Archive #2 starting January 2, 2008
Refs are tough to format sometimes... Bellwether BC ( talk) 04:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) ;)
My recent edit to Social engineering you said you moved to other page. Social engineerinr edit by User:Igorberger Moving to othe page does not say much. Can you tell me where you moved it and why you moved it there? Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Per your revert, what sort of error(s) are you referring to? — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for telling me, Risker. :-) I had been thinking about suggesting it for TFA, and I'm thrilled that it will actually become a TFA so much sooner than I thought. Best regards, Hús ö nd 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I admit that the Queluz article is, in my mind, exemplary, but, alas, I have had no input (to my knowledge) whatsoever. I wish I could claim to, though... Is the talkpage where your message should mostly go even open? athinaios ( talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I can do the Blunt merge for you. Get the article up to final shape and let me know. It looks like the pre-December history of your subpage should not be merged, those edits can be deleted unless you want to save them somewhere. NoSeptember 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For obvious reasons I hesitate to respond, but you say no one else has. [1] So please assume good faith and consider the content rather than the contributor. The approach I would suggest for this type of situation would be:
If Giano had followed those steps then the matter might have gotten resolved without arbitration, and if it did go to arbitration there wouldn't be the same level of concern about his conduct. Durova Charge! 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Durova and Rockpocket, I appreciate your having responded. As I was soundly informed it was inappropriate to have taken conversations relating to this RFAR off to someone's user page earlier in the process, I have elected to respond strictly within the RFAR itself; please note that I personally have no problem with either of you posting here, but I do not want to do something that someone has "warned" me about. I know it doesn't occur to either of you the tenuous position we non-admins professing non-mainstream philosophies feel we are in; that feeling is quite real, and is one of the main reasons that so few people have the courage to speak against the prevailing opinion. Risker ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.
Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker ( talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be slow to respond to your message. I got tied up in the Jim62sch arbitration.
I looked at that diff you provided and thought it was pretty odd; I don't award patrolmanships -- I had merely invited him to check out WikiProject Spam.
I wasn't sure how to deal with the RfArb, but then he left a message for me so I responded, trying to explain things. -- A. B. (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate vandals, and you're one of the good guys on this project, so... anyways, thank you for the kind notes you left my students in the sandbox of the articles they're trying to create. They appreciated them, though none of them were brave enough to leave an experienced Wikipedian like you a message back. Feel free to comment to any of their talkpages, as you see fit. User:Wildchild48 made a few edits she's proud of today, to Deenie, I believe it was, a book she loves. And User:Tom Mouse $ edited one of the Hardy Boys book articles, which he thought was pretty cool as well. Thanks again for all your help, Risker! Bellwether B C 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started another new article ( Capitol Offense (band)), that you might like to take a look at. It's the rock band of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and I've found a lot of good refs already, but haven't expanded it as much as I would like to yet. As you did such a great job on the rewrite of James Blunt, I'd love to have you take a look at both the article proper, and the refs I placed on the talkpage and in the article. Bellwether B C 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I switched it to "under construction" (at least I thought I did), as I'll be working on it quite a bit over the next couple of days. Bellwether B C 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you would do the same with the Primavera article, or the Capitol Offense article, if I was as out of pocket as you are now. Stay safe! Bellwether B C 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I started another new article, on a band based in Dallas (where I used to live), that I'd appreciate your input on. The article is Sorta, and the refs are a mess, if you have a chance to work on them when you return from your trip. Best, -- Bellwether B C 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not endorsing Jimbo's statement - far from it. If you'll check the ArbCom's query to the community for input from a year ago, my own opinion was vote with your feet which meant I enouraged the soft demise of the administrator channel through attrition. You can check with Bishonen or Jehochman or David Gerard: I never went there. In fact I felt so strongly about the matter that I boycotted IRC entirely, and still do. Durova Charge! 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of articles I've created (well, one I simply expanded a LOT) in the last couple of weeks. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what you think? Feel free to either intersperse your thoughts on these within the text below, or respond at my talk. I thought this might be a useful distraction from some other WP things that might be on your mind right now. -- Bellwether B C 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In order:
Let it be Sorta. My favorite non-famous band, in which a friendly aquaintance of mine (Danny Balis) plays. They're astoundingly awesome, and I really want to see that one at FA as soon as possible. Thanks for being a great wiki-friend, and I hope you enjoy your "Sherry"! -- Bellwether B C 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that anyone was checking up my contrib history! LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am intending to reply to Risker about an article written titled Craig McKenzie. To answer your question only one person is using this account and we certainly are not a company. I was referring to my wife who was researching this matter with me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi; as I said to your friend, I really don't want to get into an editing war on this, but I felt his reasoning was invalid & he clearly, from his comments, had not examined my work in detail.
I'll try & keep this concise, & stick to WP, rather than an involved debate: you haven't cited any WP policy re the appropriateness of the links; you have admitted that you can't be bothered checking or considering them on their merits individually and are just going to revert because you feel like it, which is certainly a violation of WP as well as common courtesy; & you are clearly entering the discussion merely to back up your friend, adding nothing of substance to the matter, simply spreading around the use of the "undo" function a bit, which is questionable behavior under relevant WP @ best.
I will also note that the changes in question are purely a matter of copy-editing & do not in any way alter the information content of the article; the article in question has much room for improvement & if i were to make a full effort on it, there is a great deal of repetetive content that could be cut.
Also, you might want to check the quality & relevance of some of the links in the version you two keep reverting it to, before you question my choices.
I don't mean this to seem unfriendly, but I don't enjoy how you & your friend are treating me, & I feel your behavior is at best not in the spirit of true wiki-courtesy.
If you would like to discuss the matter further, I am available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sabatoge you redirection of that thread by replying there. However I imagine my evaluation of ‘’any’’ arbcom case, would find unacceptable actions on all sides. Clearcut cases are generally handled by other methods of dispute resolution. Situations that do become arbcom cases tend to be marked by complicity on at least two fronts.-- BirgitteSB 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Most particularly the very last sentence; I presume that you are not talking about hamster fur? ;~D LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this thread, and was wondering if I could possibly ask you to post a link to my on-wiki summary? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary. I've also asked Stevage, so don't worry if he does this first. I really must subscribe... :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI. I've re-split out what I believe to be more-or-less your rewrite [2] of the private correspondence proposal. I don't use email, so I can't advertise this on the mailing list. But I nevertheless feel this is the only way forward and appreciate any support. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was starting to look like a complete mess and it was bothering me. :P Good luck on bring the article up to GA status! -- Underneath-it-All ( talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I hate that song and having to listen to it repeatedly for this purpose was painful :D. If you're looking for FA, then I'd wish you the best of luck, but as of now there's a long way to go. You might want to look at say, Frank Black for a "model" FA on an individual musician. Also, external links should never be in the main body of the article and a section like "Musical style and influence" would be necessary. I hope the sample I got for you is adequate; you'll have to change the caption in the article, I didn't do it. Add the song sample to the song's article too (add additional fair-use rationale too). Best wishes, indopug ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've created a few ref-ed grafs in userspace for you to take a look at. Here is a link to the text I've created. Let me know if you think any changes need to be made, or--of course--feel free to make the changes yourself. Regards, Bellwether B C 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I would have no problems with that, so go ahead. -- Scorpion 0422 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For all your excellent help with Hockey Hall of Fame. -- Scorpion 0422 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) |
Talk page archive #2 - January/08 -
No, the cites don't have to be checkable online, but the facts in the "hook" should normally have inline cites to a reliable source of some description. Your own noms should ALWAYS have inline cites for the facts in the hook or they will probably be rejected. If you are nominating someone else's article though, I personally will waive the inline cite requirement IF the article is obviously very well sourced and there is little doubt that the hook is factually correct. Hope that helps. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Risker for your advice and help. You are correct-- I am fairly new and I will take some time to thoroughly read Wiki's requirements and figure out how to create well written articles. I agree with your point about other "player agents." McKenzie is a very humble guy and very active in many different areas and I think this sets him apart. He is also one of the youngest persons in this business with these accomplishments. I believe the article will remain as other notable characteristics will come out within the next year or so as it relates to McKenzie such as a novel he has written that will be published with a notable publisher and a documentary film which he is directing. He is also a marketing consultant for one of the Presidential campaigns. I'm very fond of him and in time I certainly believe you will not second guess his notability. Thanks again for your time and again I will review your work too so that I have the adequate knowledge for my future entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Actually I copy-pasted the contents of that article from Jimi Hendrix discography#Black Gold. They weren't sourced there either, and I agree that this is a problem. However, I don't see the controversy that you see. I also don't see any way that this article would get deleted even if you AFD'd it. The content, although unsourced, definitely "seems" legit. It does refer to Tony Brown, who does exist and has published books about Jimi Hendrix, so I think that whoever originally put this material on Wikipedia knew what they were talking about. EAE ( Holla!) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reedit the Ludwig Merwart entry. Pls could you define what exactly is missing? Thx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.10.205 ( talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've completed the merwart entry. Therefor I created the new subtilte "work". Hope it is fine now. Best, Manfred.
