. The user is now seen as purposely vandalising Wikipedia as they have gone onto HRH Princess Michael of Kents article and have placed 'Dfdfhhgrhdhdthdthdthdthdthgdhdthdhthhtdtfhdhdhdthdtfghfhtdh'. Like before give them a warning but now under level 3 (labelled as warning on Twinkle). This message informs the user that they maybe blocked if they continue.
4. The user has continued to vandalise in another article. Issue them their final warning (level 4 labelled final warning using Twinkle). If, you are dealing with a registered account (not an IP) it is probably clear that this is a vandalism only account and you can report at WP:AIV using twinkle. You click on the TW tab and click 'ARV'. Click on the 'select report type' and click vandalism. Then it asks you to tick a box, asking you why you have reported them. Click on 'Evidently a vandalism only account'. Note - you have an option to add a message. Then click 'submit query'.
5. If you have given the registered user another chance or the IP has continued to vandalise after the final warning, then report at WP:AIV using twinkle and click on 'vandalism after final warning' with optional message and submit query.
If there is a user who already has a warning for vandalising Wikipedia (on the same day you revert the vandalism) there is no need to start from a general note. If they were given a caution, give them a warning, if they were given a final warning on the same day, report them.
I hope this has helped, if it's confusing in any part, please ask me to explain further. Also see WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Note - don't have twinkle? Install it by going on your preferences then gadgets and click twinkle, make sure you save!
I will look over your contributions after you draw a line under your previous ones. Of course, I will look at those, but I want to judge you from what I can see. I would suggest going through the recent changes and reverting vandalism when you are sure you've seen it! Once again, Welcome! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Chip, yes, we've chatted about WP:NAC and the process for that on your talk page. Having been a confirmed editor here for over 6 years, I've only recently gotten passionate about the process and want to focus my efforts properly. I've reverted several obvious vandal attacks (some with complete page wipes - though ClueBot often gets to those first!). What I've NOT done yet is learn all that TW has to offer, and see the Warnings now that you've pointed them out. Will use those moving forward. I presume if there's a recent level-1 warning on the talk page, I should proceed to level-2 and so on. I've also seen inadvertent vandalism by some, so what I've done there is revert and counsel. Too often, I've encountered editors on a power trip who are more fond of scolding than helping. I've had my own edits reverted for invalid reasons and I know that my reaction was not particularly favorable. In short, I think that if the editor is not obviously malicious, you get more done with a gentler approach. If they are malicious or untrainable, then more extreme measures are available and should be used. Does that make sense?
I check out recent revisions whenever I'm on WP and that's where and how I tend to notice the vandalism. I'm not exactly sure by what you mean when you say "draw a line under" my contributions... but am happy to do so once I understand it. Looking forward to working with you. Cheers. Vertium (talk to me)17:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
It meant nothing bad, it's just I want to see what you produce with me. 6 years, wow! I've only been here for 6... Months. So, have you installed twinkle now? If not please do, do you know how? Have you been involved in reporting users before, if not I will re-go over it for you if you don't understand about the warnings and reports. Is there anything you want to ask, I'm very much open to questions! --Chip123456 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking through your contribs, you have TW, so forget the install stuff. Is there anything you don't understand about the warning/reporting procedure?--Chip123456 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm good on the process for warnings and reports, based on your entry above and reading the WP:VAND article. I'd appreciate your advice on the application of judgment on the changes you call "vandalism". As an example, have a look at the diffs on List of Blue's Clues episodes where User:Vidpro23 wiped out the videos after 2006. I did a quick look online and found that there are indeed some videos from 2007 onward (can't guarantee that the ones he removed are accurate), but I don't believe he was "vandalizing" the article. I posted a note on his talk page and asked him to comment back to me. Your thoughts? BTW... headed to London in a fortnight... hope you're planning good weather for me :) Vertium (talk to me)18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the weather in the UK is promising at the moment, but I'll get on the phone to God, see if he can spare some good weather! Right, in that case I would say no, that isn't vandalism. He/She could if removed it because it was unsourced. In a case like this, I would use a blue twinkle rollback saying 'can you explain your removal, Thanks' an you could optionally drop him a message on his talk. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Since I've already left a message on his talk page, I will give him a short while to respond and if he doesn't will rollback. Thanks again. Vertium (talk to me)18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the revert you made on Banda Singh Bahadur should if been identified as vandalism. The section they removed could of been because it was unsourced. A normal rollback would of been best! --Chip123456 (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree. I swear I clicked the blue rollback button. I didn't consider it vandalism either. As I mentioned above, I'd prefer it be obvious before I call it vandalism. I'm going to test the rollback buttons in my sandbox, because if I did click the red, it was an unintentional mistake.
Good, great actually, it's always good to test. Carry on doing your edit session and I will review again later. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I have been looking through a page of your contributions and have been randomly selecting some. You are going down the right path in your reverts, and are doing OK, on the warnings, although you have missed some out giving some. It is important that you warn, because if a user is reported to WP:AIV, the admins there will be looking if they have been sufficiently warned. I have seen a successful report, which is great, considering you are new to the process! So keep up the good work, make sure the warnings get handed out and ask if you have any queries. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I will do a review of your contributions everyday until I'm satisfied that you are ready for rollback. Editors are (including myself) picky in giving warnings fo vandalism. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think we should briefly touch on the below. We all make mistakes. I've accidentally rollbacked before and did exactly the same, revert my edit. Everybody makes mistakes, people have accidentally rollbacked Jimbo Wales before and have blocked Cluebot whilst looking for vandals. What I suggest, if your worried that you may make a mistake, instead of using TW rollback red, always aim for blue. Also, when looking at Diffs, the current version is on the right and the previous is on the left. Instead of aiming for right, you can go left and click 'Restore this revision' with an edit summary.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you may want to see WP:HUMAN (per below). I've looked over your contribs today and you haven't been active as much, which is not a problem. The Archie Fowler revert was correct and you warned. Keep it up! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: below, I believe it's been handled and I believe I handled it properly. Regarding the activity level, I will always be less active during the week, as I travel often for work. Cheers. Vertium (talk to me)10:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you did, I just saw your comments about believing IP'S are good. On the note of being active, I am not very active Friday Evening and may pop in now and then on Saturdays (usually late evening) BST. --Chip123456 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
But you also need to sign your talkpage posts with thre tildes: ~~~~. I realize you removed my message quickly so your mentor didn't see it. But honestly you can't keep making those "unintentional" clicks there. You need to look at what you revert before reverting it.128.148.211.79 (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me first make a request that you not infer intent for any action you see me take. I didn't remove it because I was trying to hide it, I removed it because I was in the process of undoing my change and apologizing for the mistake. I'm aware enough of things here that I understand that... nothing can be "hidden". I also don't need to hide anything because the most that can happen is someone says they don't want me editing WP. If that's the case, so be it. In this instance, I had multiple tabs open and inadvertently reverted yours by mistake and it was in fact, unintentional. I learned a lesson in how I will manage my browsers when trying to confirm content in one tab while the diff is showing in another. From now on, I'll have only a single tab open and in fact, am no longer going to revert while on my laptop. Too easy to get wrapped around the axle. As I said, lesson learned.
