This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Your ANI comments in the Turian thread indicated a partial misunderstanding of WP:HARASS policy.
It is long-established that posting to people's talk pages after they have requested you to stop is harassment, under the policy. Doing so in context of other abusive behavior contributes to justification to block.
It's not OK. Admins will enforce it if/when we become aware of it being violated. Notifications of noticeboard postings and admin warnings are exceptions to that - "doing business" as it were - but personal comments aren't ok after being told to stop.
Even if that were in the policy, my ANI comment would not necessarily indicate any misunderstanding. However I've read through WP:HARASS, and don't see what you've described there anyway.
Giving commands to your opponent in a conflict just isn't effective. When tempers have already flared, genuinely stopping the argument is likely not your top priority; instead you're trying to get in more shots and goad your opponent, which is exactly what a command to "stop posting on my talk page" should be viewed as. Being familiar with conflict, Malleus was fully aware of this.
I could nevertheless understand if one or both parties were too far into it at that point to be thinking at all, but in that case the discussion should've just been forcefully closed, maybe accompanied by trouts and warnings for both sides. Blocking only one party, just because they didn't heed a "don't post here anymore" comment in the depths of a conflict like that, is a superficial response to the last event without considering the whole. Both parties were being equally bullheaded.
People who want to be seen as having attempted to discontinue an exchange need to have made a genuine effort. They need to stop fighting themselves, not make faux attempts that actually encourage the opposite. Equazcion(talk) 08:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Are these still just Jimbo's deletions or does this include all those with the "out of project scope" and "porn site" (Black Falcon's suggestion) in their summaries? Equazcion(talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is the regex I used: /com:ps|scope|porn|cleanup/i Is that good enough? I did not look specifically for Jimbo's deletions this time, but I did retrieve the last 1000 contribs versus the last 500 since more images had been deleted since I generated the first list. PleaseStand(talk) 22:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. This user has made a single post (so far) on the BMW 3 series [1], however given the nature of the post - vandalism - and their slightly suspect name, I thought I'd pass it onto an adminstrator. a_man_alone (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator :) but no harm done. Even if I were, all anyone can really do is wait and watch til they act again. That is, unless the username is a violation, but I'm not really even picking up on what's suspicious about it. Equazcion(talk) 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I kind of assumed you were an admin as you frequent the Admin noticeboard. Chips Dubbo is a character from Halo - although I can only glean that from Google, as I've never played it, but friggin is considered profanity by most people - although the severity is up for debate. Administrator or not, I wasn't expecting an immediate ban, just awareness. a_man_alone (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair point
[2] I did think that the paragraphs starting "in all cases" probably refered to both situations in the previous paragraph but meant "when blocking use a neutral summary". I think was wrong, however, and your revert of my revert was probably correct. We'll find out if KnightLago makes any more changes, I guess... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the less clear-cut cases the arbitration committee would handle the potential block, so there's no need to detail how the block should go in that situation. In general though, if you see an error like that, it's probably better to attempt to correct it rather than reverting the entire thing wholesale; or if you don't have a clear idea of how to go about that, maybe bring it up on the talk page. Equazcion(talk) 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. Wholesale reverting is rather extreme, I grant you, especially when the reverted edit is particularly complex for one reason or another. Talking is always better! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The Game
What is going on is that the same editor switches IPs and continues to make edits using sources that are not reliable or like the hollywoodreporter, requires membership to access the page. The editor knows all of this from past discussions and continues to insert changes that aren't adequately and reliably sourced. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am editing but not switching my IP address. I saw your comment on edits I made to The Game. I explained here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Game_(U.S._TV_series)#5.2F14_changes_i_made_to_article , my edits. I went thru the older versions and built from them.Is there a page on wikipedia directions saying what are and arent reliable sources? The hollywood reported does not need memberhsip. Thanks. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm able to access all of them without membership, and they seem relatively reliable to me. What specifically are your concerns with these, WHL? Equazcion(talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I will report the IP for violating WP:3RR, after having been directly warned not to edit it again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
You're guilty of the same violation, WHL, and I will be sure to note that in the report you make. I'm sorry you're so unwilling to discuss this. Equazcion(talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look into it deeper. Oh, and I only reverted 3 times on that page. There was one a couple days before the three, but I stopped before I violated 3RR. I double and triple checked that I didn't go over 3. This has been a royal pain on that page for some time, but it is mostly from IPs and hard to track down to make SPI reports. I have to think that past history made the editor be so aggressive. I appreciate the apology. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for telling me about the report. I did reply there. About this :
My support of this anonymous user is starting to waiver. They seem to be switching IPs very rapidly, and also seem intent on restoring their exact version, which includes grammar, spelling, and other style errors. Equazcion (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC) ... why is your support waivering,I am not swithcing ips. Where are the grammar, spelling, and other style errors. errors 69.138.165.244 (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I see you integrated my edits. Thanks for that. That is all I wanted all this time. We all are here to contribute. I see my error in my titling. Could you make a few corrections for me.
<1>In the curent verision it says Mara Brock Akil will return. This is not correct. The source supports this. Mara is working for ABC, Coby Bell is not back FT, he is a recurring character . Below is the correct information for the 'cancel and revival' section
Cancellation and revival
As The CW moved to make its schedule free of half-hour comedies, series creator Mara Brock Akil attempted to convince the network to air the series as an hour-long, single-camera series like the other shows on CW.[1] On May 20, 2009, Entertainment Weekly announced that the series was officially cancelled.[2]
On March 15th, 2010 AOL Black Voices reported that cable channel BET struck a deal with The Game's parent company Paramount to develop new episodes of series [3][4]. Production moves from California to Atlanta, and will begin in May; with new episodes to air in the Fall. Actor Coby Bell will be only a recurring character since he has joined the California based cable USA network show Burn Notice[5].
On April 15th, 2010, BET announced the renewal of "The Game" [6] at its April upfronts. Series creator and executive producer Mara Brock Akil now works for ABC 's Cougar Town as consulting producer so she will not be involved with the show; however she will get executive producer credit. Her husband Salim Akil will take over as showrunner[7].
Thank You. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
An amazing learning curve: the previous detailed post from an IP who didn't know what a "diff" was less than an hour ago. Ever seen "The Thing"? Doc9871 (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your problem You and that other editor need to check your attitudes. Your brain didnt think hmm I guess she read the link Goodness 69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Was I rude? Jeez... sorry! You go from perfect English to sloppy and intentionally evasive. Goodness! Doc9871 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes I found it rude, I feel you were being a smart sss, like you didn't think I would understand. What is sloppy and intentionally evasive about what I wrote? 69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A serious lack of punctuation is sloppy, especially for an encyclopedia. "Being a smart-ass is a whole lot better than being a dumb-ass", my Momma always told me. Equazcion probably doesn;t want this to continue here, but you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
THANK YOU !