Yes, the template does need some attention. I have made a minor fix. -- Alan ( talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. "Category:Villa Angarano Bianchi Michiel" This one needs turning into another villa article, but I am puzzled as to how to amend this material.
Thank you indeed for supporting me against those juvenile antics. I guess we can hardly semiprotect a talk page. I wonder whether banning the address of the user is a viable course of action. The fact that s/he has persisted for so long makes me think that the problem won't go away soon. Tony (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Risker. I didn't delete it because of a bad rationale, but because the image is replaceable - since it's a simple graph, it should be trivial to draw an identical one. I've restored the image for now to get a second admins' opinion on it. east.718 at 12:59, February 17, 2008
Hello Risker, thanks for editing the Peaches Geldof article, but why did you throw out the important link which I added to it? The whole controversy is, that she was shown in HELLO! Magazine in three dresses which were later claimed to be fakes. The link that I added substantiated this. It seems to be obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked and that is what the extract of the edit should reflect. You cannot make that clear in three sentences. And you just made the claimed Monroe worn dress appear real and authentic with your edit. Please correct and put back the link. I agree with you that I posted to much on Travilla but that can be fixed without losing the importance of the articles which you simply removed. Thank you. -- Weareallone ( talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You would be correct if the article was mainly about Ms Peaches Geldof, but the article was about the dresses she wore. Have you read or seen the article at all? The people behind the exhibition claimed that Ms Geldof was wearing originals, made by Travilla and worn by Monroe. Your edit actually is supporting this claim which is not why I posted this information. One may argue that Ms Geldof with her celebrity status has, unknowingly supported a hoax. Remember that they charged people to look at the claimed to be Monroe worn costumes in Brighton. So the crime, if proven has already been committed. My edit is not accusing Ms Geldof of such action. But in my opinion she was pulled and used to sell a false product, a false exhibition. I did not get your reply and edited down my previous post and put back the media link which is important to at least give the reader the chance to realize that there were doubts. Ms Peaches Geldof obviously believed that the dresses she wore were real, but so did another British model, who was fooled, just like Peaches Geldof was: http://www.laracroftonline.com/news/tr_models.php Read this article and realize the WATH model Lucy Clarkson even mentioned makeup which she thought was Monroe's, yet knowing that Peaches Geldof wore the same dress there is a great chance it was Geldof's makeup. I hope you can agree on my last edit, thank you. Please feel free to work the Lucy Clarkson / Travilla article in, but I doubt that is of relevance for the Peaches Geldof article, and that is why I did not include it. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but there might also be a chance that the makeup originates from the British Marilyn Monroe impersonator Suzie Kennedy who was also wearing the white dress for PR reasons and for a photo shoot. http://www.raievents.co.uk/content/fashion-shows/the-lost-connection.html Since Suzie Kennedy appears to be bustier than Marilyn Monroe and larger in statue and weight, you can do the math I guess yourself. It is very obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked, I never thought or claimed she wore the fakes, knowing they actually were fakes. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do find it very relevant that Ms Geldof was pictured on the cover of a yellow press magazine and that she was fooled, that the public was fooled and that Peaches Geldof unknowingly supported this scam with her name. The people who brought out this hoax even charged a shockingly high amount of money to the magazine to photograph Ms Geldof in the costumes which became absolutely questionable. It may have very well have to do with Peaches Geldof, because paying visitors of the hoax paid money to look what Peaches Geldof was modeling in a famous magazine and they trusted the exhibition to be real and authentic of course. Peaches Geldof has unwillingly become part of the hoax. She was used and that will stand for both parties history, the Travilla's and Peaches Geldof's as well. Please do not claim that the dresses she modeled were made by Travilla himself, because that has become highly questionable as well over the course of the past six months as I read into this fascinating exposure of an exhibition scandal which fooled the entire British media. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically Jacques Plante. It's been at GAN for about a month now, and I've decided to start moving to another stage of its development. I've contributed more or less the entire content of the article. I think it could you use some copyediting. Can you take a look, plz? I think you did a very good job with Hockey Hall of Fame, and I want to work on another article with you. Thanks, Maxim (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform me for the reason for your reversion. My copy of All the Lost Souls has a Bonus track which is a very slow version of Dylan's "I Want You" without the final verse (it also contains the bonus track "Dear Katie"). I wondered if that was the iTunes bonus track, hence my edit. Mickraus ( talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting. I find myself deleting about half the responses and comments I might make because they are wholey snarky and filled with inappropriate language. and surprizingly it seems that everyone else (so far) is doing the same. Have a great weekend. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Risker,
I don't want to clog up the talk page (more than it is), but I do want to clarify. I quibbled with the detail about when the proposal was added. I did not mean to be dismissive of your comments, and in particular, the second paragraph here exactly captures what I was thinking. I watch cases because I am interested, but also because I invested time and effort in making informed choices to support candidates for ArbCom, and their voices, as individuals, carry weight and matter. That is why they are on the committee. Jd2718 ( talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, u:Risker, re this insightful post, I imagine I could construct an argument that editting another user's posts was a "personal attack", and that edit-warring with other users also is a "personal attack", but it might not fly. I think your approach is more reasoned. PS: fixed my talkpage, regards Newbyguesses - Talk 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I try to call 'em like I see 'em. ;)
Unfortunately, this has sucked up the remainder of my enthusiasm for the project for the time being. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I missed your note in a pile of other ones. :-( It's now been archived to User_talk:Maxim/archives/mar08#Jacques_Plante. Concerning your ideas... I work on stuff off-wiki in a text editor then paste the text in. For refs, I haven't scoured the library, but I have a book on Plante's contemporary Glenn Hall which portray Plante in a rather more negative light, and the internet can provide the rest. Your ideas? -- Maxim (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you're obviously already familiar with the reasons for removing content from that talk page and such a good friend of Giano's, I felt sure you'd share his concern over about the community's best interest ...and Jimbo's. Good work you two dealing with Diligent Terrier!. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
...for fixing the AFD... Renee ( talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For undoing my edit in the Hockey Hall of Fame page.
Just a little out of it today. ^^; I should have thought about that a little more before deciding to change it.
Thanks again! Thysiazo ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you left a note at Doc glasgow's talk page about this. Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your sugestions. (You might as well, since I mention you ;) ) Noroton ( talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was wiki-surfing and came abou your userpage. I was wondering if you would mind if I used your cartoon of the {{cn}} on my userpage. It prety much sums up my philosophy, as well! Thanks!-- Sallicio 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Mahalo for the picture! Cheers!-- Sallicio 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I responded on my talk page, too!-- Sallicio 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for noticing that. I didn't see if he changed it, but I think hopefully people will get the point from context. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit is an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. I was tempted to do that but I thought that I leave to Giano to put the guy in his place. In retrospect, I think yours approach and my initial hunch was best. None of those fellows has ever learned anything anyway. Thumbs up! -- Irpen 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been a tad slow so that's why I didn't reply to the note. Feel free to add content; I've been adding some new refs and replacing older ones so the first book isn't the only major reference work. I've done some light copyediting on the article itself, so your version now is quite out of date. I've also removed the quotes and revamped the awards. Hope you're feeling better, Maxim (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Done and sorry about that. I didn't know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm feeling quite eager to send the article to FAC. Can you update me on your progress? Thanks, -- Maxim (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Risker. Did you see that Naerii admitted to being canvassed off-wiki at the Wikipedia Review? Interesting turn of events, no? Frankly, whatever issues you have with JayJg, I would appreciate if you left them with him and kept me out of them. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry and canvassing, however, are something that I do have some rather well-developed opinions about. I recognise and agree with your point that one doesn't have much control over what emails show up in the inbox; indeed, I've had some pretty nasty ones (including a few accusing me of being a meatpuppet) and some blatantly canvassing ones. I'll venture to guess that you and I both respond to the canvassing in the same way - if the topic is of no interest to us, we ignore or respond that we will not be participating; and if it is a topic of interest, we take a look at the material being discussed and put forth our own independently developed positions. I find that there is a rather pernicious use of the term "meatpuppet" that has been getting more pronounced in recent months, which is unfortunate and uncalled-for. As you quite correctly point out, it's very rare for two or more editors to hold the same substantive opinion across their entire editing experience, although common to see editors hold similar opinions on specific topics. The latter is what makes almost all WP editors susceptible to meatpuppet accusations. I wonder if we aren't getting pretty close to a meatpuppet version of Godwin's law, since it often seems to have a very similar rhetorical effect. Regarding Naerii specifically, I believe s/he has written that s/he first found out about the AfD on WR; that is not the same thing as being canvassed to express a specific opinion, and one thing I've figured out from reading that site occasionally is that their members are all over the map on a lot of subjects, so whatever opinion Naerii is espousing, it isn't the "WR" one.