But while I have your attention, please let me raise an tangentially related topic. I have to say that, as someone who does instructional design professionally, this learning approach is suboptimal. While I've no doubt that the academy does in fact "graduate" people who can more effectively combat the vandalism, learning that skill in this "live" environment, through a series of trial and error is fraught with risk, especially when the error can result in not only upsetting another editor (case in point) and discouraging the learner when they're scolded (my word). Perhaps I don't fully understand the academy approach. I'm happy to participate in the development of a training curriculum that conveys and models the best behaviors to emulate versus the process today which leaves a significant amount of "guessing" to the editor. I also think that learning on test cases (e.g. what is vandalism and what is not vandalism would lead to fewer results like this one. Not saying that was in question here, just in general. If that's of use to the community, let me know.
In any case, please be aware that I'm 100% committed to learning the proper way of doing things, and 100% committed to the improvement of WP. What I'm not likely to be is 100% perfect in every edit. Thank you for taking the time to write to me and for reading this reply. Vertium (talk to me)20:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for having inferred intent in your removal of my other comment. It's ok not to be perfect - and perhaps i was also too harsh in my critique. But with rollback you have to be extra careful - because it really feels insulting to have ones work reverted as vandalism. I'd encourage you to simply use manual reversal instead - that's what I do. I only ever use roll back if its blatant vandalism (page blanking, insults and swear words etc.) Rollback really isn't as useful as it's cracked up to be. Also noone will ever say that they don't want you editing WP as long as you show a willingness to listen to advice (and sometimes criticism). The fact that you are willing to tackle the sharp learning curve here at wikipedia is commendable in itself - a minor mishap everynow and then is bound to happen (I know it still does for me after 8 years)·ʍaunus·snunɐw·02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I have actually wondered about the value of a one-click rollback anyway (once I understood that aspect of it). Doesn't seem realistic to revert without even seeing what was changed. I appreciate the message. Thanks. Also appreciate your using your logged-in account to message me. I am particularly wary (based on what I've been told by some) about the IPs and I need to be more careful not to assume that every IP edit is more likely to be malicious. All the best to you... Vertium (talk to me)11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
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!
I'd like not only some direction on this, but also some more third party intervention on the Koch Family article. It's obvious that User:Arthur Rubin is a radical POV editor that will stop at NOTHING to have material he doesn't think shows the subject in the best light possible removed from articles. By the way, he's apologetically continuing to edit the Koch family article, against your cease and desist request/order. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I can't order anyone to do anything, but if they're violating WP:3RR, (and you yourself are following it), I'd direct you to see the article on how to avoid an edit war. You're absolutely correct to have the conversation on the article's talk page. Just remember that incendiary words are likely to be responded with the same and you want to make sure you avoid any personal attacks. If civility and discussion fails, you can always request page protection which can allow everyone to cool off. This can result in a warning or block to the offending party(ies). Vertium (talk to me)23:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
A review of your contributions II
Hi, I have looked over your contribs, randomly selecting your reverts and you are doing really well. The warnings are going out good. I hope, shortly, another trip to WP:PERM would be in order but I think a couple more days, an then we will consider getting you ready. What I'd like you to do is tell me how you think you're doing, a bit like a 'self-assessment' to see how you feel you are progressing. Keep it up! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think I'm doing fine, save the one hiccup. In general, I've found dozens more vandalism hits than I've actually reverted, only because ClueBot is so darned fast at recognizing them and taking care of things. What I'd like to understand is what the remainder of the "academy" curriculum is like. What happens after this.. and what constitutes "graduation". If I don't hear from you before then, have a great weekend. Vertium (talk to me)16:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
After this, we will keep in contact. I will come to your talk asking how you are doing. Graduation is usually when you receive RB rights however, if you didn't feel you were ready to graduate, you could stay on with me and learn more about rollback.--Chip123456 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
How are RB rights different than what I'm already doing? I think that because I'm on a Mac (and using TW), my review process is slower and different than if I were using Huggle. From what I can tell by looking at the screen images for that tool, it shows the recent changes in quite a different way and one-click rollback is made significantly easier. If I am rolling back now, don't I have "rollback rights"? Thank you for the consistent and regular feedback. It's helpful. Cheers Vertium (talk to me)22:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
No, you use twinkle rollback. Its confusing, I know. Rollback rights which you have to apply for enables you to use extra tools for example, Huggle being a popular one. It also puts you in the Rollbacker group and enables you to revert things more quickly and efficiently than twinkle. I'm just going to check your contribs one last time. --Chip123456 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I believe you are ready to request for rollback rights at WP:PERM, after a review of your contributions. I would like to make a (Non-administrator comment), but just in case you apply when I'm not active, I'll leave one here and you can direct the admin here. NAO - have been monitoring this users contributions and can tell they can identify, revert, warn and report vandals(ism). They have been using twinkle, and rollback would help them to quickly revert vandalism and assist them greatly. --Chip123456 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest a thorough read of WP:RBK, so you get to know the basics. When you hit that RB button, all other edits from that editor (in a row) will also, like TW RB will be reverted. If your unsure, use blue twinkle rollback, that's what I do. Like with twinkle rollback, revert, warn and, if need be, report the user to WP:AIV. After a while, you get used to it and it becomes natural to revert and warn. The first time I used rollback, I made a mistake, only something I would do! If that happens, just revert your edit with twinkle with an edit summary that reads 'Accidental use of rollback'. Is there any other tools that you think you may use, eg Huggle? --Chip123456 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I will use Huggle, but can't until they release an OS X version as I've only got one Windows machine in my arsenal and it's nearly an antique, so I could probably retype the reversion in a standard edit window faster. I'll stick with your advice and continue to use Twinkle initially unless it's one of those obvious things like (-85,143) and a tag of Blanking. Vertium (talk to me)11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's always best to make sure it is vandalism. As for -85,143, sometimes people revert vandalism and it can show that, so alway be careful! --Chip123456 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
True, thought that wouldn't get the Blanking tag. Caution is the watchword... Thanks again for all your support. Once I get a couple hundred more reverts under my belt, if I can help out at CVUA, let me know Vertium (talk to me)19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer to work at CVUA! Once you get familiar with RB it would be great to have you. We seem to be quiet at the moment.....no doubt, after me saying that it will get really busy! --Chip123456 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
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!
