This page 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. |
I just noticed an anon user with a persistent practice of adding superlatives, mostly to articles concerning the Sopranos. The user has not so far been notified that these edits are inappropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.107.62.120
I handle small vandalisms myself, but this one I would like to pass on to someone better equiped to offer the appropriate instructional comments, and root out the damage, if anyone cares enough about fancruft to do so. Is there a noticeboard where this kind of thing can be passed along? MaxEnt 08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ Blpdispute}} is for cases of potential libel. The "last rites" assertion was indeed unsourced, but it doesn't constitute that kind of libel. However, that website was clearly inacceptable as a reference, simply because it cites the Wikipedia article as its only source. I removed it and it was replaced with another source, a book which I can't immediately judge since it's not online (but it's probably safe to assume that it makes for a far better source than the website). The article is for now appropriately tagged with {{ refimprove}} and {{ inline}}. Personally, I don't think there are many (or any) really controversial assertions in the article. Nevertheless, ideally everything should be attributable to a reliable source, so your concerns were indeed justified. Btw, I'm not an admin. |dorf|trottel| | mess| age| 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching it out to him and trying to explain. It seems to be helping. Natalie 03:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I just removed references to Soini because I couldn't find any source except a old newspaper that names him as a record holder. And the fact that Gardner supposedly never appeared in the Book required the removal of its mention except for one sentence stating this fact. You could word the first sentence however you wish. I found it a little awkward but couldn't think of anything to write instead. And I doubt there is an established record for longest time spent without sleeping. ۞ ░ 06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%. Jusjih 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a good compromise, although I doubt it will fly. Some time ago, I spent months trying to negotiate a settlement in a nasty edit war over this article, basically one or two people with a personal grudge against people who frequent Making Light but were nevertheless trying to be NPOV and source everything properly.
The editors (possibly one editor and a sock, but I'm not certain about this) who made the recent edits and arguing in their favor were banned from Making Light (for sock puppetry) and possibly Boing Boing (for rudeness and sock puppetry) as the result of the same thread referenced in the edit. The same screen names were used there as here. That does seem like a conflict of interest, and the thread specifically contains the moderator's denial that the dissenting opinions were at issue. That said, somebody somewhere has probably used disemvoweling against a contrary opinion, and this is probably as close as I've seen to an example of that. It doesn't seem all that rude to me. As you rightly point out, though, it's all very subjective and OR, and extremely hard to source. It took months to come up with sufficient reliable sources to make this article work the first time around. And maybe it's combat fatigue from that experience, and my discouragement over all the photos disappearing daily from my watchlist articles, but I don't want to get into another protracted negotiation with someone who obviously has an axe to grind. Regards, Karen | Talk | contribs 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, thanks for the advice. I have now cut it down, perhaps not enough? These new developments are relevant because the theory of swadesh lists is generally regarded as bunk by linguists, but as intriguing by outsiders. There are editors that like to add stuff about "new and improved" glottochronology, making it seem like it isn't bunk after all, but as you have found for yourself, the general view in linguistics hasn't changed. The general views of the rest of the scientific community isn't really relevant: the ones who do not engage in linguistic phylogenetic have only a street-man's opinion, and the ones who do engage in it are vastly outnumbered by the linguists that disagree with them. The "weakness in the study" was that it was not necessary for the researchers to define at the start which two homeland scenarios they tested for(since they have a singular input), they can have easily chosen their candidates after the fact (or after a pilot experiment), with no evidence of foul play to be found. As it is, their number sounds much more credible because of the "background story" of comparing two specific scenarios (as you yourself said, falsifiability adds merit), but what I meant was that the "falsifiability" arises out of their prose, not out of their method. And falsifiability at around 8000 years time depth isn't all that great. However, while that's clear as day to me, I don't have time to find sources to that fact, so it's original research and has been cut, also it's not that relevant.-- AkselGerner ( talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding UV I remember being pleased when I found sources that enabled me to get to the truth of the matter and I thought I was careful to get the units right. I'll take a detailed look again later. Regards -- Memestream ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the page in question it seems to me that there has been no real change, as mW m-2 nm-1 is the same as mW/m2 nm (excuse me not using suffix notation - never worked out how to). I think the new form is clearer. The reference I used for those figures is clearly given in the inline citation. -- Memestream ( talk) 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you are still interested: in mw:Extension talk:Lua I've found the problem to make the program work. It was because it isn't possible to declare a variable with underscores in this environnement (MediaWiki doesn't like undescrores in a tag). ~ Seb35 [^_^] [fr] 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you've edited the Steve Mann entry and thought you should be aware of this new short documentary. Perhaps it would be a valuable reference or external link. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia.
CorridorX ( talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sidor Artemievič Kovpak ancestors on the run for assassination
Me and my brother Sibirian Artjom (named after Sydor's father Artjom) we are the youngest of the four Great grand anserters of Sydor Kovpak. We need help and or life is in danger. My father has made for us a social program this program is of social effort and is the fight to rescue Missing children in the Ukraine in or name! For this we survived assassinations and now we are in a situation that needs attention of all who are involved in Sydor’s vision and heroics acts for the Russian and Ukrainian people.
