User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 10
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
This archive comprises edits to User talk:Ultraexactzz during the entirety of 2011.
reposting PlayStation NGP entry
SCE is the owner of this content. redmondpie.com is not. Please contact me on the SCEE talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCEE (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Karim Dagher
Hello, You deleted the following contributions I did: (Deletion log); 15:01 . . Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Fareeq el Atrash" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://sir-fz.blogspot.com/2010/06/fareeq-el-atrash-debut-album-release.html) (Deletion log); 15:01 . . Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Soumaya Baalbaki" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://forwardtesting.com/fwdartists)
In the first deletion I do not understand why you considered it as a copyright infringement In the second deletion you used a testing website for the Forward music label who gave me full permission to upload the information I have to wikipedia and when the website is ready I will added to my references. According to the label manager and webmaster the website of forward music will be ready in two weeks and they do not wish to have it public before that date. Thank you for replying unsigned comment by User:Karim Dagher.
- Just to interject here (if you don't mind Ultraexactzz), the first one appeared to be a copy paste job of [1], which I located by doing a quick google search. The website did not appear to have a copyright notice and I decided it was applicable for speedy deletion. If you have, as you said, copyright permission for either, then you should take a look at: Using copyrighted work from others (or ask them to insert a copyright notice on the web page). Another one of your recent pages also appeared to be a copyvio, but someone appears to have recently fixed it. Before making another new page, you should make sure you understand copyright on Wikipedia. Noom talk 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Noom's reply covers my thoughts - you'll want to review our policies, as linked above, before proceeding. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
unblock cut and copy
I would agree with you, that request could be rejected out of hand as a copy of a previously rejected request, seems a bit not really serious if you ask me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Indentvote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 01:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, did you come up with any further sources on Minako Hamano? Pkeets (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)\
- Thanks for the effort. I've been looking, too, and found a couple of sources that might marginally apply. However, it would be good to have a solid primary source for her to avoid future problems. Pkeets (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Citizen LA should not be deleted by anyone. This is an institution and deserves the same respect from Wiki Users as it has with the people of Los Angeles. LA Weely is not written much different. I wrote all of the content and does not infringe on anyone elses copyrights. But I will re-write if I must. Citizen LA is a cultural institution and must remain on Wiki. Gstiehl (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Stephanie Weller
Stephanie Weller is a gymnast is you do not believe me that Stephanie Weller in a Notable person then go and check out her website and contact her - her website is www.stephanie-weller.jimdo.com thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviawhite1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
do you know how i would be able to recreate the page without it being deleted as she has just got into the finals of 2 well known beauty pageants and a lot of people have asked steph why she is not on wikipedia anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviawhite1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Lugia
Wait what. I said to history merge it with my userspace article, not delete it. Are you in the middle of this action or what? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind. You shouldn't notify people that the action is DONE when you just started it, and the article is deleted. That scares people. xD Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Spring Children's Museum backstage pass?
Hello!
I wanted to touch base and let you know that, as part of the ongoing project with Wikipedia, The Children's Museum of Indianapolis is considering a second Backstage Pass Event this spring, likely to be held in April. Since you were interested previously but were unable to attend, I wanted to feel out if a Saturday event would work for you this coming April? Thanks for helping us gauge interest! Things are moving along with the image donation and there should be more press soon to share as things move forward. Thanks again for your interest! HstryQT (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You deleted the entry for Winkworth PLC,and reason give was 'self promotion', and i don't agree with this. Please can you be more specific?
Furthermore, the entries of 2 of our competitors remain on the wikipedia website (we sent you the links and I'm happy to send this to you again). The entry we submitted was in the same vein as those of our competitiors and was no more "self-promotion" than theirs.
Winkworth, as a company, has been in existence for 175 years and I'm sure there are many people who would be interested to read about the history of the company and our current operations. I await your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsodeinde (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
i'm still waiting for a repl, or have i missed it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsodeinde (talk • contribs) 11:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I had responded about this one - let me doublecheck. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) This one is pretty confusing; it's being discussed at MCQ (question raised by the OTRS agent who tagged the image) and it was brought to my page by another contributor to see if I could help out. I'm not entirely sure on what basis the OTRS agent tagged the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio, since it was being used under non-free rationale. I've reviewed Ticket:2011020310016613, and the person who wrote us seems only to be complaining that the copyright owner was misidentified, and that http://www.cnrdrama.org/tickets.html should be replaced with http://www.mtishows.com/show_detail.asp?showid=000254, since they are the actual owners of the logo. Since you processed the speedy deletion request, I figured I'd better let you know about the conversation. Maybe you'll have feedback that can help clear things up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Completely understandable. Thanks for weighing in. Once I get more feedback from the OTRS volunteer, I may be restoring the image, then. Since I don't do that much with non-free images, I figured I'd better let you know, particularly in case you might say, "Oh, but it fails NFC because of arbcom decision 76b(c)(ii) ...." :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Stan Eegit Lampard (SEL)
I do not feel that you have obeyed the laws and rules of Wikipedia. You did not give me warning of imminent deletion, just nominations. I feel that I have been treated with no respect, for this reason I would like to propose a deal...
I would like the page to be returned to its original self and there will be no more trouble. The user which looked at our page and chose it for deletion I think had acted in a very ignorant way and did not fully understand where I was coming from. In no way did my page act as an attack page, I would never dream of doing something like that on a site such as this. All I wanted to do was to share my knowledge of Punjabi folklore and let people learn and understand about this tale.
In no way I am being harsh or judgmental, but, all I ask is that my page is returned. If you would please give me time to gather third party sources to prove my point I would be very grateful. I like Wikipedia very much and I wouldn't want my views to be changed of it because of this incident.
j3wman — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:Ymbb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Nicole Munich Center of the Learning Sciences
Sorry but I don't get why my page got deleted. I cited the Website of the MCLS so why is that a copyright issue than?
4 February 2011 Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs) deleted "Munich Center of the Learning Sciences" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.en.mcls.uni-muenchen.de/about_mcls/index.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole.heitzmann (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
I appreciate the semi-protection of my talk page. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
User 68.198.135.130
"You'll also note also that your conduct is under discussion at WP:ANI". User:Ultraexactzz.
- I read carefully the so-called "discussion". I assume you are being ironic, since there can be no discussion when only one viewpoint is allowed. Since you decided to join the chorus (it's a shrill one) let me fill you in:
- 1. I inserted information at the Theosophical Society page. The source was the Encyclopedia of Religion (EOR), properly cited, and my text accurately rendered. The facts as presented in the statement are widely considered to be true.
- 2. Without any discussion, User:Jpgordon removed my edit, claiming that just the affiliation of the Encyclopedia contributor rendered the source unreliable.
- Question 1: Was User:Jpgordon's "conduct" (the removal of info without discussion at the relevant talk page) proper? Please direct me to the policy page that justifies such action.
- Question 2: If there is no such policy, do I have the right to add the information that was removed? If not, please direct me to the page that strictly forbids my action. If yes, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:Jpgordon's conduct is similarly discussed. Because this is where it starts.
- Question 3: Encyclopedias have Editorial Boards that oversee and can override contributors deemed biased or inaccurate. The EOR is widely considered reliable. Please direct me to the policy page that recommends we parse the contributors of reliable sources (such as the EOR) for bias before citing. Also, to the page that recommends the immediate removal of all information by such contributors. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:Jpgordon's conduct is discussed.
- 3. I added the removed edit, and again User:Jpgordon reverted it, bringing along a friend, coincidentally allowing gaming of WP:3RR by their side. In the meantime, he misrepresented the dispute (his dispute) here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Theosophical Society. Notice that he brings no proof whatsoever that the source is compromised or the contributor biased. He is prejudiced: it doesn't matter if statements are factual, they have to be disallowed because of the person that makes them. He also avoids to mention his failure to engage in discussion. He basically asks for help to engage in bullying.
- 4. After several back-and-forth, he "warned" me on my talk page: User talk:68.198.135.130#February 2011. Notice the following sentence: "It appears you may be engaged in an edit war". So he's warning about an edit war he started. Then there is this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive150, go down to Section 50: "User:68.198.135.130 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result:
No violation31 hours)."- Question 4: Is a person directly involved in a dispute allowed to be a judge of the dispute, as in issuing warnings?