Thanks for going the extra mile and leaving that kind message. Also, I replied on my talk page. Cheers, Riley HuntleytalkNo talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.20:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
Please do not accuse me of adding unreferenced material when I wasn't. Replacing unreferenced material with referenced material is not adding unreferenced material. It is the opposite of adding unreferenced material. I do not want to edit war, so I would appreciate if you would self revert. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't accuse you of anything, I simply observed your edit. I'm not going to revert (since you did already), but I've updated the article with reference to a reliable source that supports the content you removed. If you have a reliable source to cite supporting your claim that Falklanders do not wish to discuss the issue, then please add it and reinstate your comment. They are not mutually exclusive, though they do seem somewhat at odds with one another. Thanks for writing. Vertium (talk to me)18:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ehm... I didn't revert it. That was another editor. It wasn't original research, it's already cited in the article. What I had removed in the first place was original research. WHat I added was not. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The media file you uploaded as File:Transcription-Take Your Clothes Off When You Dance.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Vertium/Archives/2012 1}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
You and I were in a discussion regarding your RfA proposal and I've also noted that you are engaged in a discussion the revamping of RfA on Jimbo Wales' talk page, so I think you might be the best person to help me understand what seems to be a key point of both these discussions. I personally support the idea that JW put forth, because I believe that the more qualified (both technically and with the requisite social and coaching skills) admins we have, the smoother everything will run. One of the key issues around admin permissions seems to be about access to deleted content, and having seen only the content that I have nominated for AfD or CSD or have cleaned up as part of my vandalism patrols, I'm unclear as to why this is such an important issue. Again, given your focus on the RfA process and clear advocacy of change, I thought you might be able to help me. I'll watch this page for your reply, or you can talk on my page, whichever is easiest for you. Thanks for your help. Vertium (talk to me)16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
IANAL, and I obviously do not speak for the WMF, but my understanding is: because copy-vio and personal/privacy info, though deleted, is not always oversighted. - jc3717:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I would argue that Greenwald's relationship with Nick Lulli is notable because did arouse it did arouse curiosity in the community in which both worked. Lulli is a journalist now working in Augusta, GA. Anyways, adding more sources now! Thanks Nicklulli (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
neutrality
Discussions on neutrality on the talk page was about the first and megalomanic text of this article. But, now, every sentences on the text depends on the documents that had been showed on references. All of them is true. And the trueness = the neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingagainstlies (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, truth can be written in neutral or POV styles, and this article is NOT neutral. But, as you can see, your removal has been reversed by someone else, so this is not a matter of my opinion. You seem unfamiliar with the proper WP:MOS guidelines so I would ask that you please review them before you continue to edit the Oktay Sinanoğlu article. I've got this article on my to-do list to rewrite completely and eliminate all the improper content from this article. Thanks for your note. Again, if you'd rather work collaboratively, instead of trying to start an edit war, I'm happy to do so. All you have to do is ask, politely. Vertium (talk to me)17:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Vertium.
I'm apprentice in wikipedia.
I am working to learn the rules of wikipedia.
But, I'm an old man, and English language is not my mother tongue.
Because of this, I can be used some wrong words.
The song of Orson Walles: "I know what is to be young, but you don't know what is to be old" my friend.
Please excuse me.
Thank you again.
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Vertium, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray08:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Self-actualization
Hallo. You reverted my reverts in the article self-actualization calling it test/vandalism which it wasn't. I was simply restoring the original text that was deleted by user 24.45.42.125 without giving reasons or discussing on the talk page. And I don't see any reasons why these parts ot the text should be deleted. Especially the explanatory comment concerning Anne Harrington's book is useful for the reader to undestand why the book is listed. So would you please revert your revert. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.25.234 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
79.228.25.234's change was not vandalism. However, while it was in good faith, it was not a good idea. That's why I repeatedly removed two parenthetical remarks and a third that might as well be in parentheses, all of which showed a fascination with Goldstein that was undue. The article is about self-actualization, not Goldstein. We must acknowledge his important role, but we cannot distort the topic of the article. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the article is about self-actualization as a concept, and this concept was introduced into the scientific community (and developed to a large extend in his book "The Organism") by Kurt Goldstein. Thus Goldstein belongs into the article, and there is no "undue fascination" behind that. And as I said: Especially the explanatory comment concerning Anne Harrington's book is useful for the reader to understand why the book is listed. There are no recognizable "distortions" of the article by the deleted sentences. So I suggest again that either IP 24.45.42.125 reverts his repeated deletions (that he did again) or Vertium intervenes in that direction. Friedhelm, Germany --79.228.21.131 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I ask that we take this conversation to the article talk page for further discussion? Thanks for everyone being so conscientious about the quality of this article! I have copied the above two comments to that page and will be happy to discuss there. Best regards - VertiumWhen all is saidand done19:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, you reverted my edits on List_of_songs_by_Goffin_and_King as vandalism. I don't think it was: that article had two tables, one of 'songs by Goffin and King' and one of 'songs by Goffin'. The second table contained all the songs from the first list, so I edited the article so that the first table just contained songs by Goffin & King, and the second table so it just showed songs written by Goffin with other songwriters, to remove the duplicate entries. Hopefully this was just a misunderstanding, but am happy to discuss more. Thanks.