I've blathered on here long enough, I hope, to help you understand my perspective on things. I personally do not believe you are a meatpuppet of Jayjg; I also don't believe that Naerii expressed his/her opinions on behalf of anyone at Wikipedia Review. And I think all of us (I'll include myself here) need to be sure to AGF or simply ignore certain points, if for no other reason than to keep discussions moving. Thanks for popping by my page, I don't think we have edited together since the early days of the Essjay controversy article. Best, Risker ( talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: See here. :) -- Avi ( talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember not drag the ref fixes too long. :-p You'll get an orange bar for each day. Meant as a friendly reminder and a bit of a joke, too, but there is a serious part to this. :-p Maxim (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kalisha Buckhanon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisha Buckhanon. Thank you. MCB ( talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion in this section has now been moved to Talk:Peaches Geldof. Please do not post any more on this subject on my user page; go to the article talk page instead. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing; we edit-conflicted in trying to achieve the same result. Tony (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
got your message at my talk, and I think you're right - have consigned my edit at jimbo's talk page to the memory hole as well; and this april, I've been somewhat the fool in an attempt at mischievous humour..... as I said in my edit summary at Jimbo's page - jokes and bones shouldn't be too close, I guess - sincerely no intent to harm, and moving along now.... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't left a note at jimbo's page because I'm not sure that would help... and if anyone else has noticed my silly post at giano's talk page, which I signed 'jimbo wales' then please accept this post as a note of contrition if it's touched any nerves - I meant it with a smile, without malice, and now shall move on.... Privatemusings ( talk) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, I just noticed! I don't know what I did to attract the attention of a vandal! Kelly hi! 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It happens to be one of my fav jokes; I will stop smiling when it forms part of a WP:NPA complaint, I guess... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was just a joke because of the "Peaches Geldof is a man" thing. -- User:Iambus ৹ | talk 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. I surely do appreciate you lending me a hand. Please go ahead with copy edits. yes, I will be very much around to answer your questions.Thank you Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the King in the Jeep image. Go ahead and move it. Or I can do it too. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Lovely work, thanks. Have been wondering about it off-and-on for some time, and kept on putting it off.
The problem with FAs these days is precisely the level of copy-editing they require. I firmly believe the sourcing/content vs cyediting -MoS balance is off in the evaluation there. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to thank you for your beautiful cedits! It reads so much better now. I was one of those who opposed the FA status for this article due to the reasons I had stated in the FAC discussions. Though it is not a FA at present, it is a good article in my view. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contribution to this article. Any potential reader will be thankful.-- Aadal ( talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm done. I've left the prose untouched (for you to take a stab at), only fixing what I thought were the glaring inaccuracies in the lead. I haven't taken a look at your revisions yet, but the glowing reviews above suggest felicitous work. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Thanks for resuming. One request. For poets please comment out Srivijaya but retain Kavisvara. Regarding Chudamani ("Crest Jewel"), a 96,000-verse commentary on logic, I feel it is important to mention that number because the book was called "the greatest work in Kannada" by 1604 CE Kannada grammarian Bhatta Akalanka who authored Karnataka Sabdanusasanam. Scholars realise that the book was therefore available to him in the 17th century and must have been lost there after. That number is repeated faithfully by multiple historians.thanks Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps I should include that 96,000 detail in a sub-article I plan to write for "early writings in Kannada". Thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just unarchived a few sections as they were still the topic of discussion. As for the referencing nonsense - this is what I'd said on april 3rd when I thought that Fowler meant for all the refs to be replaced with the original year. Then I noticed that he'd only fixed the years in the References section and even withdrew my comment.. but today I watched with disgust as he went ahead and changed every single reference. I didnt revert him because, I'm waiting for the dust to settle -- so I can bring back the cited info he'd removed and also fix a few things you inadvertantly changed (the meaning of) during your cpedits. But he seems determined not to let the dust settle. Sarvagnya 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
yes thank you. somebody must have hacked my name. I think it was user: Jakew i already changed my password and reported it. what else can i do? Mayday2010 ( talk) 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Let me first apologize for the behaviour of two users, Fowler and Aadal, both frivolous opposers on the earlier FAC of this article. They seem to be determined to ensure that an article without conflict becomes one of conflict. But trust me, your efforts will not go in vain. Those who commit bad faith will eventually go away, no matter what their silly intentions are, I am confident. I have been on wiki for over two years and have learnt that only those with good faith and hands on hardwork will survive here. Thank you again. Once the Rfc is over, we will clean up whatever does not belong in the article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
...No? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm hoping it helps to calm things and not stir them up further. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your amazing copyedit was key, man. Bezhin Meadow got FA tonight. :) Lawrence § t/ e 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. As I had mentioned earlier, the dark clouds that had gathered over this article are blowing away. User:Abecedare will help in smoothening out a few issues that are considered contentious, in the early part of the article and may do some copy edits before I go for FAC nomination. So in short, your efforts will not go in vain. Thanks for your excellent contributions. Hope you will be available to improve prose on other future articles of mine. Best wishes. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your excellent contribution to Kannada literature article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for the explanation there. That sort of description is much more informative to me than the brief summary you gave as part of the list.
The edit history of that page on March 21 does look like an edit war to me. It would have been right for Tango to warn both editors before blocking, I agree. I don't think the IP edits can be characterized as vandalism, though; they're intended to form the content of the article rather than deface it. It's somewhat sad, but not unfortunately not surprising, that User:Tubesship advised the IP to stop edit warring but didn't pause to ask anyone else to take over reverting. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
a) It wasn't on the public channel, it was a private chat. Have you ever used IRC before? It was in a separate window.
b) timestamps get on my nerves, so I have my IRC client set to not display them.
c) if I logged every chat I had with everyone, I would have long since filled my hard drive to capacity. DS ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
IRT your notes at User:Risker/Tango2#Block 8:
Smeelgova's block log is [3] and Smee's is at [4]. One does not have to be an admin to access block logs, but it helps to have Popups. (grin)
Horologium (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
WRT this comment, are you saying you know a way to look at an article, and determine how frequently it is read? I have been contributing to the wikipedia for three and half years now. I never heard of this feature. If I am understanding you correctly I wonder how I managed to miss learning about this feature?
Could you please explain how to use this feature? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm Greg Comlish from WP:INVESTMENT. Foggy Morning pointed us in the direction of your request for experts from ArbCom. Which pages need the attention experienced investors? We've got a lot on our plate right now, but I'm always happy to help. Greg Comlish ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you let those involved know that I would be willing to review any issues bounced my way for a neutrality check or NPOV or other concerns?
Obviously this means I would be likely to recuse in a future case, but with the main decision out of the way I feel that I am better able to help as an editor (which I do a lot of) than as an arbcom member. I am also financially clued in and have tended to do a fair number of our more difficult "problem article" cleanups when requested.
I haven't yet decided whether to actively edit or not (I might but I want to see how it goes first), but I am definitely willing to be involved to the extent of being a resource, if there are still concerns over neutral writing.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here. Cheers, Bstone ( talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Risker!
This being my first discourse in wiki space I'm not even sure how to get back to where it's going to continue. So I'm here.
You are being very helpful in appreciating my problem. I do know the flickr person that made the attempt. She's a much better photographer living in Portland. I'll contact her about the "change the copyright status to "CC by SA" rights issue, and forward your advice.
Once that is squared away then I guess we link to it at flickr, or upload it.
This uploading the image part, and put it in the article part is still a bit of a mystery having not yet done this stuff, but I'm sure you are correct in suggesting that it's very easy to become addicted.
So thank you for offering to help me get through this first venture. It will might be a day or two before I return to you with the image copywright issues resolved.
Looking forward!