- Question 5: Notice the following by User:Jpgordon: "consensus seems to be that the source is not reliable for these particular claims". He is referring to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Theosophical Society. First, why not determine consensus in the relevant talk page? Please direct me to the policy page that justifies his action. Secondly, "seems to be"? Is this how punitive action against an editor is discussed? Is there consensus or not? And where is it? No interested editor of the Theosophical Society page was part of their little "discussion". And what does "for these particular claims" mean? How does he judge that? It's a secret. Is this serious?
- Question 6: How about this, from his pal User:AndyTheGrump: "It should be noted that the IP appears to be a single-purpose account, only editing on Theosophy-related articles." Is a single-purpose account proof of guilt? Please direct me to the policy page that conclusively makes such claim. He very clumsily implies that it is proof of guilt. Do you think that his conduct is prejudicial? Do you think that the reason I edit "Theosophy-related articles" maybe because I happen to know the subject? Does that make me biased from the start? Please direct me to the policy page that conclusively makes such claim. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:AndyTheGrump's conduct is discussed.
- This is just the beginning, I'll be interested in your answers, since you are the latest here. I will pick it up again later from this point, it's good to have everything and everyone in one place. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Continuing
- 5. I was not allowed WP:AGF by those two above (others would later also accuse me of bad faith, as if the repeated removal of the information I was adding was in good faith). User:AndyTheGrump invoked WP:BRD, without apparently bothering to read it. If he had, he would have seen that this just does not apply here. Citing broad, easily proven to be factual statements from reliable sources do not fall under that page. But this doesn't matter, they just want my edits out of there, any excuse will do.
- Question 7: Are reliable sources (such as the EOR) considered "bold" edits? Do they fall under WP:BRD? Please direct me to the policy page that unambiguosly states this. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where User:AndyTheGrump's conduct is discussed.
- 6. The way I see it, by now User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump have several times reverted pertinent information without real cause, and I quote from WP:VANDTYPES, section Blanking, illegitimate:
Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
- The Revision history of the relevant page: [2]
- There was no valid reason given in the summary. "Readily apparent examination of the content itself" does not provide a reason for removal. A non-frivolous explanation was not provided, linked to, or referenced.
- It would not therefore be strange, extreme, uncivil, or in bad faith to call the repeated removal of information by User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump as vandalism, and I did in the edit summary.
- Question 8: Do you think the attitude of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump as allowing me WP:AGF? If yes, I'd be interested in your explanation. If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where their conduct is discussed.
- Question 9: Do you think the reverts of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump could be characterized by a disinterested observer as vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES? If not, please explain. If yes, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where their conduct is discussed.
- 7. Enter User:B: User talk:68.198.135.130#Theosophical Society post of User:B [13:45, 10 February 2011]. After following the above, would you be at least mystified (if not insulted) by this posting? It's not as if the sequence of events is hard to verify. User:B himself at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive150, go down to Section 50: "User:68.198.135.130 reported by User:Jpgordon (Result:
No violation31 hours)" saw no merit to User:Jpgordon reporting me to the 3RR noticeboard. At this noticeboard, B [13:41, 10 February 2011] mentions that he will ask me "to join the discussion on the talk page" (of the Theosophical Society). What discussion?!?! There was no prior discussion, in fact this was one of the things that I was pointing out: that the people who originally removed the information did not bother to start a discussion first.- Question 10: If, according to User:B "There is no 3RR violation" why is he warning in my talk page that I have been reported for edit warring (which I did not start) and that I have to "modify my behavior"? What does he mean "rather that blocking you"? Is this a threat? Has he already mediated fully and incontrovertibly decided I'm wrong? Why are only my reverts the subject of his attention?
- Question 11: What does that tell you about the amount or quality of administrative work by User:B when he does not even bother to find out that there is NO ongoing discussion in the relevant talk page?
- Question 12: Is his tone in User talk:68.198.135.130#Theosophical Society post of User:B [13:45, 10 February 2011] just a bit condescending, explaining what constitutes a talk page and what is a discussion—"On this page, you can explain the reasons for your opinion and you can see other users' reasons for their opinions". What opinion? I accurately cited a reliable source. I have no opinion on the content. Others, not me, have an opinion on the content. Where were they urged to discuss it, or "modify their behavior"?
- At the Theosophical Society page, User:AndyTheGrump again reverted the page, including addtional edits of mine unrelated to the original disputed citation. In his edit summary, he misrepresented my edits as factually "controversial" and "disputed" whereas in fact that is his (and User:Jpgordon's) opinion, still unproven or unsupported. He also complained for me calling him a vandal, as discussed above. I restored the page to the one before his revert.
- I left a message in User:B's page regarding issues I pointed out in Questions 10, 11, 12. He blocked me for 31 hours shortly afterward, without any explanation or reason given. But, before my blocking, User:AndyTheGrump again reverted the page. I thought that was funny.
- Question 13: Are you satisfied with User:B's mediation in this? Do you think his negative attention on my actions is justified, since he apparently paid no attention to the actions of others? If yes, can you point out the policy or other Wikipedia page where administrators are urged to concentrate on one side of a dispute only? Where they are absolved of the responsibility of weighing everybody's actions? If not, please direct me to the appropriate WP:ANI section where his conduct is discussed.
- Question 14: After considering the above, do you think the block was justified?
- I'll be interested in your answers, please. I will pick it up again later from this point, it's good to have everything and everyone in one place. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As someone referred to in this topic, I'd like to make two points: firstly, I don't consider this an appropriate place to discuss any complaints about my behaviour - particularly without the person making the complaints notifying me. Secondly, I consider 68.198.135.130's description of events unrepresentative of the facts. I've no interest in discussing this here though, and will suggest that 68.198.135.130 looks at the various items of Wikipedia policy he/she has already been directed to, and then if he/she still considers my behaviour inappropriate, to raise it in a more appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything pertaining to this dispute into which you invited yourself I have discussed in what I thought was the appropriate place, Talk:Theosophical Society#Primary sources. But this happened later than the timeline I presented above, I'll get to that eventually. Which facts am I misrepresenting? I lay out what happened, and I am asking User:Ultraexactzz for her/his opinion, (including her/his opinion on the way I see it) since he/she decided to get involved in this. I have posed questions to her/him, following her/his post at my talk page about a "discussion" at some noticeboard. I am not starting a discussion with anyone else here. Since that "discussion" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130) as of today is completely one-sided (and started by another person involved in it, I'll get to that eventually) I consider my posts in this page as informing User:Ultraexactzz of an opposite viewpoint. You have made your views clear in several places, this is my turn. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding question #13, I am not a mediator. Regarding question #14, you were blocked because not only did you edit war as reported at AN3, but immediately following my message on your talk page informing you of the policy, you reverted again and stated your intention to continue to do so. --B (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies to User:Ultraexactzz for this detour. To B: so your role was not mediation. I supppose that means that the merits of the report about me edit warring are immaterial to you. In that case, why not write a bit of code? Saves you the trouble. Once a trouble ticket is reported, the bot would immediately send a threatening note to the reported user's talk page, regardless of the circumstances. It can start like this: "Rather than blocking you..." etc etc. That will surely predispose the recipient wlth a conciliating attitude. Your reply to question 14 is conditional, depending on your answer to question 13. I agree: all my reactions followed, and were imo proportional, to the actions of others. As an aside, ofcourse I would continue to reinsert the information that was removed or reverted. Nobody has shown me that my original edits were frivolous, incorrect or biased, nor that the dispute was/is examined impartially (in which case I would stop until an impartial verdict was/is reached). Instead (by now) the original perpetrator basically agrees with my position. But I'll get to that eventually. Again, I apologise to User:Ultraexactzz about this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring/3RR blocks are made without regard to picking "who is right" in the dispute. The only exceptions are for reverting intentional vandalism or unsourced contentious material concerning living persons. You may be "right", but it is immaterial to a block for edit warring. The correct alternative is to discuss your preferred changes on the talk page. There, you may convince others or you may yourself be convinced. If a general agreement cannot be reached, there are dispute resolution alternatives available such as mediation or third opinion. You were NOT blocked because I disagreed with your edits (nor did I form an opinion as to who was correct) - you were blocked for edit warring. --B (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- In that case, my warn/block bot idea seems interesting. So let's see here: Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is and how it was applied solely to me. The first item in the list (potentially controversial point - an Encyclopedia is controversial?) does not apply here. The second item I discussed above, in the likelihood of WP:VANDTYPES in the actions of User:Jpgordon and User:AndyTheGrump in my point "6." The third item in the edit warring list could be argued in my favor, as I believe that the removal of good-faith edits without prior discussion can be reverted. The fourth item in the list does not apply.