Hi. I've seen that you've given Milliedeering7078 a warning about vandalism. I don't think that it was really vandalism, though. He/she was just trying to help. I know that what he/she put was unencyclopedic, but that doesn't mean that it was vandalism. Remember to assume good faith. :)Hadger21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your note. I do assume good faith, and I could see how some might mark this as a good faith revert, but when I saw [this diff] where Ruth7078 is mentioned and I can find no reference (via search) to any penquin with that name in this context with that name and the user has 7078 in his/her name. I didn't worry too much about the changing from "Special" to "famous", but this change led me to believe it was not an edit genuinely intended to "help". If there's some source for this that I missed completely, I'm happy to reverse my rollback. Thanks again for writing. VertiumWhen all is saidand done21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. I read more of his/her edit. I just noticed that he/she added his/her name. Sorry about that, and thanks for being so kind in your reply. :) Hadger22:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I also thought it was vandalism (adding herself to the WP article). Not malicious vandalism, but definitely ignoring the message by Cluebot. Still, she may have seen the message only after she was done with her edit. I guess overall two warnings from us may be too much (Twinkle did warn me about it and I went ahead anyway). So I'll remove my additional warning, so the talk page doesn't look as vandally as it does now. Nczempin (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate the civil conversation. We all make mistakes, and I make my share, so if you ever see a rollback I do that looks wrong, I would genuinely appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Thanks. VertiumWhen all is saidand done22:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A recent reversion
Hi, Vertium. Thanks for editing. I noticed a revert you recently made. [1] Do you think it's sneaky vandalism? AFAIS, it may not be the most neutral piece, but it doesn't look like your ordinary edit in the vandalistic spirit. NTox · talk04:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
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!
Two vandals attacked the article today. What can I do?
Dear Vertium.
Two days ago, I had begun to edit the article according to the Wiki rules.
I want to make a surprise to you, my young friend...
I would ask you: "Hi Vertium, Please look the article! is it OK now?"
But, I was shocked when I saw the article's last position.
Two vandals (nicks: Salvadore21, Khazar2) cleaned the article as full with over 200 reference
and placed an "Oktay Sinanoglu Advertising"
I am afraid to make (undo), because of the blockage to me.
I can't tell you how much I am worry now.
Now, I'am a man like victim of the eartquake.
...
The answer my friend, blowin' in the wind...
The answer is blowing in the wind.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingagainstlies (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
If an edit is truly vandalism (check out the definition of vandalism at WP:Vandalism, then it can be reverted. I have rolled back the edits made by Salvador21 because they removed all the structure from the article and blanked several sections without any comment. I would suggest you look at several other biographies to look at the structure and sections that are typically shown in a Wikipedia biography. They do not typically have a separate paragraph highlighting "lies" or things that they claimed that others think they didn't do. The more you can make this biography follow that type of format, the more success you'll probably encounter. I would suggest a single section called "Controversies" with a bulleted list of these claims. Remember, it does not matter what is true it matters what has been reported by reliable sources. That may seem unusual, but those are the policies here.
There are also some things I'll ask you to do whenever you make updates to Wikipedia:
When editing an article, please always make an entry in the Edit Summary so that reviewers can understand what you changed. It should describe briefly what you changed - either the section or the type of edit (e.g. "corrected birth date", or "added a reference"). This is very important.
When editing someone's talk page, please type four tildes ~~~~ at the end of each entry you make on a talk page, so that your entry will have your signature.
Thank you very much for all of your comments.
I'll learn to be a wikipedian as far as quickly.
I'm reading your comment. You are right.
"Controversies" Section is good idea.
....
When I saw the article reversed, I was glad like childrens.
Thank you again and again.
I want to thank you with a lyric from my youth days, from 1960s..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMuTXcf3-6A&feature=related
Thank you Vertium.
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, Vertium! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray08:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
New Vandals Cleaned The Article
Dear Vertium,
New vandals cleaned the article again, and They left a message in Turkish language on the page.
This Turkish message shows that they were Turks and the fans of Oktay Sinanoglu.
I am looking for WP:Vandal to reverse the article, but I couldn't see where it is (Please don't laught to me. I'll learn how to use WP:Vandal alert)
Thank you for your helpings
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the article to the last position before the last vandalism.
Dear Vertium.
By using (UNDO), I reverted the article to the last position before the last vandalism.
But, I'll learn how to use WP:VANDAL.
Thank you.
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! You can also leave a message within the same section on my talk page, without having to start a new section each time. At the beginning of a new message, you can add a colon ":" and it will indent your message, two colons (::) will indent it twice, and so on. As you'll notice, I started this message with 2 colons, you can simply add below this message, and start yours with three colons (:::) and it will indent it even further below mine. Hope that's helpful. VertiumWhen all is saidand done10:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I've put an Already done on WP:Cvua/e (for the archive bot) and added her to your current students on the status page. Have a look at those two pages (but you can do that after you talk to her) and go for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
CVU
Hello!
Thank you for agreeing to mentor me at the CVU academy! I have been monitoring Recent changes for the past hour and think it has gone alright so far. I have a question regarding WP:AGF, do I warn the user? For example, one user stated that Serena Williams had won the 2011 US Open Final, when she was actually runner-up. In this instance, I think the user was making the edit in good faith and was simply misinformed, and therefore probably wouldn't warrant a warning? --Jennie | ☎15:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. You can message me here, but I have added your talk page to my watchlist, so you can message me there as well and I'll catch it. Whichever is easiest for you.
