User talk:Vianello/Archives/2014/March

68.38.80.134

User_talk:68.38.80.134#February_2014 shows an indefinite block by you Feb 22, 2014. Special:Contributions/68.38.80.134 shows an edit on March 2. I removed as stale the Administrator intervention against vandalism report. I will leave any follow up to you. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for catching that. That was just a plain old mis-template on my part. The IP was temporarily blocked (72 hours) for its role in some sockpuppetry, and I mistakenly did the user account indef-block template and failed to notice until you pointed it out just now. I've removed the erroneous notice. The block has since run its course. Any more recent activity can be evaluated separately. - Vianello (Talk) 23:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	imscared.exe DO NOT RUN FruityEditor (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a reference to that "Imscared" game or not, but it's ominous enough to be up my alley either way. - Vianello (Talk) 23:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I really don't know what moved you to act on this AIV request, but in doing so, you bit a confused, non-English-speaking newbie pretty damn hard. I've already thoroughly chewed out the requester, so you can check there if you need explanation on why what you did was shitty. As an administrator, you have the responsibility to use your tools carefully and thoughtfully, not just because some notable name demanded it—you've been given a mop, not a club. Make it right and unblock the poor guy. Maybe bring in an Arabic-speaking editor while you're at it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ability to understand communications and warnings from other editors falls under the WP:COMPETENCE heading. The ability to both understand and communicate to others is something of a prerequisite for productive editing on this encyclopedia. Repeatedly instating the same edit over and over again does not become permissible behavior to continue simply because the user in question does not or can not understand the problem or explain their intentions. That being said, though, you have a point. The amount of warning and attempted communication given to this user was probably insufficient. For that reason, I am willing to lift the block and add another attempt at explaining the problem to them, as well as trying to assist in what they're attempting to do if possible (and within policy). The user does deserve more forewarning and explanation than they got, so I admit I was hasty and will set that straight. However, beyond that, lack of necessary skills (lingual, technical, or otherwise) is kind of a disqualifier from participation if a more graduated response doesn't resolve the problem. For now I've put a request on their talk page asking exactly what they're trying to accomplish and how I can help. Fair cop - I jumped the gun here. - Vianello (Talk) 10:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ability to provide truthful responses and display clueful judgement also falls under the purview of CIR, I should think. If you'll look at the talkpage, you'll see that Massoud did not make the "same edit over and over again", requesting changes to over a half-dozen locations using a variety of sources. Even the lone pair of accidental double-posts he made were not exactly identical. While I agree that after a point, editors who can't communicate well in English should be kindly directed to whatever sister project they speak the language of, no such chance had been provided to Massoud. That said, thank you for so quickly rectifying the situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

I can't help but read the imitation of the structure of my reply as sarcastic (and its conclusion as damning with faint praise), and I apologize if that was unintentional. Regarding your mention of "clueful judgment" and "truthful responses", I can only infer you point them out because they were lacking. Your feelings on the "cluefulness" of my judgments are your own, of course, and while I'll try to explain my intentions, assessing them is your call. But regarding "truthful response", if your implication is that was omitted, I admit I am extremely curious as to where you feel I have dissembled. If it is in regards to the similarity of the user's edits, "exactly identical" was your choice of characterization, not mine. If it was something else, I would like to know precisely in what regard I was untruthful. - Vianello (Talk) 23:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Vianello, you and I both acted appropriately, and Lothar von Richthofen's personal attacks (see my talk page), and retorts are bordering on disruptive behavior, not to mention their initial post on both of our talk pages are indicative of an unacceptable battleground mentality. As I mentioned on my talk page in a response, the only way anyone would have know based on the edit request what the user was hoping to accomplish was if they personally had interacted with the template in question (and since Lothar von Richthofen is the one that put it here on enwp, he has) before seeing the edit request. Furthermore, where was Lothar von Richthofen for the week from when the first request was posted until you blocked them. I offered multiple showings of good faith in offering them a welcome template full of useful links and leaving them a Teahouse invite so that had multiple ways to ask for help along with the 4im to encourage them to use another way to ask for what they wanted as apparently five tries with the same answer back wasn't getting through to them. Anyways, I maintain that you did a fine job. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I do stand by my reversion of my initial decision, but that's not meant to reflect negatively on you. At worst, I think, all you did was make a comment that might be considered impatient. I don't think there's any crime or harm in making a report, even if it's subjectively erroneous. Final call on actually acting on such reports falls with administrators, which puts any blame in their court. The reports are just notifications/suggestions, and that's no big deal. So I hope my reversal doesn't come across as a slight to you. - Vianello (Talk) 23:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cabarruscountylibrary