Thank Allah, Krishna, Vishnu, G_d, David, Jehovah and more for
User:Equazcion. User:Equazcion you actually tok the time to look at the article, look at the edits, look at the links. You integrated the edits. I appreciate your work. You make Wikipedia worthwhile. 69.138.165.244 (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Mind your own business
What has it got to do with you? As a regular he should know better than to add unsourced original research. Warning valid, and I will add further warnings if user persists. magnius (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You can warn if you like, but I wouldn't use warning templates. Sarek will likely remove them himself even if I don't, as most experienced users would. And "mind your own business" is really not a valid remark on Wikipedia... everyone gets into each other's business here all the time; we're encouraged to. If you want privacy, this is not the place. Equazcion(talk) 13:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know there was an essay about templating the regulars. Wish I'd known about it. He did the same thing to me the other day after I'd added something with a [citation needed] tag and was looking for a reference, and I wasn't best pleased about it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
2nd ANI for iLuvrihanna24
You commented on the first ANI for this user but just a month later similar issues so i thought the 2nd ANI for him/her would interest you.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Iluvrihann24's POV-pushing, disobeyal of community opinion/practises and repeated disruption of Rated R, Rihanna discography and "Te Amo". Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
SRQ
I have filed an SPI here, just so you know. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, I'm watching it now. Equazcion(talk) 21:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem! It's amazingly obvious, really. (Sigh) Doc9871 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It does look like her. Also interesting is that the IPs who "vandalized" her talk page back then were also from a Verizon cell phone. Of course many people have Verizon cells, but still. Those vandalisms always struck me as being awfully valueless and ineffective for any of her opponents to have perpetrated. Equazcion(talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
"Mmmm-hmmm", as a certain someone would say... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, you said in one edit summary and then on the talk page that the IP made an edit that was identical to one SRQ made before being blocked. If you could find those diffs it would really help the sock case. I noticed they weren't in your SPI comment. Equazcion(talk) 22:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where you mean. Point me to it and I'll find the diffs... Doc9871 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, looks like I confused you with DocOfSoc. My bad. I was close, anyway :) Equazcion(talk) 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Heee heee! I notified her especially; she's put up with a lot from SRQ over the years... Doc9871 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried looking for things and failed miserably. However, I did note that she clearly stated that she used Verizon when her rollback was removed back in January. That is a bit of a duck, afaik. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It never even dawned on me that she was her own bigot to the postings on her own page. Gosh, all the lectures she gave about those postings too. I wonder if she really had email sent to her or if she sent that to herself too? I hope this get stopped quickly. I know she used her cell phone to rollback two editors on my talk page. This was brought to AN/i and she said it was an accident and was believed. I never understood though how you could have an accident like that twice since the two rollbacks were something like two hours apart. I'll be watching the SPI too. If I think of anything I'll add it there. Doc of Soc is the one who thought of who she was first from what I can tell so I think her adding the dif that triggered her suspecisions would be useful to the report. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the code fixes, E! I added this, btw - maybe there'll be a response at the SPI... but I doubt it. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for notifying the user, I neglected to do that when adding them to the SPI. I eagerly await their comments. Equazcion(talk) 23:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question. If it isn't Rosemead, Temple City, or Montebello, which is it? Man, this is getting weirder by the minute. Oh, the cowboy responded in typical sock fashion, I'm sure you saw... Doc9871 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw yeah. It would be good if DocOfSoc were a bit more specific when commenting on this. I saw your added evidence too, was impressed with the work you did finding those similar phrases. I knew this user sounded like SRQ but was too lazy to actually go finding similar text. Thanks for doing that, it'll help the case. Equazcion(talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Anytime! But, you know I didn't do it for me or you; but rather for the "good of Wikipedia in general" (heehee). Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW - It's interesting that SRQ didn't actually "read up" on edit warring until May 19 when the term was mentioned way back on May 6. All the while engaging in it! It's amazing how quickly some can pick up policy (or never could)... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Any idea how long these things take to process? Is there a way to "speed it up"? It's my very first SPI, and I'm 100% positive it's SRQ. The suspense is killing me... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
They notoriously take a while. There aren't enough checkusers available to handle all the cases in a "timely" fashion, which is why they're actually in the process of electing more of them right now. Til then, we might be waiting a few days, unfortunately. If SRQ becomes more of an immediate problem that semi-protection doesn't cure, you can make an ANI report and have something done in the interim, perhaps. Equazcion(talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice! No response from the accused yet... I (for one) am totally shocked... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
TY!
DocOfSoc has given you a Girl Scout cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Tbsdy thing on ANI
Advice only, certainly not telling you to do anything: As someone else on the enemies list, I'd be inclined to leave it alone, and remove your ANI post. It's not gonna show up on any kind of google search on your name, because your name is piped; he's lost credibility here, so I'm not concerned I'm on his enemies list anyway, no one is going to modify their behavior towards me because of it; I'm pleased to be in the same company as others on that list; and I'm more than happy to trade being listed on an enemies list in an off the beaten path talk page for his non-participation here. If you ignore him, he may go away. if you don't, he probably won't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exactly embarrassed by it either. I guess I have an ulterior motive, which is to point out the unchanging behavior, to an audience wider than merely his talk page watchers, should the user decide to come back. I find it's usually better to make a record of having noticed these things for the future. Equazcion(talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
All should drop the Tbsdy thing. I share concerns re recent stuff, but I'm old-time here, as is he. He's done a lot of good here, more than most. Show some respect for that. Jack Merridew 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not big on that way of thinking. Maybe he did a lot of good, but I don't think that should excuse future indiscretions. Perhaps some leeway, but clear and repeated violations shouldn't be overlooked due to a good reputation. Equazcion(talk) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood me; I'm not at all keen on what I've seen from him recently. I'm not excusing anything. But everyone should stop poking him. I'm not specifically targeting the above comments or any specific ones elsewhere. Just sayin' that it's time to drop it. If shite continues, it's a different story. Jack Merridew 02:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I did misunderstand you then. I'm not sure which poking you're referring to; maybe giano's comments do qualify though, but I was never too thrilled with his behavior either. Equazcion(talk) 02:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
All of it. Re: Giano, we do differ. Jack Merridew 03:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Why did you move a page based on a "course" into the MoS?
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Actually, the vandal was right, there was indeed further vandalsim to that article, so I fixed that too. Those darned kids LOL. SeaphotoTalk 15:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello... I noticed your edit summary at the FlashForward TV article. FYI, the rationale is that the creative work continues to exist, even if there are no new episodes being produced. (You can still watch the series, be it in reruns, syndication, or on DVD etc.) We would also not write that Gone with the Wind "was" a film, or War and Peace "was" a book. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 05:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I kind of disagree with it though. It seems excessively pedantic even for an encyclopedia. When a series is over, it's generally referred to in the past tense, despite the fact that it technically still "exists". In fact I'd venture a guess that if there is an encyclopedia of TV series somewhere, they refer to them in the past tense. I don't care enough to challenge it though. But thanks again. Equazcion(talk) 07:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Is She Back?