- So the justification of the block by this: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Common rationales for blocks, subsection Disruption, specifically the edit warring bullet point, appears to me debatable in the very least. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Edit warring/3RR blocks are made without regard to picking "who is right" in the dispute. The only exceptions are for reverting intentional vandalism or unsourced contentious material concerning living persons. You may be "right", but it is immaterial to a block for edit warring. The correct alternative is to discuss your preferred changes on the talk page. There, you may convince others or you may yourself be convinced. If a general agreement cannot be reached, there are dispute resolution alternatives available such as mediation or third opinion. You were NOT blocked because I disagreed with your edits (nor did I form an opinion as to who was correct) - you were blocked for edit warring. --B (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies to User:Ultraexactzz for this detour. To B: so your role was not mediation. I supppose that means that the merits of the report about me edit warring are immaterial to you. In that case, why not write a bit of code? Saves you the trouble. Once a trouble ticket is reported, the bot would immediately send a threatening note to the reported user's talk page, regardless of the circumstances. It can start like this: "Rather than blocking you..." etc etc. That will surely predispose the recipient wlth a conciliating attitude. Your reply to question 14 is conditional, depending on your answer to question 13. I agree: all my reactions followed, and were imo proportional, to the actions of others. As an aside, ofcourse I would continue to reinsert the information that was removed or reverted. Nobody has shown me that my original edits were frivolous, incorrect or biased, nor that the dispute was/is examined impartially (in which case I would stop until an impartial verdict was/is reached). Instead (by now) the original perpetrator basically agrees with my position. But I'll get to that eventually. Again, I apologise to User:Ultraexactzz about this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding question #13, I am not a mediator. Regarding question #14, you were blocked because not only did you edit war as reported at AN3, but immediately following my message on your talk page informing you of the policy, you reverted again and stated your intention to continue to do so. --B (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Everything pertaining to this dispute into which you invited yourself I have discussed in what I thought was the appropriate place, Talk:Theosophical Society#Primary sources. But this happened later than the timeline I presented above, I'll get to that eventually. Which facts am I misrepresenting? I lay out what happened, and I am asking User:Ultraexactzz for her/his opinion, (including her/his opinion on the way I see it) since he/she decided to get involved in this. I have posed questions to her/him, following her/his post at my talk page about a "discussion" at some noticeboard. I am not starting a discussion with anyone else here. Since that "discussion" (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130) as of today is completely one-sided (and started by another person involved in it, I'll get to that eventually) I consider my posts in this page as informing User:Ultraexactzz of an opposite viewpoint. You have made your views clear in several places, this is my turn. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As someone referred to in this topic, I'd like to make two points: firstly, I don't consider this an appropriate place to discuss any complaints about my behaviour - particularly without the person making the complaints notifying me. Secondly, I consider 68.198.135.130's description of events unrepresentative of the facts. I've no interest in discussing this here though, and will suggest that 68.198.135.130 looks at the various items of Wikipedia policy he/she has already been directed to, and then if he/she still considers my behaviour inappropriate, to raise it in a more appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Enough. If any further comments regarding my behaviour are made here (the talk page of an editor who is not participating in the discussion) I will be making a formal complaint. This is entirely inappropriate. Either discuss this in a more open place, or cease referring to individuals' behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was not given the benefit of doubt, and I don't think you have immunity from criticism. I believe your behavior was entirely inappropriate, and I retain the right to make a formal complaint myself. I discussed the reason I'm using this talk page in my posting above, this was supposed to hopefully be a discussion between me and User:Ultraexactzz, since the other "discussions" read like cabals. Please tell me where is a more open place, I'll also pursue it there. How can I "cease referring to individuals' behaviour"? This is what it is about. I won't discuss it further with you here, I'd like to continue my point-of-view in this dispute so I can bring it to the present day. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not going to suggest an 'appropriate place', since (a) you seem to be familiar enough about how Wikipedia works (at least when it suits you), and (b) The 'appropriate place' would depend on the nature of your complaint - as an involved party, it would be wrong to make a suggestion in any case. You will have to decide for yourself. I will however point out that I consider your comments here regarding me (and others, including alleged 'cabals') to be in breach of WP:NPA, and as such may be raised at WP:AN/I or elsewhere, and/or deleted by me. Either complain properly, or stop casting aspersions regarding the integrity of others. AndyTheGrump (talk)
- I will complain properly. But first I will lay out the facts as I see them, including information supporting my pov. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not going to suggest an 'appropriate place', since (a) you seem to be familiar enough about how Wikipedia works (at least when it suits you), and (b) The 'appropriate place' would depend on the nature of your complaint - as an involved party, it would be wrong to make a suggestion in any case. You will have to decide for yourself. I will however point out that I consider your comments here regarding me (and others, including alleged 'cabals') to be in breach of WP:NPA, and as such may be raised at WP:AN/I or elsewhere, and/or deleted by me. Either complain properly, or stop casting aspersions regarding the integrity of others. AndyTheGrump (talk)
Seems like things got a little exciting while I was out of town. IP:68.198, My involvement begins and ends with semi-protecting one editor's page, in an effort to prevent interaction between you and that editor on their talk page. As it is their talk page, they can make that request, and I didn't see any problem with it - they had asked you to stop posting there, after all. Not a big deal, and notice that I very specifically did not take any other action regarding the issue. As for the other items you discuss, at length, above - I dunno. This is a dispute that I'm not involved in, and I don't have the background information to provide any meaningful insight. I think things would be much improved if everyone calmed down and discussed things reasonably, but that's a general thing. Sorry I can't be of more help. If people want to use my talk page to bat it around a bit, fine - no problem. But there may be better venues. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. What I'm doing is providing background information, so maybe you will be able to give meaningful insight. I want to get this over with soon, because I want to return to the Theosophical Society page and elsewhere and continue editing after this disruption. Obviously, it makes no sense to edit anywhere now, since I cannot be certain that someone like User:Jpgordon won't decide they don't like my edits (without cause) which eventually will lead to imo completely unwarranted and unexplained warning templates and self-contradictory edits at my talk page by User:JoeSperrazza (I will eventually come to that), and then the threats of a more permanent block by User:EdJohnston here: User talk:Jpgordon#Theosophical Society dispute and further down in the same section User:JoeSperrazza (I will have something to say about that thread too, later). Please tell me where would be a better venue for this? I only used this page because I thought you were overseeing a resolution of the dispute. But I'm glad you want to at least hear me out. Btw, the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:TE by IP 68.198.135.130 I referred to above, has been archived here: [3]. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- 68.198, since you have a conflict of interest you should avoid editing Theosophical Society. Your prospects for getting your information into the article will depend on persuading the other editors on the talk page. If you think this needs a larger group than those who have already commented, you have the option of opening a WP:Request for comment. If in the future you plan on participating in controversies, you are well-advised to create an account, and not continue with an IP. Thanks to Ultraexactzz for allowing the use of his talk page for this. The IP's mention of 'disruption' and 'vandalism' is suggesting to me that the discussion can't continue here much longer. It should go on the IP's talk page, or be placed at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ed is probably correct, IP 68.198 - the best place to find consensus to include your edits would be the talk page of the article. A Request for Comment may be a good idea there, as it would draw other editors not already involved in the discussion. It would also centralize discussion, so that your points are made in one place - not various talk pages. As I said, I can't really speak to the Conflict of Interest issue, but if you do have some sort of COI regarding this material it would be in your best interests to make sure everything you do is aboveboard and transparent. An RFC would accomplish that as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. There is no WP:COI involved here at all, I'm not promoting the interest of anybody or anything. This is just the latest attempt to "prove" I'm wrong somewhere, it's a moving target. Wikipedia policies that I'm supposedly violating are mentioned one after another without any real evidence. There are no other Theosophical Society editors interested in this. One person fell from the sky (User:Jpgordon) and started this completely unneccessary and time-wasting dispute. As far as I am concerned, there's a history of administrative-related actions, warning templates, admin noticeboard sections, reporting to noticeboards, allegations of violations etc. regarding me that have to be addressed before I continue editing. So if there is a need for an RFC at the Theosophical Society page (that's debatable) it's a long way off. I was not the one who asked for admin intervention, and I made no edits that needed further discussion. The disputed edit is an Encyclopedia entry from a reliable Encyclopedia overseen by an authoritative board published by a mainstream publisher. Why should I need to justify that?!?! It doesn't make any sense. Now that my talk page is chock-full of admin intervention over something so obviously ridiculous, well, I've got to see this to the end. This requires an impartial admin hearing which is not possible if I'm not allowed to state the facts as I see them. That is why I'm in the middle of my narrative here on your page. If you don't like me to continue here, please direct me to an admin-type forum where I can continue this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a group project. It depends on editors coming to an agreement on what should go in the articles. If you have found anyone at all who agrees with you on your proposals for Theosophical Society, it would help if you would give their names. If someone who has found no supporters for their view tries to play the victim, it may stretch credibility. It is impossible for us to prove you are 'wrong' but it is easy to determine that no one agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need for administrators or policies then if everything depends on "agreement" of what should go in the article. Any edit and any source would be considered as verifiable/reliable as shifting, temporary majorities deem them to be at the time. It will be interesting to see the kind of "group project" Wikipedia would be then. The only plus I see in this case is that you and certain other administrators would be superfluous. Your opinion of me as "playing the victim" is prejudicial and imo excludes you from objectively considering this case as an administrator. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to review Wikipedia:Consensus, as the idea of Wikipedia functioning by "agreement" is one of only a few core policies. It means that your opinion is just as valid as others, but also that their opinion is just as valid as yours. Where those opinions disagree, discussion and consensus are required. Your task in such a case is to show why your proposed edits would be superior, would improve the article, or would better comply with policy. If you can, great - the article is improved. If not, you got the information into the debate and other editors might take it up at another time. You're not right because you say so, you're right because you convince others to agree with you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- I did review Wikipedia:Consensus, thanks. I want to understand this clearly and fully. I quote from Wikipedia:Consensus:
There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability.[My emphasis]
- Regarding my edit, consensus has been reached at a level above the article I am editing. Namely the consensus has been that as a source the Encyclopedia of Religion is among sources that are considered topical, reliable and verifiable. I don't see myself as outside that consensus at all. I "show why [my] proposed edits would be superior, would improve the article, or would better comply with policy" by using a source that is widely considered reliable and verifiable. My edit reflected the source accurately. I added information that provides much needed context to an article. Can you provide examples where editors were required to reach consensus that a reliable source is in fact reliable? And again, Wikipedia:Consensus:
Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.