Thanks again, IfOnlyThePresidentUnderstood ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you be able to copyedit/peer review Adelaide Rams.
I have significantly improved the status of the article over the past few days and would like to get it to Good Article status.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would do this. Thanks. The Windler talk 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it was greatly appreciated. I hope to do some work on it and hope to get to GA level soon. Thanks again. The Windler talk 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Copyediting is a laborous underrated part of Wikipedia and I award this for Risker's efforts in a request he didn't necessarily have to do. Thanks again. The Windler talk 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, I found you on the volunteers list and I would most appreciate it if you could provide feedback for this article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
User:AGK is asking for either evidence of Tango's misuse of the tools or a summary dismissal of the arbitration case. Since it was you who worked to compile the evidence of prior incidents, you might want to copy that information to the RFAr evidence page. Horologium (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can use Excel, there is an Excel to MediaWiki converter at [5]. Just copy the cells into the form and then paste the returned code into your Wikipedia edit. -- Abd ( talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide links to the ANI and other discussions you mention here? There's little I hate more than trawling the ANI archives :) -- bainer ( talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thebainer - As I noted on my talk page, I am currently putting together the more indepth evidence with diffs to noticeboards, talk pages and so on. I intend to present it in a chart form, similar to what you did with the IRC case; however, since I am untested (shall we say) at wikitables, I'm collecting the info first and will move on to tables once it is mostly done. Just to check with you though, this is a sample of the information I am pulling together; could you let me know if this is the kind of information you and the other arbs would find most helpful?
(From
User:Risker/Tango2)
Date/Time of block: 23:21 on 21 March 2008
Article(s) involved:
List of countries and outlying territories by total area
User(s) blocked:
User:Tubesship,
User:70.49.152.70
Reason(s) for block: WP:3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area
Warning(s) given: None by
User:Tango. Message on talk page of IP from
User Tubesship at 23:05, 21 March 2008 requesting end to edit war
[6]
Noticeboard info:
User:Tubesship requests help with anonymous IP on the article at 22:49, 21 March 2008; some discussion of dispute resolution occurs after both parties blocked for 3RR
[7]
Subsequent actions by Tango: Notice to IP of 24-hour edit warring block
[8]; notice and extended conversation with
User:Tubesship on user talk page
[9]. Discussion of the 3RR rule, explanation of why IP's edit was not considered vandalism, Tubesship's request that autoblock be lifted as others use the same proxy, no offer to lift block once new user understood rule.
Subsequent actions by other admin(s): None
Additional Notes: (1) The edit war had started several hours earlier at 01:42 with edits by another IP, which were reverted by
User:Polaron and
User:Parsecboy; it could be considered a slow edit war, with 2 IPs and 3 registered regular editors. (2)
User:Tubesship registered his account on 26 February 2008. Editing was in articles relating to Kosovo, a few miscellaneous articles, and a discussion with an experienced user with respect to image copyright ("Please help a greenhorn understand the difference between public domain and wiki commons").
Please let me know if I am collecting too much or the wrong information. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was correct. Thanks.-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ wikify) 00:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(Incidentally, this exercise is useful for copy editing as well.) Risker ( talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! -- Irpen 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what happened to it, but I never received any e-mail at my non-Yahoo account. Bellwether B C 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. This article has seen a PR and I have addressed all the issues from it. I probably have a few more lines to add and it will be ready for copy edits. Please let me know when you will be free to do your magic here so I can pace myself accordingly.thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) - Yes you were correct to make it ndash, sorry I missed those ones! There are a couple of editors who have dash-bots around, the one I worked with most recently has retired so I will have to hunt down another; with such rich text as this, it is difficult to spot all of them. I don't think the dates need to be prefaced by the "c. for circa" unless there is some real speculation about them. Given the antiquity of these works, some dates will be accurate enough for a specific year and others will not; I think the mix is appropriate for the nature of the subject. Hope that's helpful; when this comes to FAC, I will be happy to express this opinion again should the issue arise. Risker ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as User:Risker/Tango Blocks was created and used prior to the arbcom case, I think it is best left where it is. OTOH, User:Risker/Tango2 was created after the case was opened primarily to be used for evidence; I can see precedence for subpages where a substantial amount of evidence is created and is accepted by the community as being a worthwhile addition to the case; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat . So, I propose to move User:Risker/Tango2 to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence/by Risker . Sound ok? John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Risker, thanks very much for telling me how to create a new article for someone with the same name. (I just spotted your message from November.)
I actually want to write an article on my father, an accomplished artist and author. He's not world-famous, but he does appear in most art indexes and has also been collected by a number of museums including the Tate.
Problem is, I'm not sure if it is ethical for me, as his son, to write the article? I would primarily refer to his regular CV as well as directly from him; the horses mouth... There is no better authority! But again, not sure it is ethical for me to write it, if if we should have a non-bias party put it together.
Any thoughts? And thanks again, Thegallery ( talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm looking to sort out the Synthesizer article -- I have listed it on WP:Peer Review, and I was wondering if you would like to review it or contribute in some way, if you have the spare time. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just finishing up a very intensive copy-editing of a 72K article that is almost ready to go back to FAC, and will need a bit of a break after a full weekend and 2 nights; a full-scale peer review and redevelopment project is a little beyond my ability right now. If you can work out some of the above (particularly the referencing), I can probably help out on some of the other stuff later in the month, but I've got a few outstanding wiki-commitments to complete first. Sorry I can't be of further help right at the moment. Risker ( talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The otter thing is just an inside joke that I started one day when I was bored (I have a lot of those days). I was inspired by
Tony Fox (
talk ·
contribs)'s sig, which has "Arf!" instead of "Talk". Because I really like otters, I decided to give an otter theme to my sig -- otters make chirp sounds sometimes, so "talk" became otter chirps, and "contributions" became "broken clamshells" (just as I leave behind usually productive edits after I'm done with my work, an otter is probably going to leave behind some clamshells after banging them on the rocks and eating some clam meat). From there, I decided to extend the joke and say that I have otters editing Wikipedia with me, and that they're the ones responsible for most of my good edits, while I'm the one who does all most of the screwing up. That, and about $3, will buy you a box of
Otter Pops.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding (and for the help). I'll read over the whole thing (gives me something to do). GoodDay ( talk) 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how this works...so just leaving you a mesage! Most of the info about Kalisha Buckhanon's childhood is housed in the Kankakee Daily Journal, her hometown newspaper, which she seemed to stay in quite a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.67.242 ( talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you did a great job with the Jacques Plante article. I hope you could take a look at the Maurice Richard article as well. It has some good content, but is awkwardly worded and flows very poorly. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a few rearrangements, to try to create a strong lead section, and made a "playing career section." I might consider a small section about the War. Any other suggestions off the top of your head? I will try to spend 15 minutes a day on this article. Maybe we should also moved this discussion over to Talk:Maurice Richard? Flibirigit ( talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you're into The Simpsons, but I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the article. The article isn't finished yet "Role in The Simpsons" is about 90% complete but I think it's rather rough and needs a good copyediting. I just got through writing 2 essays so I'm a little burnt out on proofreading and the like, so I was wondering if you could look at it for me. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You were listed as a general copy-editor on the peer review volunteer page. I would greatly appreciate if you could assist with the Dredg peer review. I would like to eventually get this to GA and FA, so any help you can provide would be wonderful. Thank you. -- Ars Sycro ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Archive #2 starting January 2, 2008
Refs are tough to format sometimes... Bellwether BC ( talk) 04:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC) ;)
My recent edit to Social engineering you said you moved to other page. Social engineerinr edit by User:Igorberger Moving to othe page does not say much. Can you tell me where you moved it and why you moved it there? Thank you, Igor Berger ( talk) 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Per your revert, what sort of error(s) are you referring to? — Wknight94 ( talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for telling me, Risker. :-) I had been thinking about suggesting it for TFA, and I'm thrilled that it will actually become a TFA so much sooner than I thought. Best regards, Hús ö nd 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your message. I admit that the Queluz article is, in my mind, exemplary, but, alas, I have had no input (to my knowledge) whatsoever. I wish I could claim to, though... Is the talkpage where your message should mostly go even open? athinaios ( talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I can do the Blunt merge for you. Get the article up to final shape and let me know. It looks like the pre-December history of your subpage should not be merged, those edits can be deleted unless you want to save them somewhere. NoSeptember 11:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For obvious reasons I hesitate to respond, but you say no one else has. [1] So please assume good faith and consider the content rather than the contributor. The approach I would suggest for this type of situation would be:
If Giano had followed those steps then the matter might have gotten resolved without arbitration, and if it did go to arbitration there wouldn't be the same level of concern about his conduct. Durova Charge! 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Durova and Rockpocket, I appreciate your having responded. As I was soundly informed it was inappropriate to have taken conversations relating to this RFAR off to someone's user page earlier in the process, I have elected to respond strictly within the RFAR itself; please note that I personally have no problem with either of you posting here, but I do not want to do something that someone has "warned" me about. I know it doesn't occur to either of you the tenuous position we non-admins professing non-mainstream philosophies feel we are in; that feeling is quite real, and is one of the main reasons that so few people have the courage to speak against the prevailing opinion. Risker ( talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
SilkTork, I'm sure you're feeling a little beat up right now; Giano's work is held in high esteem by a lot of people, and your focus on articles he has been lead collaborator on has come at a very sensitive time. It does not appear you've done a lot of work with the Featured Article crew before, and they take things extremely seriously. If it is an area where you want to spend more focused wiki-time, you might want to start out following a few of the FACs to see what the entire process is from nomination, through critique, improvement and finally acceptance. Help out with copy editing. Open the window in edit mode to see how references are done at that level. Those sorts of things. Not everyone is cut out to be a feature article writer; I'm more a copy editor myself, my writing is certainly more pedestrian though I think I will be able to pull off some GAs in the near future.