Please checkout the Ryan Seacrest article. I spent several hours reorganizing, and categorizing the article, only to have it reverted. Input please. Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback please. DocOfSoc (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm much more familiar with SRQ's discussion style than I am with her editing style. It doesn't look like you were entirely reverted exactly... I'm not sure exactly what was done, but comparing the version just before your edits with the IP's edit [3] shows differences. Equazcion(talk) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"Our" report, Equazcion? Uh oh; maybe she was right after all... (chuckle) ;> Doc9871 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent evidence, Equazcion! I'm glad you found the "Find-A-Grave" thing; I couldn't for the life of me. The report is much better now (and can you believe there was a response at the SPI?). Hopefully this will get processed soon. Cheers, and thanks again! Doc9871 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and yeah I hope it gets looked at soon too. Equazcion(talk) 21:36, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)
You are a much appreciated!
Thank you for fixing the boxes at "Molly Bee". I have yet to learn that skill. Shalom! DocOfSoc (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we remove it until she can explain it? It doesn't fit in with the rest of the report... Doc9871 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I think so. I just removed it. If this was a mistake I'd also like to remove the comments pertaining to it, but I'll wait for DocOfSoc to get back to us first. Equazcion(talk) 18:37, 2 Jun 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope we find which of the IPs were deemed unrelated; because that was clearly her point by switching so much. A fiendish tactic used only by banned or indefinitely blocked editors bent on socking (for whatever twisted reason). I'll do what research I can when asked, and you have also done a very great job. We both know it's her... it just is. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be "hitting the save button under the edit summary" right now... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Good work all around on this. I'd like to see the second account blocked and if possible a range block on the IP's. If you look at the history Doc you will see that Luke had listed the ones in common and then changed the format. From memory, the 70 IP's were her and the 90's. I put a comment at the case about the blocking of these. I think a clerk comes around and finishes up the clean up of marking accounts, sometimes they are administrators so they also finish the blocking and comment is made about duck. I think whoever comes to close the case will say or do something, that is if they see the new comments we all made about this. I didn't know if we were allowed to comment down by where Luke made his comments but maybe a short note to read the last group of messages are allowed? Equazcion, do you know if we can leave a note so that they read the rest of our concerns prior to closing it and archiving? Thanks all, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
People can be surprisingly sticklerish about formatting; I'd keep out of the clerks' section myself. I'm sure whoever comes by to close the case will read the entire thing anyway, even the end. No need to remind them to read any particular part, as far as I'd figure. Equazcion(talk) 09:42, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)
I agree so instead I went to the source and talked with Luke about things. He has responded at my talk page and at the SPI page. He blocked the second account and suggested we take the rest of it to AN/i for discussion. Take a look at the SPI case. My talk page is pretty much a duplicate and about some other things we were talking about. Now the question is, who's up to taking it to AN/i? I hate that board to be honest but... I'm going to be leaving here soon so if I get chosen to take it to AN/i it will have to be at a later time. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Luke is mistaken, and taking this to ANI will only get us a barrage of comments about how we should just let it get handled at SPI. I was (and still am) under the impression that checkuser isn't the end of an SPI like this, and that ANI isn't where DUCK is determined. That's why we have SPI in the first place. It's not just a place to request checkusers. ANI isn't the venue for a sockpuppet investigation. If/when the SPI determines that it's SRQ, the corrective measure could then be determined at ANI. If admins are overlooking the SPI report for some reason now that checkuser is completed, mistakenly thinking everything is resolved, then we'll just have to keep contacting other admins until someone does handle this correctly. We could maybe even make an ANI posting just as an advertisement that this case needs eyes. Equazcion(talk) 17:12, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)
The case has finally been moved along. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Legumes
I think that reverting or conventionally deleting the material is sufficient. I've watch-listed the page and warned the IP. It looks like he's more interested in getting a reaction than in building the encyclopedia. WP:DENY. Will Bebacktalk 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for your attention on this. Equazcion(talk) 09:09, 3 Jun 2010 (UTC)
Notify SRQ
It's still mandatory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Even for a banned user who wouldn't be able to legitimately participate in the discussion? That's news to me, but ok. Her talk page is currently full-protected though, so you'll have to do the honors. Equazcion(talk) 18:08, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)
• headdesk* Gee, I wonder who could have possibly protected it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hehe. Hey with that week or so you spent without the bit, it's understandable you maybe forgot you ever had it. Equazcion(talk) 18:43, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)
Just do it. "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[4]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you." It is proper. I'd do it myself, but, ya know... Doc9871 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't, again, since the the page is full-protected. Sarek has apparently notified her via email though. Equazcion(talk) 16:14, 5 Jun 2010 (UTC)
You know the easier way would have been to take down the protection. :) If she abused it again, protection could have been returned. Just a thought, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Although you've been registered here a while, I thought I'd welcome you nonetheless.
Thanks for your work on the Rock n' Roll Fantasy Camp article, and congrats on launching David Fishof, which I see you've been working on for a while.
A couple of pointers, though:
Foremost, you seem to have a pretty focused topic of interest here, which is the fantasy camp and its founder. While that's generally fine, it does seem rather obvious that you either are this person, or work for him, or otherwise have his interests in mind when editing. Wikipedia has rules about conflict of interest and using Wikipedia to promote a business. Although this topic has been your main focus I'd advise stepping back from it and letting neutral parties revise your work, to make sure it isn't seen as spam.
Also, you had your user page redirected to an article. That's generally not allowed, so I've reverted it, and placed a link on your page instead.
Let me know if you have any questions about this, or about anything else. You can reply right here below this message, or on my talk page. Hope to see you around! Equazcion (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Equazcion,
Sorry to direct a message to you on your personal talk page, but I left my response on my talk page where you first contacted me and on the talk page of the article, but some days have passed with no response, so as you stated in your letter, I am contacting you here.
Thank you for your expertise in editing my page. Taking into consideration that the following changes have been made:
(cur | prev) 20:50, 28 May 2010 Equazcion (talk | contribs) (5,961 bytes) (edited heavily to remove promotional language/content, misc CE, merged very short sections, removed IMDb and Wikipedia as invalid refs per WP:RS, rm "cultural ref" (youtube vid), rm non-existent image) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:26, 28 May 2010 Equazcion (talk | contribs) (8,078 bytes) (→Rock 'n' Roll Fantasy Camp: no need for this list here, it's in the main article. also copy edited especially for less promotional language) (undo)
is it now possible to have the box removed from the page that states: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."?