Apparently I'm missing something somewhere because I don't see what I'm supposed to do at this point with my requested name change to pschandler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabarruscountylibrary (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

from facistdeler

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal 

would say most science pages must be deleted

No, it would not. Encyclopedias, which this is, are not manuals, guidebooks, textbooks, or scientific journals. They still contain information on science topics. - Vianello (Talk) 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

but for what it's worth NO i had not yet seen wiki rules on Talk and have been used to people using them for chat and or related material

i will no longer do that

Much appreciated. That's all I ask. - Vianello (Talk) 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

i also notice europeans? have added thousands of rules, more rules than substance, to "what is an encyclopedia" (but there is an article on it, and the rules do not fit encyclopedic format themselves)

i do think if euros intend to away the ability for games or chatters to communicate on wiki there should be a chat button added (ie, no revisions, timed deletion)

That's not a bad idea. I'm confident (but not 100% certain) there are some off-wiki WP-related chat services (IRC and the like), but one on-site for that kind of thing would be kind of useful. I might look around for where you might submit an idea like that, and if I can get it figured out, I'll let you know where to make such a suggestion. - Vianello (Talk) 21:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

what's wrong here is there is one crowd trying to make it a "wiki pedia" and another trying to make it a password controlled "government run pedia with 5,000 rules" WHICH I MIGHT ADD contains highly biased information

so much so i might seek to end the 'gov grant' status or start my own

you can guess what i'd say to that

end of story i will say YOU ARE RIGHT, there is nothing wrong with wanting more out of an oline encyclopedia

but i do say: the format changed. being controlled by gov workers i don't want to pay. there are already plenty of "for profit" encyclopedias online

why should a select group of grant grabbers get paid to make another ?

are we clear ? the format is changing i'm not so sure i trust the "new group" to not backstab the public

Facistdeleter (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

THIS is where we get into problems

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy[edit] Policy shortcuts:

See also: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules "WP:BURO" redirects here. For the "bureaucrat" user access level, see WP:CRAT.

you cannot have it both ways. to develop a competing encyclopedia using USA grant status and absorbing USA time and money

while claiming a right to control information at a political / government level. to filter out what the rich do not "like"

they do not pay me. i'm shitting white at times now and have been tortured and also denied justice.

i do not care what they like.

what DO YOU know about me? what do you offer?

0

Facistdeleter (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing and not much, respectively. I'm just some guy who noticed a contravention of some established practices that might conceivably lead to trouble for you, so I wanted to give you a heads-up. - Vianello (Talk) 21:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

ANOTHER exmaple of what i'm talking of

List of rampage killers[edit] Dispute of Graphs[edit]

The graph cites number of dead v. total population. However (see Bath incident) the number of dead per incident isn't related to the number of incidents or population.

The graph completely neglects the incidents are un-related historically. The mass killings of a workers union being assaulted by a company is not related to the number of workplace killings in any way whatsoever.