Your stated goal is to improve referencing of articles. Ones that have already been through the mill once, and ones which are primarily sourced to off-line information, are probably the ones of lowest concern. You might want to try Special:Lonelypages, articles that need wikifying and (often) referencing; or ask SuggestBot to give you a list of articles that need work. This is a big place, and there are a lot of really awful articles that can use your attention. If you want to take up a new subject, I know that the professional wrestling articles desperately need help in cleaning up BLP violations and properly sourcing information. Best, Risker ( talk) 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be slow to respond to your message. I got tied up in the Jim62sch arbitration.
I looked at that diff you provided and thought it was pretty odd; I don't award patrolmanships -- I had merely invited him to check out WikiProject Spam.
I wasn't sure how to deal with the RfArb, but then he left a message for me so I responded, trying to explain things. -- A. B. (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate vandals, and you're one of the good guys on this project, so... anyways, thank you for the kind notes you left my students in the sandbox of the articles they're trying to create. They appreciated them, though none of them were brave enough to leave an experienced Wikipedian like you a message back. Feel free to comment to any of their talkpages, as you see fit. User:Wildchild48 made a few edits she's proud of today, to Deenie, I believe it was, a book she loves. And User:Tom Mouse $ edited one of the Hardy Boys book articles, which he thought was pretty cool as well. Thanks again for all your help, Risker! Bellwether B C 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have started another new article ( Capitol Offense (band)), that you might like to take a look at. It's the rock band of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and I've found a lot of good refs already, but haven't expanded it as much as I would like to yet. As you did such a great job on the rewrite of James Blunt, I'd love to have you take a look at both the article proper, and the refs I placed on the talkpage and in the article. Bellwether B C 02:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I switched it to "under construction" (at least I thought I did), as I'll be working on it quite a bit over the next couple of days. Bellwether B C 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you would do the same with the Primavera article, or the Capitol Offense article, if I was as out of pocket as you are now. Stay safe! Bellwether B C 13:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I started another new article, on a band based in Dallas (where I used to live), that I'd appreciate your input on. The article is Sorta, and the refs are a mess, if you have a chance to work on them when you return from your trip. Best, -- Bellwether B C 14:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not endorsing Jimbo's statement - far from it. If you'll check the ArbCom's query to the community for input from a year ago, my own opinion was vote with your feet which meant I enouraged the soft demise of the administrator channel through attrition. You can check with Bishonen or Jehochman or David Gerard: I never went there. In fact I felt so strongly about the matter that I boycotted IRC entirely, and still do. Durova Charge! 07:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a list of articles I've created (well, one I simply expanded a LOT) in the last couple of weeks. Would you mind taking a look and telling me what you think? Feel free to either intersperse your thoughts on these within the text below, or respond at my talk. I thought this might be a useful distraction from some other WP things that might be on your mind right now. -- Bellwether B C 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In order:
Let it be Sorta. My favorite non-famous band, in which a friendly aquaintance of mine (Danny Balis) plays. They're astoundingly awesome, and I really want to see that one at FA as soon as possible. Thanks for being a great wiki-friend, and I hope you enjoy your "Sherry"! -- Bellwether B C 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that anyone was checking up my contrib history! LessHeard vanU ( talk) 01:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am intending to reply to Risker about an article written titled Craig McKenzie. To answer your question only one person is using this account and we certainly are not a company. I was referring to my wife who was researching this matter with me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi; as I said to your friend, I really don't want to get into an editing war on this, but I felt his reasoning was invalid & he clearly, from his comments, had not examined my work in detail.
I'll try & keep this concise, & stick to WP, rather than an involved debate: you haven't cited any WP policy re the appropriateness of the links; you have admitted that you can't be bothered checking or considering them on their merits individually and are just going to revert because you feel like it, which is certainly a violation of WP as well as common courtesy; & you are clearly entering the discussion merely to back up your friend, adding nothing of substance to the matter, simply spreading around the use of the "undo" function a bit, which is questionable behavior under relevant WP @ best.
I will also note that the changes in question are purely a matter of copy-editing & do not in any way alter the information content of the article; the article in question has much room for improvement & if i were to make a full effort on it, there is a great deal of repetetive content that could be cut.
Also, you might want to check the quality & relevance of some of the links in the version you two keep reverting it to, before you question my choices.
I don't mean this to seem unfriendly, but I don't enjoy how you & your friend are treating me, & I feel your behavior is at best not in the spirit of true wiki-courtesy.
If you would like to discuss the matter further, I am available —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx 121 ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to sabatoge you redirection of that thread by replying there. However I imagine my evaluation of ‘’any’’ arbcom case, would find unacceptable actions on all sides. Clearcut cases are generally handled by other methods of dispute resolution. Situations that do become arbcom cases tend to be marked by complicity on at least two fronts.-- BirgitteSB 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Most particularly the very last sentence; I presume that you are not talking about hamster fur? ;~D LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I was reading this thread, and was wondering if I could possibly ask you to post a link to my on-wiki summary? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Summary. I've also asked Stevage, so don't worry if he does this first. I really must subscribe... :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI. I've re-split out what I believe to be more-or-less your rewrite [2] of the private correspondence proposal. I don't use email, so I can't advertise this on the mailing list. But I nevertheless feel this is the only way forward and appreciate any support. -- Kendrick7 talk 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was starting to look like a complete mess and it was bothering me. :P Good luck on bring the article up to GA status! -- Underneath-it-All ( talk) 19:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Done, although I hate that song and having to listen to it repeatedly for this purpose was painful :D. If you're looking for FA, then I'd wish you the best of luck, but as of now there's a long way to go. You might want to look at say, Frank Black for a "model" FA on an individual musician. Also, external links should never be in the main body of the article and a section like "Musical style and influence" would be necessary. I hope the sample I got for you is adequate; you'll have to change the caption in the article, I didn't do it. Add the song sample to the song's article too (add additional fair-use rationale too). Best wishes, indopug ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've created a few ref-ed grafs in userspace for you to take a look at. Here is a link to the text I've created. Let me know if you think any changes need to be made, or--of course--feel free to make the changes yourself. Regards, Bellwether B C 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I would have no problems with that, so go ahead. -- Scorpion 0422 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For all your excellent help with Hockey Hall of Fame. -- Scorpion 0422 00:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) |
Talk page archive #2 - January/08 -
No, the cites don't have to be checkable online, but the facts in the "hook" should normally have inline cites to a reliable source of some description. Your own noms should ALWAYS have inline cites for the facts in the hook or they will probably be rejected. If you are nominating someone else's article though, I personally will waive the inline cite requirement IF the article is obviously very well sourced and there is little doubt that the hook is factually correct. Hope that helps. Gatoclass ( talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Risker for your advice and help. You are correct-- I am fairly new and I will take some time to thoroughly read Wiki's requirements and figure out how to create well written articles. I agree with your point about other "player agents." McKenzie is a very humble guy and very active in many different areas and I think this sets him apart. He is also one of the youngest persons in this business with these accomplishments. I believe the article will remain as other notable characteristics will come out within the next year or so as it relates to McKenzie such as a novel he has written that will be published with a notable publisher and a documentary film which he is directing. He is also a marketing consultant for one of the Presidential campaigns. I'm very fond of him and in time I certainly believe you will not second guess his notability. Thanks again for your time and again I will review your work too so that I have the adequate knowledge for my future entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bournei7 ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Actually I copy-pasted the contents of that article from Jimi Hendrix discography#Black Gold. They weren't sourced there either, and I agree that this is a problem. However, I don't see the controversy that you see. I also don't see any way that this article would get deleted even if you AFD'd it. The content, although unsourced, definitely "seems" legit. It does refer to Tony Brown, who does exist and has published books about Jimi Hendrix, so I think that whoever originally put this material on Wikipedia knew what they were talking about. EAE ( Holla!) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reedit the Ludwig Merwart entry. Pls could you define what exactly is missing? Thx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.10.205 ( talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've completed the merwart entry. Therefor I created the new subtilte "work". Hope it is fine now. Best, Manfred.