- There were no concerns raised at all, legitimate or otherwise. There was blunt removal of the information I added and the reverting of the page. This is the edit summary of the original offender: "Not at all a good source. The author is herself a Theosophist, and as such her claims are not sufficiently independent for extraordinary claims" Jpgordon 00:41 7 February 2011 ([4]). This is not raising a concern, it's a verdict. A deeply flawed one: the Encyclopedia is a good source. There is no "author", but a contributor under review. Any reasonable rebuttal would stop there, because these already disqualify Jpgordon's revert. But let's momentarily forget that the original revert is flawed and unsupportable. Strictly as an intellectual exercise, and to leave no doubt, let's drill down: 1. Are the so-called claims extraordinary? No - at most half an hour's generic research will prove otherwise. 2. Is there a Wikipedia consensus in favor of prejudging statements about a philosophical belief strictly because of affiliation with such belief? I haven't found one.
- If I may quote you again: "It means that your opinion is just as valid as others, but also that their opinion is just as valid as yours. Where those opinions disagree, discussion and consensus are required." Please tell me what my opinion is here? That this Encyclopedia is reliable etc.? Is that an opinion? I believe that it is a fact, and a modicum of good faith would see this as reasonable. If it is a fact, then maybe we can agree that discussion and consensus are not required. Then perhaps you will see my above response to EdJohnston under a different light. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- You may wish to review Wikipedia:Consensus, as the idea of Wikipedia functioning by "agreement" is one of only a few core policies. It means that your opinion is just as valid as others, but also that their opinion is just as valid as yours. Where those opinions disagree, discussion and consensus are required. Your task in such a case is to show why your proposed edits would be superior, would improve the article, or would better comply with policy. If you can, great - the article is improved. If not, you got the information into the debate and other editors might take it up at another time. You're not right because you say so, you're right because you convince others to agree with you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is no need for administrators or policies then if everything depends on "agreement" of what should go in the article. Any edit and any source would be considered as verifiable/reliable as shifting, temporary majorities deem them to be at the time. It will be interesting to see the kind of "group project" Wikipedia would be then. The only plus I see in this case is that you and certain other administrators would be superfluous. Your opinion of me as "playing the victim" is prejudicial and imo excludes you from objectively considering this case as an administrator. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a group project. It depends on editors coming to an agreement on what should go in the articles. If you have found anyone at all who agrees with you on your proposals for Theosophical Society, it would help if you would give their names. If someone who has found no supporters for their view tries to play the victim, it may stretch credibility. It is impossible for us to prove you are 'wrong' but it is easy to determine that no one agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. There is no WP:COI involved here at all, I'm not promoting the interest of anybody or anything. This is just the latest attempt to "prove" I'm wrong somewhere, it's a moving target. Wikipedia policies that I'm supposedly violating are mentioned one after another without any real evidence. There are no other Theosophical Society editors interested in this. One person fell from the sky (User:Jpgordon) and started this completely unneccessary and time-wasting dispute. As far as I am concerned, there's a history of administrative-related actions, warning templates, admin noticeboard sections, reporting to noticeboards, allegations of violations etc. regarding me that have to be addressed before I continue editing. So if there is a need for an RFC at the Theosophical Society page (that's debatable) it's a long way off. I was not the one who asked for admin intervention, and I made no edits that needed further discussion. The disputed edit is an Encyclopedia entry from a reliable Encyclopedia overseen by an authoritative board published by a mainstream publisher. Why should I need to justify that?!?! It doesn't make any sense. Now that my talk page is chock-full of admin intervention over something so obviously ridiculous, well, I've got to see this to the end. This requires an impartial admin hearing which is not possible if I'm not allowed to state the facts as I see them. That is why I'm in the middle of my narrative here on your page. If you don't like me to continue here, please direct me to an admin-type forum where I can continue this. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ed is probably correct, IP 68.198 - the best place to find consensus to include your edits would be the talk page of the article. A Request for Comment may be a good idea there, as it would draw other editors not already involved in the discussion. It would also centralize discussion, so that your points are made in one place - not various talk pages. As I said, I can't really speak to the Conflict of Interest issue, but if you do have some sort of COI regarding this material it would be in your best interests to make sure everything you do is aboveboard and transparent. An RFC would accomplish that as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- 68.198, since you have a conflict of interest you should avoid editing Theosophical Society. Your prospects for getting your information into the article will depend on persuading the other editors on the talk page. If you think this needs a larger group than those who have already commented, you have the option of opening a WP:Request for comment. If in the future you plan on participating in controversies, you are well-advised to create an account, and not continue with an IP. Thanks to Ultraexactzz for allowing the use of his talk page for this. The IP's mention of 'disruption' and 'vandalism' is suggesting to me that the discussion can't continue here much longer. It should go on the IP's talk page, or be placed at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that's my entire point - you say that the source is reliable. In general, it might be, but this particular use is questioned because of the authorship. So, your task is to show why this author's work meets the standard of our reliable source policy. You don't get to disregard objections to the source simply because the other editor is wrong (according to you). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- "you say that the source is reliable. In general, it might be, but this particular use is questioned because of the authorship." I don't say the source is reliable, Encyclopedias with respected editorial boards from mainstream publishers and near-uniform critical praise are considered reliable whatever you or I are saying. Encyclopedias such as the one in question don't have "authors". They have Editorial Boards of recognized experts in their fields, who are the final arbiters of what goes in the Encyclopedia. They select or invite contributors who are widely recognized as knowledgeable. Don't bet that contributors affiliated with their subjects do not get especially rigorous scrutiny, you'll lose the bet.
- "So, your task is to show why this author's work meets the standard of our reliable source policy." See above. Also, wait, did we move yet again? Lately we were at Wikipedia:Consensus, now we are at WP:RS. There's nothing applicable there. The only section that comes close is WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, which has a more senior section here: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I don't see anything there that allows my edit to be reverted without discussion. The only reasoning given was the contributor's affiliation, without any proof that it negatively affected the Encyclopedia article, which is factually correct as can be seen with rudimentary computer research.
- "You don't get to disregard objections to the source simply because the other editor is wrong (according to you)." I didn't disregard any objections. Objection implies discussion. There was NO discussion. There was removal of information by reverting the page. Here's the original diff: [5]. There was NO objection or discussion prior to the original revert. How can I disregard something that didn't exist?