You advised stepping back from it and letting neutral parties revise my work which I have thankfully done. Glad you have taken an interest as a drummer! Thanks again for all your hard work! Hope to see you around too!
I'm somewhat inactive on Wikipedia right now. From what I remember, I left the tag on David Fishof because you did seem to continue editing that article even after you said you'd step back, even reversing some of my edits made in the interest of neutralizing the language. I'd like someone else to take a look at the situation before removing the tags. You might try posting a message at WP:COIN to get input. Equazcion(talk) 04:49, 30 Jun 2010 (UTC)
It's Over... Again?
Cheers, Equazcion. It ain't truly over yet, though, apparently[5][6]. Whatever... Doc9871 (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. At least she's indef'd now. I'm somewhat inactive right now but thanks for the notice and good luck. Equazcion(talk) 04:49, 30 Jun 2010 (UTC)
A well-deserved barnstar
The Barnstar of Excellence
Your work is noticed and appreciated. Keep it up! --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Much appreciated. Equazcion(talk) 04:49, 30 Jun 2010 (UTC)
I just came across the talk page of the Venus project article. I gotta say I admire your patience with those editors. Your messages never lost the cool and respectful tone, and you presented your arguments clearly time and again, despite repeated comments that IMHO seem like attempts at wikilawyering. I would give you a barnstar if I was used to that and knew where to find the right one. As I don't, accept my kudos and admiration. Cheers, Waldirtalk 22:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Kudos are more than enough, no barnstar needed :) Thanks. For an argumentative feller like myself it's always a nice little ego boost when someone says I argued well. Equazcion(talk) 04:49, 30 Jun 2010 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Service_awards#Help_with_nocat_usercategory
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? --bodnotbod (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:'N Sync restored.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
We'd like to show our appreciation for those who have so far contributed significantly by offering the MVP's of the design process the opportunity to select one nonfeatured article to appear in the trading card game. Your name is on our list of MVP's. Please submit your proposal hereBob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 05:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
New article you might want to look at
Last year you commented on a deletion discussion of [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_related_to_prevalence_of_Jews_in_leadership_roles_in_Hollywood| Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood]. The related article Jewish control of the media has been created by an editor and has some issues, discussed in talk, you might want to comment upon. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
File:Ball lightning appears cropped.jpg listed for deletion
someone referred me to you to talk about getting a custom signature.. I was wondering if you could help me.
Best Wishes,
--SylvieHorse (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't help you; Not only because I'm not really active on Wikipedia anymore, but also because you don't seem to be a constructive user (for example). I know, your sister did it. Equazcion(talk) 18:53, 19 Jan 2011 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Equazcion, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
So I figured out how to get the toolbar to work in Firefox 4. My question for you is, can you either transfer the ownership to me, or give me developer access? I figure this way those that do have it installed will automatically receive the update, and there won't be multiple listings for Wikipedia Toolbars in the addon directory. I'll obviously credit you however you like for creating it. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed you edited but didn't respond, so I just want to make sure you notice this. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I saw your message but didn't have time to look into it (but apparently I had time to edit? maybe that's just an excuse for laziness then). I checked my admin controls at Mozilla and I can apparently add you as an author, just need an email address. You can post it here or email it to me through Wikipedia. Equazcion(talk) 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I just know the yellow notification disappears once you view your talk page, even if you don't read it, but either way:
Hello, Equazcion. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I was wondering how I can add a user box to my page that would tell me, and others, how many people are watching me. I see that you have created such a user box but I'm not certain how to create one for myself. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The box is placed using {{user:Equazcion/User watched|75}}, where "75" is replaced with the number of users watching you. As you can see the number needs to be typed in and updated manually, since there's no mechanism in the wiki software to do it automatically yet. To check how many people are watching you, you would go to your user page's history, then click the "number of watchers" link near the top. Unfortunately though, the number of users won't show unless there are over 30, and I see you haven't reached that threshold yet. You can make your own educated guess in the meantime though. No one polices the accuracy of these things. :) Equazcion(talk) 02:35, 2 Jun 2011 (UTC)
Cool! Thank you very much for your help. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Remark on your remark
Hi Equazcion. Regarding your remark, let me just say the following. From the conclusion of the arbitration case in 2009 until yesterday, I have purposefully avoided commenting on anything about it, including the large number of wikidramatic episodes after the initial decision which led to the year-long site-banning of Brews ohare. Moreover, I have no desire nor intention to expound on my three sentences on the talk page. It "might be wise", as you put it, not to place me in some preconceived slot. Tim Shuba (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's good to hear you don't plan to make a bad decision worse by commenting further. Though I'll still likely be suggesting removal of that section you started from the talk page. Equazcion(talk) 16:25, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Conversion to essay
As you have noticed, Wikipedia:Avoiding talk-page disruption is now an essay, and as you also have noted, therefore will have next to no influence over Blackburne or Johnuniq or Shuba. I have reverted your kind archiving of these authors' nonsense, as I feel it indicates quite clearly from their own mouths just what motivates them and how little of that is good sense. That evidence might prove useful when read in its original context if they continue along this path.
I had thought you had some interest in trying to ameliorate editing conditions on WP, but it appears that your interest is left with no vehicle for accomplishment. Brews ohare (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll just leave you with a note that as an editor returning from a ban based on tendentiousness, particularly with that commenter, this looks more like "not letting it go" (just as Tim's actions do the same). Keeping a safe distance from each other should perhaps be more of a priority than "keeping evidence" around. You can still link to an archived discussion just as easily if need be. If at some point more dispute resolution is needed regarding you, whoever made more of an attempt to keep away from conflict will be the one who looks better. Equazcion(talk) 23:34, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Uh-huh. I don't think so. Brews ohare (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
solar and co
seen your work on the page, impressive efforts, sorry to mess the article a little, will do my best to improve--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No need to apologize, you can mess with it :) I'm just making sure the article doesn't start sounding too sure of itself, when it's talking about a future technology. Equazcion(talk) 23:38, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)
Did I get a little overzealous?
I've always been loathe to edit the ecig article too heavily, but I looked at it recently and felt like it was filled with weasel words and the like and not encyclopedic enough. I noticed that you edited it a lot of it back. I don't do a lot of work on here, so I'm not the most qualified person to judge exactly what makes an article less encyclopedic. I just wanted to ask what your thoughts are and the reasoning on your changes so I can be more up to date on editorial policy and style guidelines. Did you change everything back that I edited? Or was it just some portions? Thanks. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at where the changes came from at the time, but I see now that you're the one who removed all the "often" and "some" speak from the intro, which I later returned. I believe I did revert the entire intro, though I don't think I touched the rest of the article, in case you made other changes there.