Yes, the template does need some attention. I have made a minor fix. -- Alan ( talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. "Category:Villa Angarano Bianchi Michiel" This one needs turning into another villa article, but I am puzzled as to how to amend this material.
Thank you indeed for supporting me against those juvenile antics. I guess we can hardly semiprotect a talk page. I wonder whether banning the address of the user is a viable course of action. The fact that s/he has persisted for so long makes me think that the problem won't go away soon. Tony (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Risker. I didn't delete it because of a bad rationale, but because the image is replaceable - since it's a simple graph, it should be trivial to draw an identical one. I've restored the image for now to get a second admins' opinion on it. east.718 at 12:59, February 17, 2008
Hello Risker, thanks for editing the Peaches Geldof article, but why did you throw out the important link which I added to it? The whole controversy is, that she was shown in HELLO! Magazine in three dresses which were later claimed to be fakes. The link that I added substantiated this. It seems to be obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked and that is what the extract of the edit should reflect. You cannot make that clear in three sentences. And you just made the claimed Monroe worn dress appear real and authentic with your edit. Please correct and put back the link. I agree with you that I posted to much on Travilla but that can be fixed without losing the importance of the articles which you simply removed. Thank you. -- Weareallone ( talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You would be correct if the article was mainly about Ms Peaches Geldof, but the article was about the dresses she wore. Have you read or seen the article at all? The people behind the exhibition claimed that Ms Geldof was wearing originals, made by Travilla and worn by Monroe. Your edit actually is supporting this claim which is not why I posted this information. One may argue that Ms Geldof with her celebrity status has, unknowingly supported a hoax. Remember that they charged people to look at the claimed to be Monroe worn costumes in Brighton. So the crime, if proven has already been committed. My edit is not accusing Ms Geldof of such action. But in my opinion she was pulled and used to sell a false product, a false exhibition. I did not get your reply and edited down my previous post and put back the media link which is important to at least give the reader the chance to realize that there were doubts. Ms Peaches Geldof obviously believed that the dresses she wore were real, but so did another British model, who was fooled, just like Peaches Geldof was: http://www.laracroftonline.com/news/tr_models.php Read this article and realize the WATH model Lucy Clarkson even mentioned makeup which she thought was Monroe's, yet knowing that Peaches Geldof wore the same dress there is a great chance it was Geldof's makeup. I hope you can agree on my last edit, thank you. Please feel free to work the Lucy Clarkson / Travilla article in, but I doubt that is of relevance for the Peaches Geldof article, and that is why I did not include it. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but there might also be a chance that the makeup originates from the British Marilyn Monroe impersonator Suzie Kennedy who was also wearing the white dress for PR reasons and for a photo shoot. http://www.raievents.co.uk/content/fashion-shows/the-lost-connection.html Since Suzie Kennedy appears to be bustier than Marilyn Monroe and larger in statue and weight, you can do the math I guess yourself. It is very obvious that Ms Geldof was pranked, I never thought or claimed she wore the fakes, knowing they actually were fakes. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do find it very relevant that Ms Geldof was pictured on the cover of a yellow press magazine and that she was fooled, that the public was fooled and that Peaches Geldof unknowingly supported this scam with her name. The people who brought out this hoax even charged a shockingly high amount of money to the magazine to photograph Ms Geldof in the costumes which became absolutely questionable. It may have very well have to do with Peaches Geldof, because paying visitors of the hoax paid money to look what Peaches Geldof was modeling in a famous magazine and they trusted the exhibition to be real and authentic of course. Peaches Geldof has unwillingly become part of the hoax. She was used and that will stand for both parties history, the Travilla's and Peaches Geldof's as well. Please do not claim that the dresses she modeled were made by Travilla himself, because that has become highly questionable as well over the course of the past six months as I read into this fascinating exposure of an exhibition scandal which fooled the entire British media. -- Weareallone ( talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Specifically Jacques Plante. It's been at GAN for about a month now, and I've decided to start moving to another stage of its development. I've contributed more or less the entire content of the article. I think it could you use some copyediting. Can you take a look, plz? I think you did a very good job with Hockey Hall of Fame, and I want to work on another article with you. Thanks, Maxim (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the trouble to inform me for the reason for your reversion. My copy of All the Lost Souls has a Bonus track which is a very slow version of Dylan's "I Want You" without the final verse (it also contains the bonus track "Dear Katie"). I wondered if that was the iTunes bonus track, hence my edit. Mickraus ( talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's interesting. I find myself deleting about half the responses and comments I might make because they are wholey snarky and filled with inappropriate language. and surprizingly it seems that everyone else (so far) is doing the same. Have a great weekend. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Risker,
I don't want to clog up the talk page (more than it is), but I do want to clarify. I quibbled with the detail about when the proposal was added. I did not mean to be dismissive of your comments, and in particular, the second paragraph here exactly captures what I was thinking. I watch cases because I am interested, but also because I invested time and effort in making informed choices to support candidates for ArbCom, and their voices, as individuals, carry weight and matter. That is why they are on the committee. Jd2718 ( talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, u:Risker, re this insightful post, I imagine I could construct an argument that editting another user's posts was a "personal attack", and that edit-warring with other users also is a "personal attack", but it might not fly. I think your approach is more reasoned. PS: fixed my talkpage, regards Newbyguesses - Talk 06:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I try to call 'em like I see 'em. ;)
Unfortunately, this has sucked up the remainder of my enthusiasm for the project for the time being. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I missed your note in a pile of other ones. :-( It's now been archived to User_talk:Maxim/archives/mar08#Jacques_Plante. Concerning your ideas... I work on stuff off-wiki in a text editor then paste the text in. For refs, I haven't scoured the library, but I have a book on Plante's contemporary Glenn Hall which portray Plante in a rather more negative light, and the internet can provide the rest. Your ideas? -- Maxim (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you're obviously already familiar with the reasons for removing content from that talk page and such a good friend of Giano's, I felt sure you'd share his concern over about the community's best interest ...and Jimbo's. Good work you two dealing with Diligent Terrier!. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 05:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
...for fixing the AFD... Renee ( talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For undoing my edit in the Hockey Hall of Fame page.
Just a little out of it today. ^^; I should have thought about that a little more before deciding to change it.
Thanks again! Thysiazo ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you left a note at Doc glasgow's talk page about this. Please take a look Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem, and add your sugestions. (You might as well, since I mention you ;) ) Noroton ( talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I was wiki-surfing and came abou your userpage. I was wondering if you would mind if I used your cartoon of the {{cn}} on my userpage. It prety much sums up my philosophy, as well! Thanks!-- Sallicio 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Mahalo for the picture! Cheers!-- Sallicio 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up, I responded on my talk page, too!-- Sallicio 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for noticing that. I didn't see if he changed it, but I think hopefully people will get the point from context. Mackan79 ( talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This edit is an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. I was tempted to do that but I thought that I leave to Giano to put the guy in his place. In retrospect, I think yours approach and my initial hunch was best. None of those fellows has ever learned anything anyway. Thumbs up! -- Irpen 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been a tad slow so that's why I didn't reply to the note. Feel free to add content; I've been adding some new refs and replacing older ones so the first book isn't the only major reference work. I've done some light copyediting on the article itself, so your version now is quite out of date. I've also removed the quotes and revamped the awards. Hope you're feeling better, Maxim (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Done and sorry about that. I didn't know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm feeling quite eager to send the article to FAC. Can you update me on your progress? Thanks, -- Maxim (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Risker. Did you see that Naerii admitted to being canvassed off-wiki at the Wikipedia Review? Interesting turn of events, no? Frankly, whatever issues you have with JayJg, I would appreciate if you left them with him and kept me out of them. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Meatpuppetry and canvassing, however, are something that I do have some rather well-developed opinions about. I recognise and agree with your point that one doesn't have much control over what emails show up in the inbox; indeed, I've had some pretty nasty ones (including a few accusing me of being a meatpuppet) and some blatantly canvassing ones. I'll venture to guess that you and I both respond to the canvassing in the same way - if the topic is of no interest to us, we ignore or respond that we will not be participating; and if it is a topic of interest, we take a look at the material being discussed and put forth our own independently developed positions. I find that there is a rather pernicious use of the term "meatpuppet" that has been getting more pronounced in recent months, which is unfortunate and uncalled-for. As you quite correctly point out, it's very rare for two or more editors to hold the same substantive opinion across their entire editing experience, although common to see editors hold similar opinions on specific topics. The latter is what makes almost all WP editors susceptible to meatpuppet accusations. I wonder if we aren't getting pretty close to a meatpuppet version of Godwin's law, since it often seems to have a very similar rhetorical effect. Regarding Naerii specifically, I believe s/he has written that s/he first found out about the AfD on WR; that is not the same thing as being canvassed to express a specific opinion, and one thing I've figured out from reading that site occasionally is that their members are all over the map on a lot of subjects, so whatever opinion Naerii is espousing, it isn't the "WR" one.