The dispute is: the graph makes a case of declining events and we all know the number events are increasing. And we can suspect a liberal political, even facism, in the biased making of such false presentations. (facsim: gov will tell you what to do using weapons if you protest, you must comply, they raise taxes if you vote for it or not)

---

now note above i'm unable to delete a political article and if i submit material exposing it as a backstab to the public

some gov worker deletes and and IP blocks me

---

you are trying to selling me an upside down cake, an upside down cross, having two sets of rules one for "admins" (gov workers) the other for the "uneducated" (possibly dr who are sick of gov workers taking every liberty to remove liberty)

I DO agree it'd be nice to have the thing more encyclopedic. why not add a wiki (people) talk section

why not add a "vote" button (page goes up in heirarchy, down). most informational sites enjoy a "vote" button

now as to barnstorming. prove it. i know you can't. i know it's wiki grant corp that is the one barn storming

Facistdeleter (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You're asking me to prove something on a topic (barnstorming) I'm not particularly making claims about. Respectfully, I don't see much need to prove a claim that I'm not making in the first place. We do actually sort of have a page "hierarchy" system, though. Articles can be assigned grades and classes, which are usually listed on the tops of their talk pages. It's not decided by a flat vote, though, and I admit, I don't think people usually do their browsing based on this categorization. At any rate, let me take a jab at your concerns about editing. Not quite sure what else to tell you on that, unfortunately, especially without knowing exactly what edits you're wanting to make. My basic rule of thumb: Information in an article is just a paraphrased compilation of things external reliable sources have said. Adding info based on "everybody knows it" won't fly, and for good reason. There are a lot of things "everybody knows" that are wrong (the classic examples of "People swallow X number of spiders in their sleep" or "porcupines can shoot their quills" for instance). But if an external reliable source says "These events are increasing in frequency" or something along those lines, it'd be fine to just add a neutrally-worded mention of that, with the corresponding citation. I know this sounds like a really slow, dull way to handle things, but at least ideally, an article should just consist of information gathered from specific, cited, external sources. Are they, always? Boy, I wish. But if you make your addition like that - just adding the input of an external source, not an "expose" - then it's pretty highly unlikely to get you blocked outright, in my experience. If you do and that happens, submit an unblock request, and I'll drop by to give a word in your defense. It's the most I can offer, I'm afraid, but hopefully it helps. - Vianello (Talk) 22:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Facistdeleter is a sockpuppet: see here. He's been blocked for harassment on Commons. INeverCry 22:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The heads-up is much appreciated! - Vianello (Talk) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Violation of 3 revert rule

Sir, for the past days the user User:Chanderforyou violated the 3 Revert Rule as he is reverting my new made article. Please take strict action against this user. Plus he is engaged in Edit war mall (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for passing this along. Unfortunately, the user you are referring to has made three edits to Viraj Dobriyal as far as I can tell, and only two of these were reversions. The first edit is technically just an edit, as they are not reverting anything. The second two were reversions, however, because they reverted your reversion of the article. If they continue to exceed a total of three reversions, please file a report at WP:ANEW. Let me know if you need help with filing that report if it becomes necessary. However, please be cautious. Bear in mind that you have technically also reverted this user a total of three times, and further reversions would surpass 3RR. It is important not to address edit warring with more edit warring. Thank you for reaching out for assistance. - Vianello (Talk) 18:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

deletion of Ryan Lawrie

I've added some new references for some press by local press, television and radio. I hope that you would reconsider the deletion of this page as I now believe it meets the following criteria for Notability(Music)

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

Thanks! That's very helpful. However, you may want to copy this message over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Lawrie, as that's where this kind of input needs to be taken note of. Please let me know if you're unsure how to go about that. - Vianello (Talk) 23:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vianello , could you walk me through this i'm a bit unsure

Sure thing. Just go to the page I linked, and under the current bottom content, start a new line with an asterisk (*), then a one-word summary of how you think the article should be handled, enclosed in three apostrophes to bold it. Here, if you want, you can try just copying and pasting this below:

* '''Keep'''. I've added some new references for some press by local press, television and radio. I hope that you would reconsider the deletion of this page as I now believe it meets the following criteria for Notability(Music) ~~~~

If that doesn't make it look like you want it to, you can tweak/edit it as you like. - Vianello (Talk) 23:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks added it now , cheers