You weren't overzealous, no need to apologize or anything, I'm not in charge of the article. It's just that qualifiers (some, often, mainly) are not always weasel words. In this case the ones present in the intro are necessary, since electronic cigarettes for example don't always deliver nicotine, are not always portable, sizes don't vary ONLY based on battery size, etc. So it's necessary (in my humble opinion) to add qualifiers that indicate we're saying what the case is generally, rather than across the board, as electronic cigarette designs are so prolific that no description could definitively encompass them all accurately.
Aside from that, there were other changes that I felt lowered the quality of the writing and sometimes introduced grammatical errors. Aside from accuracy, articles also strive to be artistically written (for lack of a better word). Of course that's a subjective judgment and my opinion is no better than yours, so wording changes could be discussed on the article's talk page if you feel strongly that your changes are necessary. Equazcion(talk) 22:27, 8 Nov 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. I guess what I did was just try to completely sterilize everything. You're right that there should be some style to the articles. My brain just doesn't operate that way when I'm doing strict editing. I don't feel especially strongly enough to discuss it on the page itself. I just wanted some insight from someone with more experience than me.
Though it's funny that we both edited it because we each thought that the quality of the article was lowered. Maybe I'll look at it again eventually with all of the above in mind. That particular article is one of those that I have on my watchlist that I always think in the back of my mind, "this could be much better somehow", but I haven't figured out how yet.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
bct/ait
thanks for the info on bct/ait. my daughter left for jackson in oct, and came home for christmas exodus. she tried to explain, but this army mom(being a blonde, and easily confused)was thoroughly confused. your article helped me to understand just what she has and will go through. again, thank you so much----maribaltitas@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.232.246 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping to shed some light on basic training for those going in. It seemed so needlessly mysterious, since everyone has the same basic experience. So you're very welcome, it's great to know the article helped a parent! Equazcion(talk) 05:56, 27 Jan 2012 (UTC)
Holography page - modification
I am proposing some relatively minor changes to the 'How holography works' pages, and would like your opinion - see talk:Holography page. Epzcaw (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Which section on the talk page? Equazcion(talk) 01:15, 5 Feb 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - should have made that clear. It is in the Section called 'Revamp'. I guess I should have added it at the bottom. This is what I said just to save you time:
I think the 'How holography works' section needs a further few amendments.
The requirements for a reference beam should be mentioned at the beginning
It should be made clear that the complicated arrangement of multiple mirrors and beams-splitters is not necessary for making a hologram - a point made by 71.218.130.13 in the disucssion unded the heading 'Hologram Kit'.
I have created a modified version at user:epzcaw and would welcome comments.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Feeling overwhelmed and need to take a break
Hello Equazcion, I would like to write a essay response to what you wrote to me on the ows talk page here where you said:
How dynamic or static an article has been isn't really of consequence.1 Editors sometimes get excessively attached to articles, feel it's their "duty" to maintain them, and therefore think they need to serve as gatekeepers so as to lessen their burden in the future.2 Content doesn't need to be agreed upon beforehand -- the nature of a wiki is that we all edit the live content, rather than craft it on the talk page first.3 This is the case no matter how "dynamic" the article is.4 If you feel overwhelmed by how often it changes, take a break. But don't make up new rules.5
In the 2nd sentence, are you referring to me or Gandy (or someone else)? 완젬스 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to Gandy, but also to your specific interpretation of Gandy's stance, where you said too much change "creates" too much work for her and "there has to be some sense of sanity". The only way frequent changes would create work for an editor is if that editor felt a little too responsible for an article's stability, and I feel it's improper to fend off bold edits so as to "lower their workload", so to speak. It's important to remember that even when someone cares about an article, they should also remain vigilante in being accepting of bold changes rather than developing a policeman-like attitude to keep the article "stable" or "sane". Equazcion(talk) 10:51, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, let's just focus on the 2nd sentence only, and let me say that through like-minded editors working alongside each other, a "pact" was implicitly enacted that no hijacking editor should cause 2 or more in-pact editors to devote >= 51% of their time working on stuff they would rather not work on. For example, amadscientist's merge proposal was a huge waste of time and if I spent 30 minutes getting wasted into pointless discussions to "fend off bold edits" and as a result only have 15 minutes to improve parts of the article I think needs attention, then 66% of my time was wasted.
This next example may not resonate with you, but I'll tell it anyway. Back when the article was so out of shape, there were literally easy grammar errors & nonsensical corrections which we were unable to work on, because every day there are "bold edits we must overturn through concensus" which became routinized and systematic.
Now here is my remedy to solve the problem: use the talk page any time we can stave off an edit war. Although there are some editors whose recalcitrance & staunch fervor in WP:BRD strikes me as possible mental illness, and some editors who argue the right to "edit freely" or whatever floats their boat, I can vouch for Gandy & myself personally as always fair communicators. Simply put, the way to resolve the problem is to reach consensus on the talk page.
