User talk:Curesearcher

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Curesearcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

What institution are you affiliated with? Also, how are you selecting which users you are notifying about this on their talk pages? Cirt (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. Durova^Charge! 02:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it's necessary for this editor's real-world identify to be revealed, at least to some trusted Wikipedia authority. Otherwise there is no way to rule out phishing here. Looie496 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

selecting candidates from discussion boards - Just curious - which discussion boards? How? Cirt (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thats not a problem. My name is Marc Rich, you can find me at the CU website under the Communication Department. Feel free to contact me therehttp://comm.colorado.edu/people.php?ccat=grad and why don't we leave the servey at the colorado.edu adress you find on that page...since that is obviously a educational e-mail.

as for the exact methodology of choice, it was some random, others where chosen based on interactions I observed within the community...although it really dosn't matter in regard to the servey because there will be no way for me to tie your electronic identity to an e-mail unless you want me to. thank you again.Curesearcher (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this seems quite doubtful - the "Curesearcher" who claims to be a graduate student no less, misspelled "servey", not once but twice, as well as "adress", "dosn't", uses all lowercase, and "a educational e-mail" should read start with "an"... Cirt (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully declining the offer. It's a bit unsettling to see this approach, particularly where people who have recent or ongoing involvement in a sensitive arbitration case appear to be preferentially targeted for no explained reason. It does not impress that the editor posts to the admin boards while failing to note that he provided a university email only after concerns arose. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

durova, no offence is taken at your decline. I would like to clarify the order of events in order to show that it was good faith errors on my behalf. my plan was to e-mail the editors from wikipedia, but that link disappeared from the last time I saw the user pages. so plan B was to post the survey on my user page but then I realized that posting my Colorado account e-mail was probably not the brightest thing, so I set up a g-mail account (you are not the only guys who don't want to be spammed, I am sure that you understand why I wouldn't want my Colorado e-mail on wikipedia for all to see...) for the purposes of this survey. Then I hit the random page button, and started asking users who where participating in discussions.

Some users where not random, but I have no idea about an arbitration hearing (although looking at your talk page, you are frequently involved in higher level discussions, so I assure you that it is coincidence). In casing Wikipedia a few editors discussions showed a higher proficiency in Wikipedia rules and their comments tended to steer the discussion, so I made sure to ask those editors as well. The choice however rested entirely on talk pages.

Some of the not random came from: Scientology Alcoholics Anonymous

Since those tend to be heated topicsCuresearcher (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Curesearcher. Not meant necessarily that you have done anything wrong - I'd just like to get extra eyes on this. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited link[edit]

This is the talk page of another researcher (a journalist), who made a somewhat similar approach asking questions of experienced users some time ago. What you see may give you some perspective on how such questioning has been viewed by the wikipedia community in the past. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well unfortunately the e-mail feature has been disabled (as far as I can tell)...so a comment on user pages was my only resort. I didn't think about posting to the village pump…I will be glad to do that once this investigation is cleared upCuresearcher (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt...do you doubt the validity of the e-mail address...or just the quality of the spelling? I have provided the link to my university's page, the e-mail address I provided matches the one that is listed on a valid university page, and you can even contact one of my colleagues and ask them if Marc Rich is a poor speller...and they will probably have a lot to say on that topic (and I will probably get hell for it from my friends). you are much more astute with the grammar and for that I applaud you...but I don't think that should be a valid reason for questioning the authenticity of my survey...in communication we call it an ad-hominim (never could spell that one right) fallacy in logic as a matter of fact.

now on that note, I realize that you are all encyclopedia editors, and poor spelling and grammar are things that you look for and grate at your nerves so you have my apologies for not running one of my comments through a spell checker first I was actually responding to an edit conflict, and it slipped my mind on the wiki etiquette.Curesearcher (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. no offence taken at all. I am actually suprised at all the attention.Curesearcher (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty, open-mindedness, thick skin. These are some of the the qualities of a successful wikipedian. Do some reading at the link I suggested and from the welcome template. BusterD (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming user talk pages isn't the best way to go to solicit input. It comes across as disruptive. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement from me. I think the case of User:FFFearless includes such a lesson. Another: don't bite the newbie too hard. I encourage the user to learn this lesson the easy way, from the experiences of others, as opposed to taking too many smacks himself. I urge the user to pause for time, cycle what he's learned already, and come back more aware of the consequences of unsolicited communication. BusterD (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how would the community accept this survey? I heard something about a village pump, would posting a request on that page be more in line with the community values? if you could help me out with this, I would appriciate it.Curesearcher (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia, we often talk about the bold, revert, discuss cycle. We usually mean something very specific, like the insertion of new content, but this situation isn't so dissimilar. You've done something bold (contacted a dozen or so users out of the blue), and folks are reverting (or reacting), and now we're discussing. You are clearly not the first person to try this, and there's a predictable response. You've made several good-faith efforts to clear the air and demonstrate you're responsive. I would suggest, as I already have several times, to pause and read. I could recommend the 2nd and 3rd emails posted here to help you have some perspective. Feel free to continue to call on me. BusterD (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone involved[edit]

something has really been bothering me...and I figured out what it was. in good faith, I have placed my personal information on Wikipedia, including my employer, my friends names and faces, the town I live in, and enough information that anyone who logs on can find out who I am...and because I made a typo... well what??? under the guise of "he may be a spammer" I was personally slandered, had my integrity questioned not because anyone really cared, but because some editors thought it would be fun to make fun of a typo.

you could have e-mailed me but you didn't because that would have probably cleared things up and stopped what I can only call a grammar Nazi orgasm... the thing was I am not on wikipedia only as "Cu Researcher" but as my real identity...I am not hiding behind an anonymous screen name, I was personally slandered...and there was no "good faith" involved. I know I put myself out there, but I feel like you guy's fished personal information from me, then spent time making fun of me (you didn't check the e-mail, just poked at my spelling) and now what??? what are you going to do with my real identity now?Curesearcher (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this last comment is a poor caricature of what actually happened, in writing it I was attempting to excuse myself of any wrongdoing. The truth is that I gave every editor many reasons to be suspicious, and while I may not like the result that happened, it was justified and I understand why. I am sorry for the trouble that I caused.Curesearcher (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could you please help out?[edit]

I am currently a graduate student, working on a semester project regarding Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be able to privately answer a few questions in reference to your personal experience with Wikipedia in order for me to get your view on the website. The questions are on my user page, and if you could answer in them in word and e-mail them to the address shown that would be really helpful. Your anonymity is assured, and any personal information you give will never be used outside of this questionnaire. Thank you for your time.Curesearcher (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I always try my best to help out :O)[edit]

Dear Curesearcher,

I am honestly flattered to have a graduate student contacting me for a semester project regarding Wikipedia.

I will be happy to privately answer to your following questions.

Just please register with a hushmail address and write me to wiki-friend@hushmail.com.

I want this to be absolutely clear: I will accept NO other forms of communications right now.

Questions.

# How did you first get involved with Wikipedia?

# Why did you end up setting up an account, and what benefits/hindrances have you encountered because of your account?

# How has your editing changed since you first started?

# Tell me about how you use your watchlist page.

# How do the rules of Wikipedia affect your interactions with other editors?

# What are the elements of Wikipedia you find most helpful in interacting with other editors, and what elements you find hinder the process.

In the meantime, please have a nice and relaxed sunday.
Thanks for your attention.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting your email from spam[edit]

If you change your email on your userpage to "richmh (at) colorado (dot) edu" or something similar, that will greatly reduce any webcrawler from spamming your email account. --64.85.214.246 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]