You don't technically need to 'warn' good-faith edits, but you did the right thing by putting the info in the Edit Summary. I often will go to their talk page and use Twinkle to give them a level 1 (or higher if needed) 'warning' for things other than vandalism, such as adding unsourced info or blanking a section without providing an edit summary. On Twinkle, there's a dropdown that defaults to "Vandalism", which if you click it, will show you a host of other topics on which you can warn editors.
If the revert is likely to be controversial, or if the page is on a topic that is likely to attract emotional editors (e.g. schools, football clubs, religions, etc.), I will often invite discussion on the article's talk page to at least ask for consensus to substantive changes.
I apreciate your re-visiting Howling II. I can understand your difficulty in your WP:BEFORE... what with the darn thing having so many different titles in its releases and re-releases internationally. Thanks for the withdrawal and close. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.17:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Vertium.
The Article "Oktay Sinanoglu" was cleaned as full and blocked again.
Firstly, "Bobrayner" cleaned over 100 references. I revesed them. After "Uncle G" cleaned whole article and blocked.
Please compare the fightingagainstlies version and Uncle G version. You will see that this is a kind of vandalism by using the wikipedia rules against wikipedia aims.
I am leaving the wikipedia my young friend.
Thank you for your helpings to me.
Your Sincerely
--Fightingagainstlies (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding Hedgesville High School page.
So I was wondering why you took Spencer Flannery off of the Hedgesville High School Page. He's a notable graduate, so I'm confused as to why it was taken off. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.217.86 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey, we're so new to any editing for Wikipedia and really just wanted to update Glen's page since several fans and friends have commented on how thin it was. I'm afraid we're too non-tech savvy to spend much time figuring out the reference links etc. Can you help out? References are imdb, Glen's vita from the www.coteblanche.com website, Glen himself... And I apologize for replying here if I was suppose to do it somewhere else. Thanks, Michelle Benoit and Glen Pitre www.coteblanche.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.102.165 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand your point, but Wikipedia doesn't tolerate original research or self-referenced content particularly well. Though it may seem illogical, the issue here isn't the truth, but whether it's verifiable through third-party reliable sources. As I'm sure you can imagine, nearly everyone would like their own page on Wikipedia, but unless an individual is notable and written about by others who are considered reliable sources, the content won't last very long on the encyclopedia. I'd encourage you to have a look at the article on Biographies of Living Persons and the article on Reliable Sources. I do see other sources such as here and here. The best sources exclude blogs, LinkedIn and any websites that are run by the subject of the article. You should feel free to update the article whenever you can point to a third party source for the information. If you have Roger Ebert's book where he references Glen positively, you can quote that (the source does not have to be online - it only has to be reasonably available to editors who wish to verify the content). I made one update, referencing Glen's birthdate. If you need additional help in creating citations, see here or let me know. I'm happy to help you if I can.
Lastly, as a matter of Wikiquette, please sign your talk page entries by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ at the end of each of your entries. This will put your name and date/time stamp on your entry. VertiumWhen all is saidand done14:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that you got a false positive on your recent STiki reversion of an edit to Noli Me Tangere (novel). By reverting that edit, you actually restored false information from a previous vandalism. Can you remove the vandalism warning from User 203.87.201.150 ? Thanks, Aristophanes68(talk)16:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings sir. You might remember that you had removed Art project section from Metro 2034 because there was no reference. Well a refrence site has now been added and the section has been added back to the article again. Please read the article and tell if everything is ok with it. Thank you. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm awarding you this barnstar for being an incredibly friendly, informative and helpful instructor! My time at the CVUA was rewarding due to your guidance so I thank you! Jennie | ☎17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
No reason to change my post unless your a child molseter as well
Roman Polanski is a convicted child molester/rapist. He raped a 13 yr old girl and that should be in the first sentence.. It is not a lie or distortion...it is a fact that his is a convicted child molester/rapist!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edapoe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but there is no need for you to imply such a thing and I will not tolerate such talk from you. You should take a few minutes to read my message above about calm and civil communication. Your post to the Roman Polanski article was inappropriate (and reverted) because a) it doesn't belong in the article lead, as this is not primarily what Mr. Polanski is known; b) the sole charge for which he was convicted is "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", not "rape" nor "molestation"; and c) the topic is already well covered in the article, with sufficient citations to reliable sources, which your post lacked. Ad hominen attacks against editors (such as yours against me in your message above) or libelous statements against people in articles are not well tolerated here. Please read WP:BLP on how to edit articles that involve biographies of living persons. Also, I'd ask that you notch down the sarcasm and attack language a bit and lastly, please sign your talk page entries with four tildes (~~~~). VertiumWhen all is saidand done01:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
For a fact checker you are very poor
In the wiki article itself it says he was arrested of raping a 13 yr. old child. He is known for a director and fugitive for molesting and raping a child. Google child rapist Roman Polanski and hundreds of articles will come up that he is a convictive child rapist. It is what he is known for!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edapoe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Being arrested for something and being convicted for something are completely different. Exclamation points don't alter the facts. Please discontinue writing to my talk page. VertiumWhen all is saidand done10:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Question regarding Hedgesville High School page.
So I was wondering why you took Spencer Flannery off of the Hedgesville High School Page. He's a notable graduate, so I'm confused as to why it was taken off. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.217.86 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your original message so have reposted it here in order to comment. I disagree that the individual you mentioned is notable, but if you can find verifiable reliable sources to support his inclusion in the article, by all means, you should add the content back in. If you need help to determine the individual's notabiltiy, I'd suggest you have a look these notability guidelines as well as these guidelines for citations to reliable sources. Also, please remember to sign your talk page postings with four tildes ~~~~. Thanks. VertiumWhen all is saidand done19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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!