To change topics, can I ask if sentence 3 is a straw man? (I personally do not find Gandy or myself ever advocating such an easily denounced argument؟) 완젬스 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What you're advocating here, albeit in a more long-winded way, still constitutes the same problem. If an edit war starts merely because a new change was boldly implemented, that isn't a good reason to require a demonstrated consensus on the talk page. Reverts should occur if an editor feels the content shouldn't be there, rather than merely because they think someone might have a problem with it being there so it "should" be discussed first. With that in mind, no, my third sentence wasn't a strawman argument -- it is a restatement of what I feel you're advocating, which if you're doing it unintentionally, I feel needs to be pointed out. The talk page isn't for discussing every content addition; that's only necessary when there is actually controversial content to discuss. Equazcion(talk) 12:00, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
I see we're making some progress. If I made you feel that I'm advocating that, let me just flatly say I don't. With that said, I can see how my explanation seems like I'm sympathetic or in favor of what I've observed. But, that's all it is--just my post-hoc analysis--looking back and describing patterns that weren't specified a priori. It's my position that WP:Consensus trumps all rules, and can be used to make unpopular judgment calls on an article which attracts WP:Owners who Gandy & I have faced our fair share in the past. If I can be criticized as an editor, it's my Npov or Coi issues, not these issues. Let me also welcome you to the article, and I'm optimistic that we will be able to work together amicably, as you've been a great host to me on your talk page. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
If you're not advocating what I think you're advocating, could you explain this edit? Your edit summary states that you were cutting it down, but didn't state the reason. Equazcion(talk) 12:55, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
It's stuff which could be chopped & cropped to the reaction article. It's 4 paragraphs now, and it should only be 2 paragraphs & contain a much better summary than it currently stands. However, I'm fine with NorthAmerica who reverted me and I'll let it stay for at least 1 week. The "zuccotti park occupation" section is 10 paragraphs, and way too long. Yesterday I did this edit but after two tries, I'll start trimming the article somewhere else. I'm much more in the "BRD crowd" than you give me credit for. ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you say let's tackle something together
Let's take on a project of your choosing on improving/shortening any of the various occupy articles. I'm game for it if you're feeling readiness to get some sweeping work done anywhere it's needed (at your choosing, ows related). 완젬스 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with cutting down articles or sections just for the sake of making them shorter, so I can't help you there. If you have an idea for crafting a better summary (or article, section, etc) then great; ditto if you feel there are specific reasons particular content doesn't belong. I'm not sure where your two-paragraph suggested length comes from; craft the content first so that it constitutes a good summary, and whatever length it ends up being is fine. I see you're acclimated to thinking in terms of lengths and percentages, but quality of content should be the first concern. Equazcion(talk) 13:15, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Tell me a little bit about yourself as an editor. I have 3 main questions: What areas of the occupy wall street article need the most improvement? What other "occupy articles" do you want to improve the most this month? What does the occupy movement mean to you personally? Were you displaced from your home by mortgage or are you affected adversely by the economy (sorry if too personal, discretion is up to you.) Also, what is its message, in your opinion (and not necessarily supported by reliable sources) and how well does it resonate? Has the movement lost a lot of momentum to you personally? Thanks for our interactions today--I'm fascinated by your ability to not get upset at the article talk page while having a separate & unrelated discussion here, without letting the tension affect you here. You must be an INTJ personality, and my first impression is that you're in the upper quartile of editors I've experienced. You just leave me hoping that you're satisfactorily pro-OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't like to state my political leanings here, as it takes focus away from accuracy and opens the door for people to assess each other's edits in a less objective way. Adding a pro-OWS statement into the OWS article, for example, can take on new meaning when the editor has advertised themselves to be pro-OWS. Such things don't matter. I want to help make accurate and unbiased information available to anyone looking for it, while hopefully presenting it in a well-written way, and that's all anyone should be concerned with here as far as my motivations go.
I also don't (generally) view editing as a project, but make improvements whenever I happen to come across something that I feel I can contribute improvement to. Equazcion(talk) 14:42, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Stratfor leaks
woops...caught it from dyk dint know a discussion took pace ;P(Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).
A protester's sign references the alleged lack of news coverage by mass media as a 'media blackout.' [8][9][10]
Five days into the protest, Keith Olbermann criticized the initial media response for failing to adequately cover the protests.[11][12] The protests began on Saturday, September 17. The following Wednesday, The New York Observer reported on the nascent protests in Zuccotti Park.[11][13] On Friday, September 23, Ginia Bellafante panned the movement in The New York Times.[14] Joanna Weiss of The Boston Globe found it difficult to take the protests seriously, criticizing Occupy Wall Street for its "circus" atmosphere."[15]
See the article talk page. Equazcion(talk) 20:49, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
It's already been covered on the media responses on the split page. To include Olbermann hoists his significance somehow. Can you tell me what you see as so significant? (he implies there was a media conspiracy not to cover the occupy movement, which was before there was any journalism stories to compare to)완젬스 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
See the talk page where I just answered you. I'm not discussing this here. Equazcion(talk) 20:54, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Too many edit conflicts
Can I ask a simple question here? Are you for or against the chart: 완젬스 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(because there are 2 issues--the chart & infobox being 1 of them, and the other being the paragraph which was re-added here) 완젬스 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No, you may not ask. I'm not interested in any of your requests for clarification on my personal opinions, as I attempted to tell you politely, and repeatedly, before. You would do well to argue points logically regardless of who makes them and whether or not they've demonstrated an allied status with you. Equazcion(talk) 22:40, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the blackout question. I'm trying to ask if you are for or against the chart, because there are so many edit conflicts on the ows talk page. 완젬스 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I know what you're asking, and I answered you. Equazcion(talk) 22:46, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
(ec)see here there are 30 edits in 41 minutes. I am trying to prevent more confusion because two of your comments seem to be ambiguous if we're all on the same page here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you only participate in a discussion if you first divide everyone into teams? What if I'm not for or against anything, but I want to discuss the merit of content with an open mind, hoping to arrive at an unbiased conclusion? You need to stop thinking in black & white. Equazcion(talk) 22:52, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Understood, I just wanted to point out the two separate things. Sorry for the frustration today--I just want to make the article cleaner and I think from our earlier discussion here on your talk page, I'm a deletionist and want the article considerably shorter. I'm also reducing the number of occupy articles (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_movement_in_the_United_States#Occupy_Berkeley_merge_proposal_into_Occupy_Cal ) so don't misinterpret my desire to avoid further edit conflicts as me badgering you. I have had about 15 edit conflicts during those 30 minutes, and I just wanted to keep the discussion over there more clean & easy to follow, which is why I wanted to clarify what I thought was your misinterpretation of the two over-arching discussions between becritical and artist. 완젬스 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to avoid edit conflicts, I would suggest using your preview button more often, rather than adding afterthoughts onto your comments within minutes afterwards. Most of the edit conflicts I've had in discussions in which you were participating were due to that. Equazcion(talk) 22:56, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Hi Equazcion, I was wondering if you had feedback to offer on the rtne template, I noticed that you removed it, I wasn't sure if it was intentional or not, as your summary just said "header stuff" and re-organized a few things. I would very much like to know how you feel about it, as there has been little or no critique in regards to it's ongoing usage on many pages, and I would very much like some! Can't tailor it even better to do it's job without new ideas. Penyulap ☏ 06:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed it because the page was suffering from a very long list of header boxes, and something to aide finding info on a Russian news site seemed rather inappropriately specific, especially for an American topic. I'd suggest thinning out the template (cutting down the width of the icon will probably make the whole box thinner vertically), and/or providing a "small" parameter that optionally snugs it over to the right side of the page (like you can see in some other templates on that page). Still though, I'm not sure what the rationale is for pointing users to that site in particular for general sourcing, and would need some clarification there. Equazcion(talk) 11:05, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
I added two optional parameters to the template: "thin" and "small". I also clarified which site the template links to, as it wasn't clear what exactly "RT" was. Equazcion(talk) 12:08, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Equazcion ! I badly need those ideas. I will implement them,(inserted: wait a second, I just notice you did!!) as well as pointing out somewhere, maybe on the template or a little 'read more' link, that the Russian state news service may provide a different perspective and / or a source of news for a topic which may be stifled by the domestic media outlets. I guess I need a wordsmith now, but for good ideas, thank you. OMG, I just noticed what you did to the template, thank you so very much! That is incredible. Such an improvement. Penyulap ☏ 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a 1 TB dose of programmers crack for you, to thank you for your help on the Rtne template. Penyulap ☏
Glad I could help -- thanks for the crack, I can never have too much :) Equazcion(talk) 17:17, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
(manually archiving some pretty old stuff, auto-archiver doesn't seem to be hitting this page lately, gonna check settings)
The problem isn't in the page(s) to be archived, but in the server that normally runs the archiving bot. See User talk:Misza13#Re: Bots down & stuff for more. Hopefully, sooner or later, it'll be back to normal.