I've blathered on here long enough, I hope, to help you understand my perspective on things. I personally do not believe you are a meatpuppet of Jayjg; I also don't believe that Naerii expressed his/her opinions on behalf of anyone at Wikipedia Review. And I think all of us (I'll include myself here) need to be sure to AGF or simply ignore certain points, if for no other reason than to keep discussions moving. Thanks for popping by my page, I don't think we have edited together since the early days of the Essjay controversy article. Best, Risker ( talk) 06:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: See here. :) -- Avi ( talk) 15:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember not drag the ref fixes too long. :-p You'll get an orange bar for each day. Meant as a friendly reminder and a bit of a joke, too, but there is a serious part to this. :-p Maxim (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kalisha Buckhanon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalisha Buckhanon. Thank you. MCB ( talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion in this section has now been moved to Talk:Peaches Geldof. Please do not post any more on this subject on my user page; go to the article talk page instead. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing; we edit-conflicted in trying to achieve the same result. Tony (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
got your message at my talk, and I think you're right - have consigned my edit at jimbo's talk page to the memory hole as well; and this april, I've been somewhat the fool in an attempt at mischievous humour..... as I said in my edit summary at Jimbo's page - jokes and bones shouldn't be too close, I guess - sincerely no intent to harm, and moving along now.... cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I haven't left a note at jimbo's page because I'm not sure that would help... and if anyone else has noticed my silly post at giano's talk page, which I signed 'jimbo wales' then please accept this post as a note of contrition if it's touched any nerves - I meant it with a smile, without malice, and now shall move on.... Privatemusings ( talk) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, I just noticed! I don't know what I did to attract the attention of a vandal! Kelly hi! 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It happens to be one of my fav jokes; I will stop smiling when it forms part of a WP:NPA complaint, I guess... LessHeard vanU ( talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It was just a joke because of the "Peaches Geldof is a man" thing. -- User:Iambus ৹ | talk 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. I surely do appreciate you lending me a hand. Please go ahead with copy edits. yes, I will be very much around to answer your questions.Thank you Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the King in the Jeep image. Go ahead and move it. Or I can do it too. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Lovely work, thanks. Have been wondering about it off-and-on for some time, and kept on putting it off.
The problem with FAs these days is precisely the level of copy-editing they require. I firmly believe the sourcing/content vs cyediting -MoS balance is off in the evaluation there. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 15:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to thank you for your beautiful cedits! It reads so much better now. I was one of those who opposed the FA status for this article due to the reasons I had stated in the FAC discussions. Though it is not a FA at present, it is a good article in my view. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contribution to this article. Any potential reader will be thankful.-- Aadal ( talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm done. I've left the prose untouched (for you to take a stab at), only fixing what I thought were the glaring inaccuracies in the lead. I haven't taken a look at your revisions yet, but the glowing reviews above suggest felicitous work. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Thanks for resuming. One request. For poets please comment out Srivijaya but retain Kavisvara. Regarding Chudamani ("Crest Jewel"), a 96,000-verse commentary on logic, I feel it is important to mention that number because the book was called "the greatest work in Kannada" by 1604 CE Kannada grammarian Bhatta Akalanka who authored Karnataka Sabdanusasanam. Scholars realise that the book was therefore available to him in the 17th century and must have been lost there after. That number is repeated faithfully by multiple historians.thanks Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps I should include that 96,000 detail in a sub-article I plan to write for "early writings in Kannada". Thanks. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just unarchived a few sections as they were still the topic of discussion. As for the referencing nonsense - this is what I'd said on april 3rd when I thought that Fowler meant for all the refs to be replaced with the original year. Then I noticed that he'd only fixed the years in the References section and even withdrew my comment.. but today I watched with disgust as he went ahead and changed every single reference. I didnt revert him because, I'm waiting for the dust to settle -- so I can bring back the cited info he'd removed and also fix a few things you inadvertantly changed (the meaning of) during your cpedits. But he seems determined not to let the dust settle. Sarvagnya 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
yes thank you. somebody must have hacked my name. I think it was user: Jakew i already changed my password and reported it. what else can i do? Mayday2010 ( talk) 06:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. Let me first apologize for the behaviour of two users, Fowler and Aadal, both frivolous opposers on the earlier FAC of this article. They seem to be determined to ensure that an article without conflict becomes one of conflict. But trust me, your efforts will not go in vain. Those who commit bad faith will eventually go away, no matter what their silly intentions are, I am confident. I have been on wiki for over two years and have learnt that only those with good faith and hands on hardwork will survive here. Thank you again. Once the Rfc is over, we will clean up whatever does not belong in the article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
...No? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm hoping it helps to calm things and not stir them up further. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Your amazing copyedit was key, man. Bezhin Meadow got FA tonight. :) Lawrence § t/ e 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. As I had mentioned earlier, the dark clouds that had gathered over this article are blowing away. User:Abecedare will help in smoothening out a few issues that are considered contentious, in the early part of the article and may do some copy edits before I go for FAC nomination. So in short, your efforts will not go in vain. Thanks for your excellent contributions. Hope you will be available to improve prose on other future articles of mine. Best wishes. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
For your excellent contribution to Kannada literature article. Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for the explanation there. That sort of description is much more informative to me than the brief summary you gave as part of the list.
The edit history of that page on March 21 does look like an edit war to me. It would have been right for Tango to warn both editors before blocking, I agree. I don't think the IP edits can be characterized as vandalism, though; they're intended to form the content of the article rather than deface it. It's somewhat sad, but not unfortunately not surprising, that User:Tubesship advised the IP to stop edit warring but didn't pause to ask anyone else to take over reverting. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
a) It wasn't on the public channel, it was a private chat. Have you ever used IRC before? It was in a separate window.
b) timestamps get on my nerves, so I have my IRC client set to not display them.
c) if I logged every chat I had with everyone, I would have long since filled my hard drive to capacity. DS ( talk) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
IRT your notes at User:Risker/Tango2#Block 8:
Smeelgova's block log is [3] and Smee's is at [4]. One does not have to be an admin to access block logs, but it helps to have Popups. (grin)
Horologium (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
WRT this comment, are you saying you know a way to look at an article, and determine how frequently it is read? I have been contributing to the wikipedia for three and half years now. I never heard of this feature. If I am understanding you correctly I wonder how I managed to miss learning about this feature?
Could you please explain how to use this feature? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm Greg Comlish from WP:INVESTMENT. Foggy Morning pointed us in the direction of your request for experts from ArbCom. Which pages need the attention experienced investors? We've got a lot on our plate right now, but I'm always happy to help. Greg Comlish ( talk) 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you let those involved know that I would be willing to review any issues bounced my way for a neutrality check or NPOV or other concerns?
Obviously this means I would be likely to recuse in a future case, but with the main decision out of the way I feel that I am better able to help as an editor (which I do a lot of) than as an arbcom member. I am also financially clued in and have tended to do a fair number of our more difficult "problem article" cleanups when requested.
I haven't yet decided whether to actively edit or not (I might but I want to see how it goes first), but I am definitely willing to be involved to the extent of being a resource, if there are still concerns over neutral writing.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Here. Cheers, Bstone ( talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Risker!
This being my first discourse in wiki space I'm not even sure how to get back to where it's going to continue. So I'm here.