- Anything else? I'd like to continue with the admin-related actions and comments about me, which I've put on hold since 2/19 in order to answer these other posts. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that's my entire point - you say that the source is reliable. In general, it might be, but this particular use is questioned because of the authorship. So, your task is to show why this author's work meets the standard of our reliable source policy. You don't get to disregard objections to the source simply because the other editor is wrong (according to you). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, though. You might be right about everything you've said here, you might be wrong. But, just as you say they can't revert you without discussion, you can't revert them without discussion either. And, if you are unable to convince other editors that you are correct, you might not be able to add your material. For example, your edit was reverted because of a claim that the author is biased in some fashion. Saying "It's an encyclopedia" doesn't address why that author's work is or is not reliable (in the context of wikipedia), or why they are or are not independent of the subject. This page isn't the place to convince other editors that the authors in question are indeed reliable; I'm not sure where you should go to do that. The article's talk page and an RFC, maybe? In any event, good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your allowing me to state at least half of my case here. However, as I said, it's a long way afaic before I get to the article and its disruption. As I mentioned, there were certain admin actions and comments (as can be seeen in my talk page and elsewhere) about me that I question and need to address first. I would like to clear that out. Then I will properly complain about and ask for a review of the behavior of certain persons involved in this. Once these have been done with, I will definitely return to editing, starting with the Theosophical Society page. Please direct to the appropriate forum for my complaints so I don't have to bother you with this anymore. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing my point, though. You might be right about everything you've said here, you might be wrong. But, just as you say they can't revert you without discussion, you can't revert them without discussion either. And, if you are unable to convince other editors that you are correct, you might not be able to add your material. For example, your edit was reverted because of a claim that the author is biased in some fashion. Saying "It's an encyclopedia" doesn't address why that author's work is or is not reliable (in the context of wikipedia), or why they are or are not independent of the subject. This page isn't the place to convince other editors that the authors in question are indeed reliable; I'm not sure where you should go to do that. The article's talk page and an RFC, maybe? In any event, good luck to you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the editors involved, I don't see any misconduct to complain about. You added an edit to the article, other editor(s) disagreed - nothing unusual there, we're allowed to disagree. To your great credit, there was no edit war - you started discussion at that point. One editor disengaged (and I semi-protected their talk page to enforce it), but that was the only real drama. Everyone seems to have acted properly. Your recourse at this point, as has been stated above, is a Request for Comment at the article's talk page. This RFC will very specifically lay out your position, offer suggested solutions, and ask for broad discussion about the proposal. Editors will agree or disagree, and consensus one way or the other will form. If you're intent on complaining about specific actions on the part of other editors, you would create a user conduct RFC - but my read, as an editor of 5+ years and as an admin, is that there is not enough evidence of misconduct to justify such an RFC. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. As for complaints, the main ones I have are these: I think I was reported to the edit warring/3RR board witjout merit. I believe therefore that my eventual blocking because of that report was unjustified. And following that, I believe that the ISP template on my talk page was and is unjustified too. These actions exist on wikipedia logs. I want these taken care of, I don't want them associated with my IP and the possibility of them becoming excuses for more prejudicial behavior or accusations about me in the future. Will user conduct RFC initiate a review of these? 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no. The 3RR report indicated that you had reverted the article repeatedly, and that caused your block. When reviewing a WP:3RR violation, it matters not one bit whether the editor is right or wrong - what matters is that they repeated the same edit more than a certain number of times in a certain span of time. In this case, looking at the article's history, you reverted to the same version 5 times over a 3 day span - a clear edit war. The block appears to be justified. The key bit is that, even after the report was rejected (since it was not technically a violation of 3RR), you continued to revert - this triggered the edit warring block, rather than the original 3RR block that had been requested. You had absolutely no edits to the article's talk page prior to the block, so it appears that you were unwilling to discuss your edits at that point - another factor that likely resulted in the block. so looking back at it, from the outside, it appears to have been a justified block. As for the ISP template - sorry, you're an anonymous user. The only way to divorce your edits from your ISP would be to register an account. I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's my read. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree, that's not a good analysis imo. I did not start the reverts and did not see myself involved in a war, I reverted vandalism as I explained in my post of 17:20 2/19 above. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring, and is specifically excepted. So someone has to make a determination whether I was justified in declaring vandalism as described in my same posting above. To make that determination one has to consider the reasons given (by those who started this) for their reverts in the edit summaries, since they didn't see it fit to discuss it first. To determine whether their reasons were valid, one has to consider the merits of the edits they reverted. So there it is. Were my edits in the Theosophical Society page biased, unsupported, unsourced, disruptive, unhelpful? If you say yes and provide reasonable evidence, fine. If not, any and all actions against me after that are invalid, based on a false premise. So I do need to have that determination done formally.
- Are you saying that the ISP template is common procedure in all IP user talk pages? I certainly haven't encountered it before. Is there a page explaining this? 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- But that's exactly the point - you didn't attempt to defend your edits. You just dismissed the concerns of other editors as "vandalism" and reverted them. Overt vandalism would be to replace your edits with "poop lol" or some such - revert away, by all means. This was editors disagreeing with your analysis. You can't just say "you're wrong" and revert, as you appear to have done. The concern about them not discussing the issue is immaterial; it is incumbent on the editor wanting to include the material to defend its inclusion if questioned. As I note, you never did so until after your block. The fact remains that you reverted multiple times and multiple editors, all without discussing the issue - that's the very definition of an edit war, and the block was valid as a result. As I indicated, the merits of their edits do not matter one bit - unless it is overt vandalism, which it was not, you cannot revert repeatedly without discussion. Any review of your block will likely come to the same conclusion, given the timeline of your edits to the article and its talk page. My recommendation is to save yourself the hassle and embarassment of such a review - leave it be. Focus on the material you'd like to add, present a reasonable case for it on the article's talk page, and attempt to persuade others that your additions to the article are sound, and that the source they are based on is independent of the subject. That's your way forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- "You just dismissed the concerns of other editors as "vandalism" and reverted them. Overt vandalism would be to replace your edits with "poop lol" or some such - revert away, by all means. This was editors disagreeing with your analysis."
- There were no concerns raised. There was removing of info by reverting the page. Vandalism doesn't have to just be "poop lol". Overt vandalism can also be this, which applies here:
- "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." WP:VANDTYPES section Blanking, illegitimate.
- There were no concerns raised. There was removing of info by reverting the page. Vandalism doesn't have to just be "poop lol". Overt vandalism can also be this, which applies here:
- "the source they are based on is independent of the subject."
- First, the main editing criteria are reliability and verifiability, not "independence". If any source, including primary one passes that test, there should no problem:
- "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." WP:PRIMARY, Primary sources.
- The Encyclopedia of Religion is reliable and verifiable. The relevant article is covered by the above, in case anyone wants to nit-pick or remove an edit without cause.
- First, the main editing criteria are reliability and verifiability, not "independence". If any source, including primary one passes that test, there should no problem:
- "My recommendation is to save yourself the hassle and embarassment of such a review - leave it be."
- What's a hassle and an embarassment was the imo unjustified reporting, blocking, and templating of my talk page. The prejudicial comments about me are another matter which I would also like to raise. I don't think I acted in bad faith at all and I can't leave it be. I appreciate your continuing interest in this, but I have stated my case informally several times. What else can I say? 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- "You just dismissed the concerns of other editors as "vandalism" and reverted them. Overt vandalism would be to replace your edits with "poop lol" or some such - revert away, by all means. This was editors disagreeing with your analysis."