—WWoods (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah I see, thanks for letting me know :) That had me pretty mystified. Equazcion(talk) 01:32, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
ContribsTabVector
Hi Equazcion, I started using your ContribsTabVector script, which looks very useful. Do you think it would be possible to make it project-independent, so that the script could be used in other Wikimedia projects as well? Currently if I import the script in another Wikipedia, the tab works but the link brings me to en.wikipedia's contributions page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I just edited it to hopefully make it compatible with other Wikimedia projects, give it a try on yours and let me know. Equazcion(talk) 03:36, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Works great in fi.wikipedia now. Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! I decided to make a local copy anyway, because I wanted to include a link to the user's SUL contribs among other things. In any case as a FYI, there seemed to be a bug when using the script on Commons – it links to en.commons.org instead of commons.wikimedia.org. I parsed the values from wgServer to get around this, dunno if there's an easier way to do it. Just wanted to let you know :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
What did you ever need me for? ;) Nice work yo. SUL contribs is a good idea, maybe I'll add that to mine. Equazcion(talk) 10:59, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back
(talk page stalker) Totally unrelated to this: Equazcion!!! Welcome back! I was looking for you when dealing with this back in January, but you were apparently on an extended wikibreak. The longest-lasting sock to date, but the same things gave her away: the stalking, mainly. Just FYI, since I know you two had quite a history ;> Cheers... Doctalk 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow she's still kicking? Yeah every once in a while I kick the addiction but I appear to be back off the wagon again. Thanks for the welcome :) Equazcion(talk) 03:58, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann friendly jesting
You are right to revert my edit here since I was unable to shore up sufficient argument on the talk page. Discussions through "edit summary" are like passing notes in high school while the teacher is watching. Anyways, I have no urgency with regard to our respectful disagreement about whether there is merit to inclusion of the feistily debated newsbit. To me, it seems I have 3 ways of winning the argument:
Convincing you to change your mind (offhand chance, but not betting my chickens on it)
Daring you to feel "crisis" that the article is too long/detailed (but I don't know where to begin)
Engaging you in back-alley talks, seeking to unify each of our mutual objectives (bingo!)
Let me thoughtfully entertain what you see as the merits of the Keith Olbermann "media blackout" tidbit into the parent OWS article. Please have patience with me as I'd really like to resolve this before mid-April. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It's one line, so you shouldn't bother looking for a place to begin with the article length one. As for entertaining the merits, I smell more proof coming that there was no media blackout, and if that's the case, you shouldn't bother; it's irrelevant, as I've tried to tell you. The allegations themselves are key and belong.
The problem with your edit wasn't so much that you couldn't make a sufficient argument, but that you weren't even making an argument for a while there, and decided to revert nonetheless. The reason talk pages work to avoid edit warring is because the side that doesn't have their version in place takes it on faith that the other side won't stop talking just because their version is in place. You failed there -- you left the conversation for 3 days and chose to revert anyway -- doubly so since you were in the minority. It's BRD, not BRR. Equazcion(talk) 07:25, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
I understand. I was wrong to revert you and I hope you accept my apologies. Here is my first "quick jab" (before I prepare you for my uppercut!) ready? Why is the Keith Olbermann tidbit included in the parent article yet not this tidbit about OWS costing the Bloomberg regime a cool 17 mill? (Obviously you can say "both are allowed" if you're ready to go down that route, which leads to inclusionist editors all getting their pork-barrel "pet edits" into an amalgamated article) but I won't predict your next move if you're willing to refrain from predicting my next move. So what say you--if I were to argue that this $17m tidbit, or a tidbit about antisemitism which we communally deleted a couple months back, or any other valid tidbit of information about the occupy movement--which policy should an editor look to when deciding whether or not a verifiable fact belongs on the parent article, or a leaf node or on both?
Re: your point that I was making no argument--well just look and see if I'm back here again in full throttle. I have spent a good chunk of my time making various arguments on 3 different ows topics. Let's be the judge right now of whether or not I'm ready, willing, and able to make a more sound argument than you re/against the inclusion of the Keith Olbermann tidbit. I'll totally drop the "if there was no blackout" argument because you're not willing to let this one go. I'm ready to argue head-on whether or not this Keith Olbermann tidbit can hold up to the argumental prowess of my finest "A game" or if you can defend your one line, while rejecting my various tidbits of information simultaneously.
If you want massive expansion of our various OWS articles, then take on an "everything's included" policy for not just your tidbits, but mine also: here I'm not saying I want an "everything under the sun" article about Occupy Wall Street, but I definitely don't want duplicate material repeated twice when it's both superfluous and redundant. I welcome either your claim that both your tidbit (but not mine) be included; or, that both our respective tidbits be included, or some other variant--I'll read over what reaction you have, if any, about my similarly "key, belonging" tidbit before I try to remove the Olbermann sentence. I very much want it removed, especially as it already appears on the branched article. Either way, this shall be a pleasant, learning experience for us both, and for me especially! Your move, Ivan Drago... 완젬스 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It's one line. The full Reactions article has a paragraph. That's not a duplicate, it's a summary, as is appropriate. On second look the Reactions article actually only has the one line as well, but there's not much we can do to shorten that. It is nevertheless the first sentence of the media section in the full article, and I think that's for more reason than mere chronology. The possible blackout was prominent.
You're still not presenting any argument for its removal other than duplication and "if we can't include the rest, then..." Well I'm not against adding material going in the other direction, so go for it -- as long as it makes sense in a summary of notable responses; though I'll note that stating the cost to the Bloomberg administration doesn't seem like a response. If there was a notable response that happens to mention the cost, then maybe. Add it or propose it on the talk page and let's see.
I'm not going to negotiate with you abstractly on what will and won't be included in the article before actually seeing content to be included or excluded, and it's not up to the two of us anyway. Equazcion(talk) 09:50, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I have read twice what you said. You seem to be in favor of including pertinent facts about OWS which are verifiable & npov. That's perfectly within the rules and you'll find a myriad of policies and guidelines which are on your side in this issue. The problem with that approach is that in practice it leads to bloating of susceptible articles. I scanned a few random articles and found a parallel between the bloatedness of the OWS article and the bloatedness of Wavelength which is simply the length of one complete wave. I still don't know what to do for this lighthearted disagreement involving friendly jesting. I am partly inclined to take the Olbermann bit to WP:RSN because some of the other stuff he said in his speech was factually non-sequiter and even nonfactual. On the other hand (pardon my personal bias, I consult Occam's Razor to be far better in aiding my judgment than watching CurrentTV, no offense) I'm also eager to make the case for invoking WP:Fringe theories because while, if true, there was indeed a media blackout, you are equivocating in Wikipedia's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage had occurred. Why not soften your words to more carefully convey that a particular source (or two/three whatever) claim that [...] there was some form of media blackout, rather than pass along this propaganda to our readers without reservation? Regardless of how insignificant you think this is, what about if I can find a source that says there is too much coverage? (which I can't, but I'm trying to elucidate the policy here) Why can't you agree to qualify/pre-condition the statement as follows:
Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann of CurrentTV vocally criticized other mainstream media outlets for failing to adequately cover the Wall Street protests and demonstrations.
or
Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann from CurrentTV criticized the mainstream media's initial failure to adequately cover the protests.