I "added" the arabic text and facebook link unconsciously as i did a rollback when i saw a massive removel of text. Halmstad (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I recently made an edit to add to Addison Montgomery's nicknames, some of which seemed to cause trouble (I'm guessing "Satan" and "Ruler of All That is Evil"). I'm not sure if you're familiar with Grey's Anatomy, but a lot of the characters get nicknames, from McDreamy to McSteamy to even The Nazi, all of which are listed on Wikipedia (Derek Shepherd, Mark Sloan, and Miranda Bailey, respectively). Addie got the nickname "Satan", among others. If you google "Addison Montgomery Satan", you should get a lot of hits (probably including some of her own lines, like "Actually, I prefer Ruler of All That Is Evil, but I will answer to Satan" --> http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0021667/quotes ). The Grey's Anatomy wiki also lists it --> http://greysanatomy.wikia.com/wiki/Addison_Forbes_Montgomery .
The edit was to clear up a fallacy that was originally used in the page. Those "strips" are what is called a "flake" and are only made in such a fashion for a pipe smoker's preference, it has absolutely nothing to do with shipping and everything to do with personal preference of how the tobacco will smoke. Even the image title refutes the caption. If anything other than shipped in hands, like almost all tobacco is, the tobacco would be shipped in a large cake, where thousands of leaves are pressed into eachother with multiple tons of force over an extended period of time.
And for further reference, the flakes are no more than 2"x4", which does not constitute "large strips" as the caption states. I say this as someone who has smoked pipes and cigars for years and is familiar the tin of flakes in question.
There are quite a few other misinformations on the page, but I figure any attempt to correct these will just be met with the ire of many blind lemming anti-smokers who honestly could care less if they're spouting lies. I would just like to mention that in the "types of tobacco smoking" section, "cigars" and "pipe smoking" should be removed as they do not meet the definition of "tobacco smoking" as stated in the opening paragraph of the page. Neither cigars or pipes are meant to be inhaled and as such do not meet the stated definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.187.13 (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I have to say that in the years I did smoke a pipe, I never saw tobacco in strip form, though based on your note above, I've done some additional research and noted that "flake tobacco" seems to be available. I happen to be anti-cigarette (primarily because of lung cancer in my family) but do appreciate that it's a personal choice and enjoy the occasional cigar myself. I don't edit with any personal bias and do not in any way try to censor Wikipedia. Thanks again. VertiumWhen all is saidand done00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
August 12
Hey there im here to address the edits i did on madonna album page. I did it because i thought those images were of a higher quality. im not gonna change them back ifnyou dont let me though.--189.144.65.17 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I put your edits back in... I didn't (and don't) see the need for all the text changes in order to update the photos, but I put it back the way you had it. Thank you for letting me know what's going on and for your polite message. VertiumWhen all is saidand done23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
De Facto Currency
Regarding my edit "The following break-away territories have the Russian Ruble as their de facto currency" which you reverted to"The following have the Russian ruble as their de facto currency:" The original text strongly suggests that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are countries. This suggestion is certainly not a neutral one, and I believe that Break-away territories conveys the disputed legal status of these regions without taking sides. (although as a matter of law, they are not countries. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#Recognition) I suggest you undo your revert of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.53.156.132 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your note. I see that you have changed this back, and I won't revert it again, though you should be aware that the reference cited does not support your update. In fact, the reference to allmusic.com simply links to the One Direction page, and then you have to select an album. On neither of those albums is Jake Gosling listed as a producer. I bring this up because I'm going to move the reference back to the writers, because it does support that information and might get reverted by someone as unreferenced information. If you have a reference that you can cite which will verify that Gosling produced the song, please update the article. If you're not sure how to do that or need any other assistance, let me know as I'm happy to help.
Also, If I could ask you to please use the Edit Summary each time you edit an article. It allows the reviewers to understand why you changed what you did. A quick note is all that's needed. Lastly, please sign all talk page entries with four tildes (~~~~) so people know who is writing each entry. VertiumWhen all is saidand done00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
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!
On 4 August 2012 I edited a a part of the "Eden of the East" about the word "Seleção" changing the statement that it is a "common nickname of Brazil's national [football] team" to indicate the word is used in Portuguese to refer to any national team.
I know "Seleção" in the story is a reference to the Brazilian football team, but I am not sure about it being a "common nickname of Brazil's national [football] team". It maybe in some countries but I do not believe it is universal, hence the edit.
"Seleção" isn't a nickname for any team in any Portuguese speaking country where, when used in this context, may refer to any country or sport. If you use the word deprived of any context except you are talking about football and omit the country it applies to, a Brazilian, a Portuguese and (e.g.) an Angolan would each assume their own countries (as in "seleção brasileira", "seleção portuguesa", "seleção angolana"). So, if you were writing an article in Brazil about their team, you would probably use only "a seleção" (the team) with "brasileira de futebol" being inferred. But if you were talking about two teams, as in (e.g.) a game between Brazil and Spain, it is unlikely you would use the word without a qualifier: you would use "seleção brasileira" and "seleção espanhola" or simply "Brasil" and "Espanha".
Wikipedia's own entry for Brazil national football team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_national_football_team#Nicknames) explains that. Even if it is a bit confusing and it does state "the most common one used to refer to them, especially in Brazil, is seleção, which literally means the selection", it goes on to make the same point I am trying to.