- But that's exactly the point - you didn't attempt to defend your edits. You just dismissed the concerns of other editors as "vandalism" and reverted them. Overt vandalism would be to replace your edits with "poop lol" or some such - revert away, by all means. This was editors disagreeing with your analysis. You can't just say "you're wrong" and revert, as you appear to have done. The concern about them not discussing the issue is immaterial; it is incumbent on the editor wanting to include the material to defend its inclusion if questioned. As I note, you never did so until after your block. The fact remains that you reverted multiple times and multiple editors, all without discussing the issue - that's the very definition of an edit war, and the block was valid as a result. As I indicated, the merits of their edits do not matter one bit - unless it is overt vandalism, which it was not, you cannot revert repeatedly without discussion. Any review of your block will likely come to the same conclusion, given the timeline of your edits to the article and its talk page. My recommendation is to save yourself the hassle and embarassment of such a review - leave it be. Focus on the material you'd like to add, present a reasonable case for it on the article's talk page, and attempt to persuade others that your additions to the article are sound, and that the source they are based on is independent of the subject. That's your way forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no. The 3RR report indicated that you had reverted the article repeatedly, and that caused your block. When reviewing a WP:3RR violation, it matters not one bit whether the editor is right or wrong - what matters is that they repeated the same edit more than a certain number of times in a certain span of time. In this case, looking at the article's history, you reverted to the same version 5 times over a 3 day span - a clear edit war. The block appears to be justified. The key bit is that, even after the report was rejected (since it was not technically a violation of 3RR), you continued to revert - this triggered the edit warring block, rather than the original 3RR block that had been requested. You had absolutely no edits to the article's talk page prior to the block, so it appears that you were unwilling to discuss your edits at that point - another factor that likely resulted in the block. so looking back at it, from the outside, it appears to have been a justified block. As for the ISP template - sorry, you're an anonymous user. The only way to divorce your edits from your ISP would be to register an account. I know that's not what you want to hear, but that's my read. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. As for complaints, the main ones I have are these: I think I was reported to the edit warring/3RR board witjout merit. I believe therefore that my eventual blocking because of that report was unjustified. And following that, I believe that the ISP template on my talk page was and is unjustified too. These actions exist on wikipedia logs. I want these taken care of, I don't want them associated with my IP and the possibility of them becoming excuses for more prejudicial behavior or accusations about me in the future. Will user conduct RFC initiate a review of these? 68.198.135.130 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at the editors involved, I don't see any misconduct to complain about. You added an edit to the article, other editor(s) disagreed - nothing unusual there, we're allowed to disagree. To your great credit, there was no edit war - you started discussion at that point. One editor disengaged (and I semi-protected their talk page to enforce it), but that was the only real drama. Everyone seems to have acted properly. Your recourse at this point, as has been stated above, is a Request for Comment at the article's talk page. This RFC will very specifically lay out your position, offer suggested solutions, and ask for broad discussion about the proposal. Editors will agree or disagree, and consensus one way or the other will form. If you're intent on complaining about specific actions on the part of other editors, you would create a user conduct RFC - but my read, as an editor of 5+ years and as an admin, is that there is not enough evidence of misconduct to justify such an RFC. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- <--- It's possible you missed the edit summary the first time you were reverted, here, where Jpgordon very specifically stated his concerns - "Not at all a good source. The author is herself a Theosophist, and as such her claims are not sufficiently independent for extraordinary claims" After the next revert, your response (here) was "No. The Editorial Board of that Encyclopedia had no problem with this. This is good enough. Secondly, you are wrong on the facts as well." Am I misreading that, or are you dismissing the concern with "you're wrong"? You might be right, you might be wrong. But you never once discussed it - you just dismissed the other editors with your edit summaries. You weren't blocked because of the source, you were blocked because you repeatedly inserted that source into the article without addressing the concerns raised by other editors (except with the aforementioned "you're wrong"). The reporting was justified, and the block was appropriate. My read is that you're not going to find any satisfaction in questioning the block - your best move is to resume editing in a productive manner. Discuss changes on the talk page, and perhaps you can sort out what parts of your source are usable. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your concerns, but in this case I believe your interpretation of policy may be mistaken, and that continuing to pursue the matter won't end well. I also add that the easiest way to remove the block from your log would be to start a new account - with a clean block log. Then discuss issues before they get out of hand, as they did here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Jpgordon had saw fit to discuss his concerns first, this whole incident wouldn't have happened. Instead, he removed the info without "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." (WP:VANDTYPES). That is the reason for my edit summary in reverting his removal: [6]. His next edit summary invites discussion in an unrelated page. This is not about some abstraction regarding the appropriateness of sources, it is about the appropriateness of my specific Theosophical Society edit. Why not start that discussion in the relevant talk page? This sounded like forum-shopping and not forthright at all. Everybody tells me to listen to others' "concerns" but I am still not allowed good faith. Nor is anyone discussing my concern that info I properly researched and cited in order to make an article better was removed out of hand with unproven allegations. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- That works for the first revert, maybe. Not for the following five. You don't get to keep reverting, whether you're right or wrong. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously I wouldn't reinsert 5 times if there wasn't someone (or someones) else reverting 6 times. Yet I was the one reported and blocked. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's as may be - but your block was related to your conduct, and what others did changes what you did not at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- My conduct was reverting vandalism. This is excepted by the edit warring policy. Therefore my block for edit warring was unjustified. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't - if you wanted the material included in the article, you needed to defend it via the discussion page. You reverted instead. There was no vandalism. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 23:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- My conduct was reverting vandalism. This is excepted by the edit warring policy. Therefore my block for edit warring was unjustified. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's as may be - but your block was related to your conduct, and what others did changes what you did not at all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously I wouldn't reinsert 5 times if there wasn't someone (or someones) else reverting 6 times. Yet I was the one reported and blocked. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- That works for the first revert, maybe. Not for the following five. You don't get to keep reverting, whether you're right or wrong. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- If Jpgordon had saw fit to discuss his concerns first, this whole incident wouldn't have happened. Instead, he removed the info without "non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." (WP:VANDTYPES). That is the reason for my edit summary in reverting his removal: [6]. His next edit summary invites discussion in an unrelated page. This is not about some abstraction regarding the appropriateness of sources, it is about the appropriateness of my specific Theosophical Society edit. Why not start that discussion in the relevant talk page? This sounded like forum-shopping and not forthright at all. Everybody tells me to listen to others' "concerns" but I am still not allowed good faith. Nor is anyone discussing my concern that info I properly researched and cited in order to make an article better was removed out of hand with unproven allegations. 68.198.135.130 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- <--- It's possible you missed the edit summary the first time you were reverted, here, where Jpgordon very specifically stated his concerns - "Not at all a good source. The author is herself a Theosophist, and as such her claims are not sufficiently independent for extraordinary claims" After the next revert, your response (here) was "No. The Editorial Board of that Encyclopedia had no problem with this. This is good enough. Secondly, you are wrong on the facts as well." Am I misreading that, or are you dismissing the concern with "you're wrong"? You might be right, you might be wrong. But you never once discussed it - you just dismissed the other editors with your edit summaries. You weren't blocked because of the source, you were blocked because you repeatedly inserted that source into the article without addressing the concerns raised by other editors (except with the aforementioned "you're wrong"). The reporting was justified, and the block was appropriate. My read is that you're not going to find any satisfaction in questioning the block - your best move is to resume editing in a productive manner. Discuss changes on the talk page, and perhaps you can sort out what parts of your source are usable. I'm not trying to be dismissive of your concerns, but in this case I believe your interpretation of policy may be mistaken, and that continuing to pursue the matter won't end well. I also add that the easiest way to remove the block from your log would be to start a new account - with a clean block log. Then discuss issues before they get out of hand, as they did here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
please help torsion field article
The article have no reliable sources as pseudoscientific concept. Shipov`s Torsion field research was not disbanded and will never be (it becomed private) due to the 1991 eastern "revolutions" the Soviet Union itself dissolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunism)! The ultimate truth is that torsion technology is the best and used by NASA(US), Cern LHC (top European Scientifical Experiments),Russian Research Institute of Space Systems, in one word everyone uses Akimov and Shipov`s work, the only technology provided with unlimited funds from KGB (Russia)! Torsion field devices are sold all around the world. In 2010 Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia, Mr. Boris Gryzlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov) gave an online interview (http://www.gazeta.ru/interview/nm/s3337459.shtml) «??????.Ru» “Gazeta.ru”,, where he commented the activities of "RANS" - the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience”. Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Party Boris Gryzlov denounced the activities of Commission on Pseudoscience of Russian Academy of Science (lead by ) as obnoxious (‘mrakobesy” Rus.) that work against development of Russia and her advances. He further named the commission’s scientific eloquence as “pearls” (an ironic substitute for an “obscene language” used by Commission to intimidate their opponents), which fell down below the intellectual level of top class experts in science.
- He got over 6,000 complaints about the Commission’s activities
- His Statement:
"The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."