I ask can you get in contact with us to listen to or story. Or email is 1400heroes@gmail.com and Verrazzo@hotmail.com — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.61.202.149 (
talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jordan Henry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AHL ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time-invariant system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discrete ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi MaxEnt, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB ( talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
I just noticed an anon user with a persistent practice of adding superlatives, mostly to articles concerning the Sopranos. The user has not so far been notified that these edits are inappropriate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.107.62.120
I handle small vandalisms myself, but this one I would like to pass on to someone better equiped to offer the appropriate instructional comments, and root out the damage, if anyone cares enough about fancruft to do so. Is there a noticeboard where this kind of thing can be passed along? MaxEnt 08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{ Blpdispute}} is for cases of potential libel. The "last rites" assertion was indeed unsourced, but it doesn't constitute that kind of libel. However, that website was clearly inacceptable as a reference, simply because it cites the Wikipedia article as its only source. I removed it and it was replaced with another source, a book which I can't immediately judge since it's not online (but it's probably safe to assume that it makes for a far better source than the website). The article is for now appropriately tagged with {{ refimprove}} and {{ inline}}. Personally, I don't think there are many (or any) really controversial assertions in the article. Nevertheless, ideally everything should be attributable to a reliable source, so your concerns were indeed justified. Btw, I'm not an admin. |dorf|trottel| | mess| age| 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching it out to him and trying to explain. It seems to be helping. Natalie 03:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I just removed references to Soini because I couldn't find any source except a old newspaper that names him as a record holder. And the fact that Gardner supposedly never appeared in the Book required the removal of its mention except for one sentence stating this fact. You could word the first sentence however you wish. I found it a little awkward but couldn't think of anything to write instead. And I doubt there is an established record for longest time spent without sleeping. ۞ ░ 06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%. Jusjih 01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a good compromise, although I doubt it will fly. Some time ago, I spent months trying to negotiate a settlement in a nasty edit war over this article, basically one or two people with a personal grudge against people who frequent Making Light but were nevertheless trying to be NPOV and source everything properly.
The editors (possibly one editor and a sock, but I'm not certain about this) who made the recent edits and arguing in their favor were banned from Making Light (for sock puppetry) and possibly Boing Boing (for rudeness and sock puppetry) as the result of the same thread referenced in the edit. The same screen names were used there as here. That does seem like a conflict of interest, and the thread specifically contains the moderator's denial that the dissenting opinions were at issue. That said, somebody somewhere has probably used disemvoweling against a contrary opinion, and this is probably as close as I've seen to an example of that. It doesn't seem all that rude to me. As you rightly point out, though, it's all very subjective and OR, and extremely hard to source. It took months to come up with sufficient reliable sources to make this article work the first time around. And maybe it's combat fatigue from that experience, and my discouragement over all the photos disappearing daily from my watchlist articles, but I don't want to get into another protracted negotiation with someone who obviously has an axe to grind. Regards, Karen | Talk | contribs 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, thanks for the advice. I have now cut it down, perhaps not enough? These new developments are relevant because the theory of swadesh lists is generally regarded as bunk by linguists, but as intriguing by outsiders. There are editors that like to add stuff about "new and improved" glottochronology, making it seem like it isn't bunk after all, but as you have found for yourself, the general view in linguistics hasn't changed. The general views of the rest of the scientific community isn't really relevant: the ones who do not engage in linguistic phylogenetic have only a street-man's opinion, and the ones who do engage in it are vastly outnumbered by the linguists that disagree with them. The "weakness in the study" was that it was not necessary for the researchers to define at the start which two homeland scenarios they tested for(since they have a singular input), they can have easily chosen their candidates after the fact (or after a pilot experiment), with no evidence of foul play to be found. As it is, their number sounds much more credible because of the "background story" of comparing two specific scenarios (as you yourself said, falsifiability adds merit), but what I meant was that the "falsifiability" arises out of their prose, not out of their method. And falsifiability at around 8000 years time depth isn't all that great. However, while that's clear as day to me, I don't have time to find sources to that fact, so it's original research and has been cut, also it's not that relevant.-- AkselGerner ( talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding UV I remember being pleased when I found sources that enabled me to get to the truth of the matter and I thought I was careful to get the units right. I'll take a detailed look again later. Regards -- Memestream ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the page in question it seems to me that there has been no real change, as mW m-2 nm-1 is the same as mW/m2 nm (excuse me not using suffix notation - never worked out how to). I think the new form is clearer. The reference I used for those figures is clearly given in the inline citation. -- Memestream ( talk) 10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if you are still interested: in mw:Extension talk:Lua I've found the problem to make the program work. It was because it isn't possible to declare a variable with underscores in this environnement (MediaWiki doesn't like undescrores in a tag). ~ Seb35 [^_^] [fr] 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed you've edited the Steve Mann entry and thought you should be aware of this new short documentary. Perhaps it would be a valuable reference or external link. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia.
CorridorX ( talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Sidor Artemievič Kovpak ancestors on the run for assassination
Me and my brother Sibirian Artjom (named after Sydor's father Artjom) we are the youngest of the four Great grand anserters of Sydor Kovpak. We need help and or life is in danger. My father has made for us a social program this program is of social effort and is the fight to rescue Missing children in the Ukraine in or name! For this we survived assassinations and now we are in a situation that needs attention of all who are involved in Sydor’s vision and heroics acts for the Russian and Ukrainian people.
I ask can you get in contact with us to listen to or story. Or email is 1400heroes@gmail.com and Verrazzo@hotmail.com — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.61.202.149 (
talk) 15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jordan Henry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AHL ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time-invariant system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discrete ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi MaxEnt, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB ( talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This page 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. |