Since like forever. Amazon's reputation is for being a commercial hub, designed for promotion and selling stuff. Not for being a source for netural, fact-checked information. If all you are using it for is to verify that an album is published, see WP:ELNO #15 and WP:ADV. -- The Red Pen of Doom20:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure what part of WP:ELNO you believe prohibits use of Amazon. I'll re-read it, as I may have been reading too quickly. As far as Amazon being a commercial site, don't disagree, but as a source for the release date of an album, I don't think they're much chance it would be anything but neutral. By that logic, I could say that the NY Post is in the business of selling subscriptions so it might not be neutral -- oops... bad example! :-) I think it does matter about the source itself, not just the category of the source. Amazon has nothing commercial to gain by not representing a release date or track listing accurately and neutrally. I don't think WP:ADV applies at all as I am not in any position to gain anything from a link to Amazon as I'm neither an employee or shareholder of Amazon or in any way related to Margo Rey. I'll see what I can come up with as alternatives, but all I'm trying to do is remove all the self-reference links that were on this article. I believe that the subject of the article is notable, so trying to get it in shape. Thanks. VertiumWhen all is saidand done20:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I dont think your comparison is in any way comperable. Newspapers are in the business of supplying fact checked accurate information. They sell subscriptions based on their ability and reputation to do so. Amazon, on the other hand is in the business of hawking goods, and supplies information designed solely to support that function. But if you want outside opinion, we can go to the RS notice board.-- The Red Pen of Doom21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. At the risk of being repetitive and pedantic, it's the entity itself, not the category of entity that matters. Citations to "newspapers" such as The NY Post or most any UK tabloid is not in and of itself a RS, just because it's a newspaper. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by Amazon not supporting WP:N (which is "notability") due to it's standing to make a financial gain. Perhaps you meant WP:NPOV which is neutrality. Again, I disagree when the sole purpose of the source is to verify a date. In any case, I feel as though we've probably exhausted this discussion for now. If you still have concerns over my use of Amazon, you can make a note on the article's Talk Page once I've finished my edits and I'm happy to discuss it further. Thanks again for writing! VertiumWhen all is saidand done21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant WP:N. When you apply: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
"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.[3] 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.
"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." you exclude catalogues as being suitable for establishing Notability and Amazon is nothing but an online cataglogue. -- The Red Pen of Doom21:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your recent participation at my RfA, which I withdrew just prior to the deadline — I was quite skeptical of the possibility that any bureaucrat on the site was "rogue" enough to not close it as no consensus (alas, my elaborate plans to take over all your Wikis has been thwarted again). I appreciate your sentiments, and I'm very pleased to announce that I am now more clueful when it comes to copyright (although there's still work to be done, I think). Just as an FYI, I agree with you on granting adminship provisionally, as I think it would help people get a much better idea of how someone would use the tools than simply analyzing what is already demonstrated, thereby expanding the number of users with +sysop ready to help. But that's just me, and apparently you. Oh, and Jimbo Wales. ;)
It was my pleasure to support you. I'm sorry that it didn't work out. There are too many who have "power" who seek to limit it to themselves and those they deign to annoint. It is for that reason I too will likely never become and admin here. At this point, my position is that until there's a fundamental reorganization of the RfA process, it's just not worth the body cavity search that they expect editors to endure. You have my respect just for jumping through all the contrived hoops they set up. VertiumWhen all is saidand done14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand where you're coming from, although I do think you'd make a good admin from what I've seen. But you're right, there are a great many people here who've let +sysop get to their heads once it was granted. They hold editors to very high standards in judging them at RfA, but the question they must always consider is whether or not they themselves live up to those expectations, and be open to the possibility that they are very capable of making the same foolish mistakes that they would be apt to pointing out in others. Nevertheless, there are a lot of good administrators active on the site, they just aren't as noticeable because for the most part they don't partake in the more drama-prone areas of Wikipedia such as ANI, WP:RFA, or RFAR. I'm glad I took a chance, and even though it didn't work out this time, I'm looking forward to continuing my contributions here in the hopes that I'll make it next time around.
Thank you for all the help you have given me in the CVUA. I hope to use my skills in the ongoing battle against vandalism! All the best! --Bradshaws1 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
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!
... that we all have different opinions about what is and is not material. It's good that we do or the world would be very boring. You and I each weight matters differently, and that's great. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree Tim... and in fact, I suspect there's much more on which we might agree than not. You were 100% justified in nominating the article. It stunk. As I noted originally, it wasn't a factual discrepancy, but purely one of verifiability. I have no quarrel with you or your opinion. But when people disregard evidence and make claims such as "I searched Google and could find nothing" (when that's exactly how I found all the citations I put into the article), it seems like situational logic at work. I don't intend to impune anyone's integrity, I just don't understand it. When Billboard magazine notes her chart performance as " a notable achievement for the Organica signee, considering the format's almost exclusive reliance on multi-format hits released on major labels", I find it hard to rationalize people's reluctance to accept. Billboard is acknowledge by one voter as "reliable", but now it's not enough for this particular article. I do cherish diversity of opinion and I respect people who make the arguments eloquently and rationally, as I will acknowledge that you have done. I also appreciate honesty and consistency which I frequently find myself struggling to find in various corners of the project. I genuinely thank you for taking the time to write. Best regards. VertiumWhen all is saidand done00:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
You need to get Wikipedia into its proper perspective. It looks like an encyclopeadia, but the duck test it passes is one of being a glorious and huge social experiment that has fooled folk into thinking it is genuinely important. It shows that the wisdom of crowds is something that will always (0.9 probability) reduce everything to Lowest Common Denominator thinking. Many people here are excellent. Some are insanely poor.
If we do the challenging thing and look at the particular article where we have coincided, I think it was improved substantially. It reached the state where I would have been unlikely to nominate it for discussion, but, had it been nominated, would have been unlikely to participate in the discussion to suggest it be kept. Even so I appreciated the technical aspects of the closure. And I accept that I and the chap or chap-ess who closed it may either or both be wrong.
I like the fact that you have asked for a review, despite not supporting your request.
But you absolutely need to consider my view on the project as a whole. I don't expect you to agree with it, of course I don't, just to consider it well. I simply pass on to you the fact that I have had far more enjoyable times editing the thing as a pastime since I stopped thinking that anything that happens in Wikipedia World is important. I commend the movie Idiocracy to you; I believe it is absolutely relevant to the project. And I wish it were not so. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I have considered your position on the project as a whole. I agree with portions of it, and disagree with others... as is the case in so many circumstances. I genuinely appreciate your points on the technical aspect of the closure. The DRV process allows a process for the issue to be resolved by consensus, so we'll see where that takes us. Given that you've stated that the article's current status is such that you have been "unlikely to nominate it" for deletion, I'm hoping that if it is relisted, you'll support it being kept. It is unlikely a surprise to you that I've prepared my evidence for keeping it - and will certainly continue to work on the article should it be preserved. I agree with virtually all of your template insertions where additional citations are needed or desirable. Thanks for the civil dialogue. It's appreciated. VertiumWhen all is saidand done16:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I can promise to look at the article with fresh eyes. I can do this because it does not, as a topic, interest me much. I have no preconceived position on it save that I want to see either an article that has sufficient merit (I use the term to imply all that Wikipedia requires for an article to survive), and stays, or insufficient merit and goes. I will try not to be the first nor the last to !vote, assuming I am moved to give an opinion at all. I am a fickle creature (in my whimsy) you see.