- Gryzlov stated about his intention to detach “the commission from the Academy” the false group of scientists (the imaginary commission who asks for money from any new invention)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is at Talk:Torsion field - and I see you're already doing that. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, another editor accidentally reopened this debate (here), and then it ended up in the category and on the Biography AFD watchlists. It also explains why no one tagged the article - it was Kept last January (!). I've reverted their edit, though it's possible they'll re-nominate if and when. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- That explains alot!. Thanks. Maybe you could check out the Afd for Emilia Carr. Its definitly a Keeper im not sure as I might be bias but it seems like closed as Keep seems like obvious. Also if you have anything to say about the Afd of Colin Hatch please do. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I agree on the Carr article, and said so at the AFD - not as sure about Colin Hatch, though. I'll have a closer look later today. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks. OK well it might not be your area of interest so to speak.... Its ok no matter what you decide.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not an interest thing, but more of a policy thing - I think WP:NOTTEMP applies, but I'm not sure which way it applies. If the subject was notable in the past, then he was notable and the article stands. But if the notability is questionable, and there's little chance of future coverage, then we should delete. It's early yet, the nomination was only yesterday - but I'm curious to see how it plays out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- As you brought your opinion up I will tell my view... I believe that his earlier much so publizied former crimes and now his very publizied death is reasons enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. I also dont like the usual guessing game of sutch nominations, also its very unlikely that much more will happen in the story of Colin Hatch as he is in fact dead. But in my opinion it has happened enough to provied reasons for keep. Anyway....;)--BabbaQ (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not an interest thing, but more of a policy thing - I think WP:NOTTEMP applies, but I'm not sure which way it applies. If the subject was notable in the past, then he was notable and the article stands. But if the notability is questionable, and there's little chance of future coverage, then we should delete. It's early yet, the nomination was only yesterday - but I'm curious to see how it plays out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks. OK well it might not be your area of interest so to speak.... Its ok no matter what you decide.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I agree on the Carr article, and said so at the AFD - not as sure about Colin Hatch, though. I'll have a closer look later today. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Some opinions for Delete has been raised. Perhaps if you feel like it you could specify why you voted Keep on the articles Afd. Or give an argument for why it should be kept in discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
William K.Boone
Thanks for your comments and the advice, particularly the one on calling Wikipedia's "Peer review" to the rescue. Good idea; how do I go about that?
- By the way, I have been elaborating on some weak chinks and missing links, as have been pointed out in the AFD page, particularly the "Legacy" - It hadn't occured to me; now I have started a "Category: Colección Boone-Canovas" where I will be gathering a significant sample of photos and documents, as well as describing the merits of the "collection". At the same time, I have been working on several articles in the Wikipedia "en español", based on family stories, photos and documents from that collection.--Wkboonec (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Reply
I am sorry for the length of time between the response and your comments. I have made that mistake a few times and at first I didn't know it was a problem but I will refrain from doing so in the future. Aaaccc (talk), 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Wanted to say thanks for your comments on the Reader's Circle entry. I added an article from the Wall Street Journal as well. Normanrobert (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Colin Hatch
Hi, I have nominated Colin Hatch to be restored as the AFD result was a clear No Consensus vote. Join the discussion if you want to, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_6#Colin_hatch.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As the admin who has most recently reviewed the block of User:Monkeylegend, I thought it appropriate to alert you to the SPI I have raised against them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Monkeylegend. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It was userfied by you (with a stern "User:Zwickertara is cautioned that userfication isn't for holding, but for article improvement - it can't sit there forever.") well over a year ago and is basically untouched. Do we have to go through a whole new MfD now? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum Update
Hello!
I wanted to give you an update on the Children's Museum Wikipedia collaboration. You can check out my brief overview in the Children's Museum blog, which includes details on the Apprentice Program project to create five new Wikipedia articles as well as the image donation and use of the new Wikipedia Widget to link the museum's website to Wikipedia.
Last month we completed our first museum image content donation of 30 images. While this seems to be a low number, what makes the donation unique is the curatorial involvement in choosing and vetting the images for their appropriateness and usefulness within Wikimedia (many of the objects are copyrighted toys and other works that have copyright restrictions.) The curators in the collections department were very hands-on in their involvement, and we'll be outlining this process in an upcoming case study. If you would like to help further this process, I'd be happy for you to help disperse the images into useful Wikipedia articles, or let the appropriate WikiProjects know of the new images. Another 30 will be uploaded in the coming month.
In addition to the collaboration with the Museum Apprentice Program students and the curatorial department, another important collaboration was between User:Ealdgyth and the American Collections curators to significantly update the Broad Ripple Park Carousel article. After an impressive amount of time and work, the article has now received Featured Article status. The museum is absolutely thrilled and will now be adding a QR code to the carousel exhibit Carousel: Wishes and Dreams. In the future, more QR codes will be added to the objects that have had articles written by the MAP students. We're excited by the success of this collaboration & will also be writing a case study on the process.
There is now a recurring Indianapolis Update on the newly minted GLAM Newsletter. If you'd like to subscribe to the GLAM newsletter, you can do so here. Thanks! And let me know if you have any questions! HstryQT (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Shutterbug investigation
a quick FYI, I have reopened the NestleNW911 (talk · contribs) WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbugsock investigation. The original claim was closed but overturned later, you were on the discussion which overturned the ban. It is being reopened because the user in question has shown new editing patterns since the original ban was overturned.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblock request for Omer123hussain
I have no doubt that the block in question is justified for at least a short time - possibly a week or so. However it is the user in question's first block and the current block seems excessive. Omer123hussain has also made a large number of good edits to a number of articles, and without them those articles wouldn't have been improved.
While technically making an unblock request for another editor is against the rules, I don't see any possible harm from making one on the users behalf. There is a banner at the top of my screen asking "Wikimedia to become more open and collaborative" - what you've done is achieving exactly the opposite of that.
Technically as well I suppose I could raise the stakes of the game and start a thread on WP:ANI about the matter, but that just raises everyone's blood pressure and achieves little - all I'm asking you to do is to look at the merits of the case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Notification
Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Next Children's Museum Backstage Pass
Hello! I wanted to personally invite you to The Children's Museum of Indianapolis' 2nd Backstage Pass and Edit-a-Thon, which will occur on Saturday, August 20. The Wikipedian in Residence project is coming up on one year and is going strong. While the first year focused on garnering institutional enthusiasm among staff, organizing multiple content donations, and guiding teens in research and article creation, the next year will focus on establishing an E-Volunteer program and more deliberately connecting with local Wikipedians and WikiProjects around the world. You can read a summary of our projects on the museum's blog, or visit the project page.
We hope you're able to attend the upcoming Backstage Pass! If you're not able to attend, but are interested in remaining involved and up to date on the museum's Wikipedia project, please sign up on our E-Volunteer page. There will also be an opportunity to participate in the Edit-a-Thon online, if you cannot attend on-site. If you'd like to make a request for images or research content from our curators, you can add to the Requests page. Let me know if you have any questions and I hope to be in touch! LoriLee (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It's 2011: why do some people still think we will all freeze up in terror if we are accused of being pro-homosexuality?
I am used to adolescent vandals tagging me as "Orange Fag" and the like; but the accusation by User:KirthMersenne struck me as particularly absurd: the subject matter is so non-interesting to me that I haven't even bothered to look at the image which is at the heart of the argument. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate
Greetings,
My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.
I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?
With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.
I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.
Thank-you,
John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca
Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study
Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.
As I indicated in my last message, here are five short questions about your user page that I would like you to answer. These will help me to understand your motivations for creating a user page such as yours. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.
5 QUESTIONS
1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?
- Facebook. It's possible that an old myspace account still exists, but I have not used that service in several years.
2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?
- I have close to 20,000 edits, 3200 of which were to articles. Most prominently, I worked on several articles while they were under Featured Article Review, with a goal of keeping them as Featured Articles; these are indicated on the user page.
3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?
- The most critical piece of information about me is that I am an administrator - and, thus, am available if an editor should require assistance. It also provides a link to verify that I am indeed listed as an administrator. The remaining information is very general - how long I've edited, things I've done, etc.
- Much of the userpage is intended not so much to aid others in figuring out who I am, so much as to provide me with convenient information about what is going on with the project. The shortcut bar across the top has links to various pages where I do admin work, and a list of useful categories with the number of articles/pages in each category (Speedy Deletion nominations, for example, or Requests for Unblocking). I also have a list of Arbitration cases and Requests for Adminship - both pages I am interested in, but don't want to have to check daily. Having the templates here removes that need; I can click through if I see an interesting case or candidate pop up.
4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?
- I've received comments, and I don't think that the userpage had a great deal of impact on how those comments were presented. I've also received vandalism to my userpage, but I don't think the format or contents of the page caused that vandalism, so much as my admin actions somewhere else.
5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?
- Yes and No. I don't believe I react differently here, online, than I would to similar situations offline. I've always been more comfortable with the written word, so I would imagine that how I communicate is subtly different here - but that's a question of medium, not of persona. I do try to distance my real-world life from my presence on Wikipedia, but again that does not speak to differences between the two - rather, it's a function of limiting drama in general. Note that, apart from the occasional administrator drama, I stay far away from areas where real-life characteristics come into play (as with articles dealing with nationalities, for example).
Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. Please respond by October 1st so that I have time to properly read your responses. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).
Thank you again : )
Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
ADDITONAL INFORMATION
Background
• I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.
• I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.
Purpose
• My research is about how people present themselves online.
• I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.
Study Procedures
• With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.
• I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet.
• I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.
• Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm
Benefits
• There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.
• I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.
• There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.
Risk
• There is no direct risk for participating in this research.
Voluntary Participation
• You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.
• You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.
• If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.
Confidentiality
• This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.
• A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.
• Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.
• Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. It will not be sent by email or stored online.
• I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.
• If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.
Further Information
• If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.
INDICATING CONSENT
By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:
• That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.
• That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).
• That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.
• That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.
• That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.
• That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).
• That you agree to participate.
Thank-you again!
Thanks!
Thank you for your answer to my question about images, and fixing it for me. Regards Nevadaresident (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is needed
Hello! I'm touching base because of your interest in the past with The Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedia collaboration. The museum is considering adapting a formal E-Volunteer program and they welcome your opinion as a Wikipedian. Your responses to this E-Volunteer survey will be extremely valuable. The survey will come to a close on October 1st. If you're interested, I've recently revamped the list of ways you can help the Children's Museum's Wikipedia project. Thanks so much! LoriLee (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Rihanna's Sixth Album
Hi, I saw you was the person that incubated the article, but Rihanna has announced the name of the article now, so I was wondering if the article has become open now as it has a name or does it have to remain incubated? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
A swede by another name might be a turnip
There was a lengthy SPI and unblocking argument a bit back concerning someone who wrote very like this one, and who objected strongly to the objection to his Scandinavian connected name. Damned if I can remember the details, and I don't think I got involved so there's no point in me looking back in my contribs. Just wondered if it might ring a bell with you. Peridon (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Blade of the Northern Lights (appropriately, perhaps) has come up at AN with User:Sven the Big Viking. Could be totally unconnected. I've contacted Daniel Case, who has become involved and was with Sven. Peridon (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
A beer for you
|
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC) |
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For this, one more time! - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
New Page Patrol survey
 New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ultraexactzz! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC) |
Pocahontas
See User talk:TerriersFan#Pocahontas. Neutralitytalk 12:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Extremely dubious edit
I am surprised that you did not think this edit was worth an indefinite block, following the editor's other history. In fact, I would myself have thought that one edit alone would have justified an indef. Such a blatant attempt to abuse Wikipedia for phishing is surely beyond all acceptable bounds. Any comment? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!!
Thank you!! You helped me to learn how to add references ia an article.Also, thank you for your welcoming. (Αλεξανδράκης 7 (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC))(Αλεξανδράκης 7 (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC))
User Papaursa
Do you think Papaursa should be reported to the ANI? He clearly shows no interest in working along side fellow Wikiepidians, refusing to listen to any open suggestions, clearly this user values his own opinion over to those who have fresh ideas from what he says. I was offering some very useful suggestions at the WP:MMANOT's discussion page, as with the criteria as it is right now only whatever is considered a 'top tier' promotion is safe, whereas any other promotion, such as BAMMA and EliteXC are put on shaky grounds. He refuses to even acknowledge what I'm saying, going as far as saying that it is me who isn't open for suggestion. Now I've always had the best interests of all pages on Wikipedia, and I am a team player so I cannot see how he came up with that theory, just because I questions the criteria on WP:MMANOT, a page I should point out that HE created. I noticed that many of the users who offer suggestions always ask him, as if he owns the page, which is a direct violation of WP:OWN. No-one should have to ask for permission from him to edit the page, especially as it seems that he is the one with the final say everytime. Here is the last comment he put on that page -
'Actually, the reason I haven't bothered to respond to all your statements is because it would be a waste of my time. It's clear you have a viewpoint (which you repeat/repost over and over) and that no facts will dissuade you from your beliefs. Since you've made it clear you value no opinions but your own, why should I bother? Answer--I shouldn't.'
Now again it is like I said I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions, so this is insulting for me to read. I will, however, try to reason with a bit, if he refuses to listen and take in what I say, I may go a head and report him to ANI. (BigzMMA 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)
BigzMMA and Civility
Hello, you were recently involved in declining a unblock request by User:BigzMMA with regard to civility and personal attacks. I wish to draw your attention to a specific thread on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entitled WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT. BigzMMA has been making remarks about the other user in the dispute (User:Papaursa) and was warned to ceace making the attacks. A short time ago they made yet annother personal attack and I told them straight out they needed to strike their personal attacks from their latest posting, gave a 1 hour deadline prior to involving an administrator, and dropped a talk page notice on their talk page. As it's now been over 2 hours (I decided to be reasonable), I request that you please evaluate BigzMMA's statements and comment at their talk page. I am also posting this to the talk pages of other administrators who have dealt with BigzMMA before to form a consensus on how to improve the inter-editor communcation. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've been invovled in the MMA project with Papaursa and Bigzmma and read the DRN discussion. Now several admins are recommending RFC/U. This just seems like another page that Bigzmma can bludgeon Papaursa on. His tactics seem to be working since Papaursa has pretty much ceased to post (except for responding to Bigzmma). Bigzmma has posted negative comments about Papaursa on a variety of WP pages, user talk pages, AfD discussions, etc. This seems unfair to me--Papaursa hasn't been shown to do anything wrong and he gets driven off by a user that's been blocked twice in the last month for a variety of offenses. Astudent0 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Noted. We still need to see how the DRN discussion plays out; the fact that he retracted some of his attacks is a good start. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season
There is a deletion review here. Kingjeff (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I started from the bottom and you started from the top. Continuing from where we met toward the botttom, I am now going up the list to add the oldadfl tag per the closer's suggestion on his talk page.[7] ...his request there being that this be cut-n-pasted onto the various reated talk pages:
{{oldafdfull| date = 24 November 2011 (UTC) | result = '''Requires Centralised discussion for where to merge/delete material''' | page = Deathlands }}
Perhaps our editing paths will cross again. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- oldafdfull tagging of all of them now complete. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89's mass nominations
For the purposes of full disclosure I want you to know I have nominated the actions of User:Purplebackpack89 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Abusive mass nominations for deletion and wikistalking of opponents to deletion Awesome this is sparta sign, by the way, mind if I steal it?Luciferwildcat (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Tower of London
Hi,
You deleted my page 'Tower of london' and I can't edit it again to put a redirection to Tower of London. Please could you do this for me?
Many Thanks,
ThomasRules (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of Pag collection - Tonnes de flashs (13CD)
Hi, I suspect you have deleted this in error after I declined the CSD-A9 nomination. A9 is for where the article does not assert notability and there is no corresponding article for the artist. Both conditions must be true. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought about restoring it, but wondered if I was missing something. Cheers! Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion debates
Following your comments at the Village Pump, I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion here: Template talk:Deletion debates. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Advice for brewmaxx
Thanks alot for your very useful advice, very appreciated! cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.em (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Children's Museum update
It's time again to share the latest news on the Children's Museum of Indianapolis Wikipedia project! In the last few months we have been busy with our third image donation, which was made up of 150 images that were professionally photographed specifically for this upload. We are asking for volunteers to categorize these images and distribute them into Wikipedia articles. Your help is appreciated! Check them out here.
We have also donated our first video and a second GLAM-Wiki Infographic to Commons. In September we were thrilled to welcome Jimmy Wales to the museum. Following our successful Edit-a-Thon and Translate-a-Thon in August, translations have continued with the help of the established QRpedia community, (particularly Russian translations thanks to Lvova!) We have begun to analyze our implementation of QRpedia codes and completed an extensive case study. In November we presented at the Museum Computer Network conference about how museums can effectively collaborate with Wikipedia. You can see more details on the Prezi.
In more general news, in addition to serving as the Children's Museum's Wikipedian-in-Residence, it was recently announced that I will be taking on the role of US Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation. In this role I will be working to streamline the process of connecting interested US GLAMs with the Wikipedia community. If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to let me know. Be sure to sign up for This Month in GLAM to keep up with the latest GLAM-Wiki news from around the world (subscribe).
We have a listing of High Need and Moderate Need requests on the Ways to Help section on the project page. I encourage you to lend a hand if you're able. While the Children's Museum partnership continues to truck along, we still are in desperate need of volunteers to help disperse our images and update and maintain content. Thank you for your time and help. Happy holidays! LoriLee (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)