By sticking some identifiers to the guy & linking him to CurrentTV, it more properly puts this information in a non-conspiracy context, which is what I'm after. If you read the sources closely, they're not aggrandizing the issue to some far-off witch hunt--they're merely pointing out that a shortage of coverage exists--nothing more & nothing less. A real "media blackout" is what they do in the Korean Central News Agency but maybe you're too American to have a world view about these things. I don't want to bring this discussion too far off topic, other than to say you have no true appreciation for what is actually a media blackout unless you have lived in China, Iran, North Korea, or Mississippi. I look forward to your reply. (and if by chance, one of these two sentences are good enough for you, then I can finally sleep good after having added those two minor modifications) Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
break
You're making an unwarranted sort of legal argument here, essentially saying I'm setting a precedent for inclusion that you'll like to use later. Don't make any generalizations about what I think should be included in the future beyond what I've said explicitly. No, not everything NPOV and verifiable should be in that summary section. I said no such thing.
"Wikipedia's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage" -- No. But, a claim that a lack of coverage was alleged? Yes. This is the difference you don't seem to be grasping. It's not fringe because we're not claiming that a reliable source is making a factual claim. We're pointing to a notable response. It was alleged that this blackout occurred, and that allegation was a prominent event. If you feel clarification is needed regarding that point, let's hear how you'd like to word it.
PS. You really don't have to continue this "we're jesting friendly but I'll take take this up with RSN if I have to" thing. Good to be civil, bad to be disingenuous. I find this transparent and annoying. You'll find I respond better if you say what you mean without the window dressing. Equazcion(talk) 11:12, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Edit: I hastily replied before seeing your question of why it couldn't be reworded, and your suggestions for rewording. I never said it couldn't be reworded -- you just never suggested it before, and kept removing it. They both look fine, I think I personally like the first more. Equazcion(talk) 11:19, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Sounds great! I add it then write my reply, thanks! 완젬스 (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation
Thanks for your help with the Wikiproject Occupy PNG your recently created, however it is not properly attributed to the original CC 3.0 work with a similar license. If you would like to make these changes your contribution can be saved from deletion and be used on the project page. You must show the original file location to show that you did not originate the artwork yourself as well. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you do the honors? I give you full permission to alter the licensing as you describe above. I'd do it myself but u no speeka english from my perspective. As an undergrad I skipped the Wikipedia image copyright paranoia class. File:Wikiproject OWS logo.pngEquazcion(talk) 08:25, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
In other words...you can't just take an CC image and claim it as your own work. It is not needed, as the SVG file generates a PNG image as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel the image is needed because the SVG produces aliasing problems especially against background colors, whereas the PNG provides smoother transitions. In the summary I noted it was re-created based on your design, and included a link to your original. Tell me what else needs to be done to validate the license and I'll do it, or like I said, you can edit the summary directly. I'm bad with the copyright stuff. Equazcion(talk) 09:19, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
There are other ways to to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I chose this way, since my abilities lie more with PNG than SVG. If there's a way to fix the SVG to make it smoother I'm open to that as well. I'm not sure where your adversarial attitude is coming from. I'm fully willing to credit you for the design, as I've shown. There was no need to CSD tag. Equazcion(talk) 10:37, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Since it was a CC 3.0, as long as you are not claiming the work to be your own (funny thing...you were. So I changed that) I can live with the file, however...simply replacing your version over the original at the project level is not acceptable. Join the project if you are so inclined and help gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't intend to explicitly claim anything. I used the image upload wizard and left the text it placed. I'm glad you eventually chose to do what I suggested originally, albeit only after your CSD was rejected. So glad this worked out. Equazcion(talk) 11:13, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Why do you keep uploading the same image to File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png? Please reply. You can edit the image description without uploading a new image. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware that a new image doesn't need to be uploaded when making summary edits. I've been fixing the image, sometimes subtley. The first version didn't have a transparent background. I deleted some more white from the background a couple of times, and finally changed the font in the sign. Equazcion(talk) 11:23, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
True the last version did have a different size. Apologies for fussing. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 10:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about the claim that it is OR? And do you think there is any way to get the others to work with, instead of against? Their objections could be addressed were they willing to work with me instead of against, and if they heard others. There seems to also be an element of POV pushing over technicalities, ignoring the obvious correctness of the material (in that the economics are the background). Be——Critical 06:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not OR. They're rehashing the same old discussion, invoking the claim that unless the sources mention a link between the stats and OWS, the section is POV. Articles use refs that don't mention their subjects all the time in order to support surrounding facts. There's nothing wrong with it, even if it could be incidentally construed as "supportive" of the movement.
I don't have any particular suggestions for dealing with this, except to keep arguing the facts. It would be nice to get more people involved though; however that can be difficult when the talk page is getting too long and complicated with pasted content that makes people gag and keep away. If we can boil this down to an RFC with two very simple options, that would help -- not options for entire section drafts, but rather a summary of the two ideals being fought over. Equazcion(talk) 08:20, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Let's not make our argument weak: the sources DO state a connection between OWS and the data. I carefully picked them to do so. Where the connection is slightly weak, there are other sources connecting. That is, source A connects, and source A also connects to B and C. In addition to that, there are other sources which could be brought in, given specific enough objections to text. Let's go through the DR process on this: they don't like that because they don't have the facts on their side, but it works even if it takes a long time. Be——Critical 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I was away for a while. It looks like you guys are sorting this out without me though, so well done. Equazcion(talk) 12:20, 11 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? VegitaU is trying to edit war a bit on Antisemitism into the article over the objections of others, and I rather think abusing Twinkle also. Be——Critical 07:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Equazcion. You have new messages at User talk:Jasper Deng/IPv6. Message added 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry for the long wait, didn't appear on my watchlist. Jasper Deng(talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
TUSC token 215b603434aa7a7ab2bd5ff675948c7d
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account. Equazcion(talk) 18:16, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting this nonsense message off my talk page. No good deed, eh? ;) Pinkadelica♣ 06:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