Paradoxically, despite my view of the project as a whole, I care about the articles within it. I like to feel proud of the things I have touched, whether that be to create, improve, discuss, or to propose for deletion. I am nether inclusionist nor deletionist. Instead I am, I think, hobbyist.
I shall not seek to argue for the points I have made about the project that you disagree with, but I woudl be interested to talk about them, that you may understand my views better and that I may understand yours initially at all, and then better. But that ball is in your court. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Fresh eyes are all I can ask for.
The points of your perspective (as I understand them) with which I disagree are few. Rather than itemize them, let me give you an overall response, and I believe the nuances will reveal themselves. I do agree that the concept of any widespread wiki has an element of social experiment, though in my personal experience, I've seen crowdsourcing work very effectively to achieve a better outcome than would have otherwise been possible. I don't believe that the outcome is necessarily the lowest common denominator, but rather - if those who know better are passionate about the cause - it can actually serve to elevate the discussion to new heights. If the collection of knowledge is important to educating humanity, this is as good a place to do it as anywhere else. God knows we can't get the youth of today to actually read books.
The challenge within Wikipedia World (as you call it) is that the rules conflict and an argument can be made to support any position short of a personal attack. While Wikipedia presents itself as the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", that's not really the case. Despite the egalitarian nature that is purported to exist, there are those who game the system to get their way. That rubs me the wrong way, but I can live with that, because despite how it might seem on this particular article, my attention and effort here are typically spent trying to fight vandalism and to focus on articles about which I have some domain expertise. I'm the first to admit I'm no expert on the subject of Margo Rey - in fact I'm quite sorry I ever bothered working on it :), but I'm not one to give up easily. That said, I don't like seeing any article get deleted when there is sufficient information to make it better. It doesn't have to be perfect to be better. I get irked when some say things like "I did a google search and found nothing" yet I can find 3-4 sources immediately when I do a google. I can certainly live with articles being deleted (I've !voted for the deletion of many).
I've already gone on too long, I just wanted you to get a flavor of my perspective. It's only a hobby for me as well, though most time, I'd actually rather be watching Stephen Fry and the QI teams. Good talking with you. VertiumWhen all is saidand done21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect our pet hates overlap :) I detest the bringers of links to AfD discussions who are too damned lazy to add them to the article. "Here, see my cleverness!" that irks me. I challenge them to add their finds to the article, but I am equally guilty if I don;t really care about the article by not adding their finds to it! But that is fickleness and whimsy. Bring on Fry and QI any day. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean by "How would you personally between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? What are the appropriate actions for each?" means. I believe that you are missing word or two. ObtundTalk01:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I've also got some additional sources and grounds for notability. Some people here confuse WP:RS with WP:N. Notability is determined not only by coverage in secondary sources, especially for music. Her listing on the Billboard charts prove notability on its own. Once the notability hurdle is passed, the additional sources allow us to expand the article with verifiable sources. I look forward to your contributions once the article is reinstated. Happy to collaborate on it with you! VertiumWhen all is saidand done15:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margo Rey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arlington (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.
Hi Vertium. I've just been reading your proposals at CVUA with great interest. I'm pleased that there are now some active moves to improve the system. A couple of points that I feel could use even more emphasis are the ability to communicate in a mature manner with new users, warning blatant vandals appropriately (this isn't always done often enough), and leaving adequate edit summaries - although I understand that this is perhaps a fault of some of the 3rd party counter-vandalism apps. Much depends however, how strictly each 'instructor' applies these criteria when assessing for graduation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. I did try to emphasize the "polite and professional" manner of communication - which I believe would also cover maturity, as well as the appropriate warnings being given. Blatant vandals must be given warning each and every time (a benefit of the automated review tools). I agree that the uniformity of application is important, but I also know that there is almost always some instructional latitude with this in almost any educational setting. I know you have a background in education, so are no doubt familiar with this as well. It will undoubtedly come down to some degree of instructor review to ensure consistency, though there is resistance to "over-bureaucratizing" the CVUA, a sentiment I can understand from the "community" perspective, but find challenging from a purely educational administration perspective. If it's intended to teach people something, we should have a better degree of confidence that they've actually learned before we declare someone "graduated". As for the automated tools, I use Twinkle and STiki, both of which leave edit summaries for vandal reversions and both have the capability of leaving them for GF reversions as well. Personally, when making a GF reversion, I tend to do so manually, within the article itself instead of using a tool, so I can be very specific in the edit summary. As I'm sure you know, Twinkle doesn't automatically leave the warning, but does use the warning templates on the user's talk page when you so direct it. The leaving of a warning for vandalism should be mandatory. STiki does in fact automate the warnings and edit summary. If you find the warnings lacking, I know that I've seen Andrew West (author of STiki) be quite open to making updates to improve the quality of the tool's output, so if there's something specific that you find lacking, I'm sure it can be discussed on the STiki talk page. If you're not a user, I'm happy to hear your concerns and take them forward if they can't be addressed by the tool today. Thanks for taking an interest and for taking the time to write me. All the best to you... VertiumWhen all is saidand done09:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
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!
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!
I'll stick with your advice and continue to use Twinkle initially unless it's one of those obvious things like (-85,143) and a tag of Blanking. Vertium (talk to me) 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolved
Already done on WP:Cvua/e (for the archive bot) and added her to your current students on the status page. Have a look at those two pages (but you can do that after you talk to her) and go for it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:De facto currency
--Bradshaws1 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