You are being very helpful in appreciating my problem. I do know the flickr person that made the attempt. She's a much better photographer living in Portland. I'll contact her about the "change the copyright status to "CC by SA" rights issue, and forward your advice.
Once that is squared away then I guess we link to it at flickr, or upload it.
This uploading the image part, and put it in the article part is still a bit of a mystery having not yet done this stuff, but I'm sure you are correct in suggesting that it's very easy to become addicted.
So thank you for offering to help me get through this first venture. It will might be a day or two before I return to you with the image copywright issues resolved.
Looking forward!
Thanks again, IfOnlyThePresidentUnderstood ( talk) 07:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Would you be able to copyedit/peer review Adelaide Rams.
I have significantly improved the status of the article over the past few days and would like to get it to Good Article status.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would do this. Thanks. The Windler talk 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it was greatly appreciated. I hope to do some work on it and hope to get to GA level soon. Thanks again. The Windler talk 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The Minor Barnstar | ||
Copyediting is a laborous underrated part of Wikipedia and I award this for Risker's efforts in a request he didn't necessarily have to do. Thanks again. The Windler talk 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Hi there, I found you on the volunteers list and I would most appreciate it if you could provide feedback for this article: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
User:AGK is asking for either evidence of Tango's misuse of the tools or a summary dismissal of the arbitration case. Since it was you who worked to compile the evidence of prior incidents, you might want to copy that information to the RFAr evidence page. Horologium (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can use Excel, there is an Excel to MediaWiki converter at [5]. Just copy the cells into the form and then paste the returned code into your Wikipedia edit. -- Abd ( talk) 19:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you be able to provide links to the ANI and other discussions you mention here? There's little I hate more than trawling the ANI archives :) -- bainer ( talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Thebainer - As I noted on my talk page, I am currently putting together the more indepth evidence with diffs to noticeboards, talk pages and so on. I intend to present it in a chart form, similar to what you did with the IRC case; however, since I am untested (shall we say) at wikitables, I'm collecting the info first and will move on to tables once it is mostly done. Just to check with you though, this is a sample of the information I am pulling together; could you let me know if this is the kind of information you and the other arbs would find most helpful?
(From
User:Risker/Tango2)
Date/Time of block: 23:21 on 21 March 2008
Article(s) involved:
List of countries and outlying territories by total area
User(s) blocked:
User:Tubesship,
User:70.49.152.70
Reason(s) for block: WP:3RR violation on List of countries and outlying territories by total area
Warning(s) given: None by
User:Tango. Message on talk page of IP from
User Tubesship at 23:05, 21 March 2008 requesting end to edit war
[6]
Noticeboard info:
User:Tubesship requests help with anonymous IP on the article at 22:49, 21 March 2008; some discussion of dispute resolution occurs after both parties blocked for 3RR
[7]
Subsequent actions by Tango: Notice to IP of 24-hour edit warring block
[8]; notice and extended conversation with
User:Tubesship on user talk page
[9]. Discussion of the 3RR rule, explanation of why IP's edit was not considered vandalism, Tubesship's request that autoblock be lifted as others use the same proxy, no offer to lift block once new user understood rule.
Subsequent actions by other admin(s): None
Additional Notes: (1) The edit war had started several hours earlier at 01:42 with edits by another IP, which were reverted by
User:Polaron and
User:Parsecboy; it could be considered a slow edit war, with 2 IPs and 3 registered regular editors. (2)
User:Tubesship registered his account on 26 February 2008. Editing was in articles relating to Kosovo, a few miscellaneous articles, and a discussion with an experienced user with respect to image copyright ("Please help a greenhorn understand the difference between public domain and wiki commons").
Please let me know if I am collecting too much or the wrong information. Thanks. Risker ( talk) 05:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I thought it was correct. Thanks.-- RyRy5 ( talk ♠ wikify) 00:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(Incidentally, this exercise is useful for copy editing as well.) Risker ( talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker, as you probably know, this Sunday the Easter also arrived to the Eastern Orthodox world. To mark this event and make a small present for you, here is the great piece of one of my favorite Ukrainian painters depicting this event in my homeland as he saw it a little over 100 years ago. Enjoy! -- Irpen 08:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what happened to it, but I never received any e-mail at my non-Yahoo account. Bellwether B C 04:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Risker. This article has seen a PR and I have addressed all the issues from it. I probably have a few more lines to add and it will be ready for copy edits. Please let me know when you will be free to do your magic here so I can pace myself accordingly.thanks, Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) - Yes you were correct to make it ndash, sorry I missed those ones! There are a couple of editors who have dash-bots around, the one I worked with most recently has retired so I will have to hunt down another; with such rich text as this, it is difficult to spot all of them. I don't think the dates need to be prefaced by the "c. for circa" unless there is some real speculation about them. Given the antiquity of these works, some dates will be accurate enough for a specific year and others will not; I think the mix is appropriate for the nature of the subject. Hope that's helpful; when this comes to FAC, I will be happy to express this opinion again should the issue arise. Risker ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, as User:Risker/Tango Blocks was created and used prior to the arbcom case, I think it is best left where it is. OTOH, User:Risker/Tango2 was created after the case was opened primarily to be used for evidence; I can see precedence for subpages where a substantial amount of evidence is created and is accepted by the community as being a worthwhile addition to the case; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat . So, I propose to move User:Risker/Tango2 to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence/by Risker . Sound ok? John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Risker, thanks very much for telling me how to create a new article for someone with the same name. (I just spotted your message from November.)
I actually want to write an article on my father, an accomplished artist and author. He's not world-famous, but he does appear in most art indexes and has also been collected by a number of museums including the Tate.
Problem is, I'm not sure if it is ethical for me, as his son, to write the article? I would primarily refer to his regular CV as well as directly from him; the horses mouth... There is no better authority! But again, not sure it is ethical for me to write it, if if we should have a non-bias party put it together.
Any thoughts? And thanks again, Thegallery ( talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm looking to sort out the Synthesizer article -- I have listed it on WP:Peer Review, and I was wondering if you would like to review it or contribute in some way, if you have the spare time. Thanks! — Wackymacs ( talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just finishing up a very intensive copy-editing of a 72K article that is almost ready to go back to FAC, and will need a bit of a break after a full weekend and 2 nights; a full-scale peer review and redevelopment project is a little beyond my ability right now. If you can work out some of the above (particularly the referencing), I can probably help out on some of the other stuff later in the month, but I've got a few outstanding wiki-commitments to complete first. Sorry I can't be of further help right at the moment. Risker ( talk) 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The otter thing is just an inside joke that I started one day when I was bored (I have a lot of those days). I was inspired by
Tony Fox (
talk ·
contribs)'s sig, which has "Arf!" instead of "Talk". Because I really like otters, I decided to give an otter theme to my sig -- otters make chirp sounds sometimes, so "talk" became otter chirps, and "contributions" became "broken clamshells" (just as I leave behind usually productive edits after I'm done with my work, an otter is probably going to leave behind some clamshells after banging them on the rocks and eating some clam meat). From there, I decided to extend the joke and say that I have otters editing Wikipedia with me, and that they're the ones responsible for most of my good edits, while I'm the one who does all most of the screwing up. That, and about $3, will buy you a box of
Otter Pops.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding (and for the help). I'll read over the whole thing (gives me something to do). GoodDay ( talk) 00:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how this works...so just leaving you a mesage! Most of the info about Kalisha Buckhanon's childhood is housed in the Kankakee Daily Journal, her hometown newspaper, which she seemed to stay in quite a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.67.242 ( talk) 21:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you did a great job with the Jacques Plante article. I hope you could take a look at the Maurice Richard article as well. It has some good content, but is awkwardly worded and flows very poorly. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I made a few rearrangements, to try to create a strong lead section, and made a "playing career section." I might consider a small section about the War. Any other suggestions off the top of your head? I will try to spend 15 minutes a day on this article. Maybe we should also moved this discussion over to Talk:Maurice Richard? Flibirigit ( talk) 18:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if you're into The Simpsons, but I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the article. The article isn't finished yet "Role in The Simpsons" is about 90% complete but I think it's rather rough and needs a good copyediting. I just got through writing 2 essays so I'm a little burnt out on proofreading and the like, so I was wondering if you could look at it for me. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 02:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You were listed as a general copy-editor on the peer review volunteer page. I would greatly appreciate if you could assist with the Dredg peer review. I would like to eventually get this to GA and FA, so any help you can provide would be wonderful. Thank you. -- Ars Sycro ( talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)