This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am sorry you have to go through a trial like fire such as this. If you need any help just ask on my talk page cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also your AfD nomination ended in deletion. --
Guerillero |
My Talk 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FREDDYP
Hey Kevin, I'm writing my own page and new to this I've read what i thought I was suppose to do. Rather than reverting my edits can you tell me what maybe I did wrong? Thanks Fred Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyp7 ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CSD#A7 does in fact cover individual animals. It probably wouldn't be appropriate in this case, since competing in the Grand National could be a credible claim of significance. PROD is perfectly acceptable. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha, thanks. I typed that looking at the shortened twinkle reminder of the guidelines and not the actual list itself. Kevin ( talk) 05:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello — I'm just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
The DJ Girlzables, a page you tagged, because of the following concern: Not a member of the categories to which A7 applies. Let me know if you have any questions.
Feezo
(send a signal |
watch the sky) 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, excuse me, but why did my recent articile that I made get deleted? Did I do something wrong? If so, can you tell me what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlerock232 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Littlerock - from what you had put in the article so far, it was very unclear what it was supposed to be about (or what a "Civil was encyclopedia" is.) RHaworth left a comment on your page that might be relevant. Kevin ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm new to wikipedia so I don't really know all the rules, but I just got my Ecopunk page deleted due to "ambiguous copyright infringement", and I'd just like to say that I'm also the creator of the original page it was referred to, and I can't really do infringement on my own stuff, can I? :P Frankichiro ( talk) 00:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that bug in the survey. Very astute of you. Maximilianklein ( talk) 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yo, Kgorman-ucb thanks for the edit of WHS. Now it looks more neutral which is a good thing, i think well leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.207.202 ( talk) 22:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have searched the links and their website and found the claims are bogus and are using wikipedia citations for Search Engine Optimization and for marketing. I think it doesnt follow notability guidelines. Haribhagirath ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Media coverage says what the CEO says about the company and it does not independently cite the technology or features of the firm which makes it relevant to be cited in a knowledge database. Moreover their claims seem exaggerated as the website doesn't work as they claim and the organization doesnt seem to have the resources to maintain 500 million records or a suitable platform to extract information at such a magnitude Haribhagirath ( talk) 05:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Many firms misuse online press releases and citations to open a page in Wikipedia, since it brings credibility among clients and visibility in google. And seldom the claims have been backed in secondary sources. In most sources it have been quoted by someone from the firm, than the media mentioning it. 300 million records needs a huge infrastructure or a powerful search mechanism. So I felt suspicious and checked in detail, and they haven't provided basic details about CEO, firm address and even number of employees or the technology. Therefore the assumption of using WIkipedia as a marketing platform is strengthened. Haribhagirath ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to use AFD, so can you resubmit. When the Angelo Sepe article was up for AFD, it was 6 years ago. There should be a new discussion. There is not enough references about Sepe to prove he is a notable. He was involved in a heist with a dozen of others guys. There is information about Sepe's involvement in the Lufthansa heist. -- Vic49 ( talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin! Hey, I didn't start the article I just WP:MOVEd the page to its current name! You're right, it looks either a G11 or G12. I'll try to chop it into shape. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JO Josh Eastman Entertainment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JO Josh Eastman Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScottSteiner ✍ 08:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I have responded to your message on the discussion page you started for the deletion of this article. Please respond there. thanks-- History Sleuth ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You tagged this article as an unsourced BLP, despite the fact that she died 59 years ago... However, it did still need references, so I added a fairly comprehensive findagrave page that I think the original author got the information from. Sellyme Talk 09:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I am swinging by to invite you to Editing Fridays. This time around the topic is whatever the students present would like to be improved. If you are free this friday and would like to attend please sign up. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, just wanted to clarify what I meant by being there longer. I was saying that I could not have followed him there as I had thought I was editing the talk before he showed up on there tonight. I didn't mean it to sound like anything about seniority. Sorry if it came out that way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi; Just letting you know that I have declined your PROD and redirected the school to its locality as per standard procedure for non notable schools that are not Grade 12 high schools. This is an uncontroversial operation that you can do yourself. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've given your account reviewer and rollback rights. See WP:ROLL and WP:REVIEWER for info on how to use them. Prodego talk 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I saw the post about you on the Wikimedia Blog today. Congrats and good work! / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh, though it's a good thing to understand not to do it, it's not just an issue of technicality of how an edit's rolled back, but it's mainly that no edit summary/rationale is given to the revert, combined with the one-up, technology-wise—on top of it being yet another revert in an edit war. It's the difference between two people just clicking the rollback button back and forth—regardless of what technology they use—versus clicking "undo" (or reverting to a particular revision) and typing out a reason for why they're doing so/disagreeing with the edit(s) in question.
On a related note, the easiest way to "fix" an accidental rollback or botched edit summary is by simply using a dummy edit. That way, you can kinda-sorta give a retroactive edit summary for others in the page history as to what happened without having to actually perform the edit all over again.
Finally, always keep in mind that undoing an edit because it presumably violates the 3RR is in no way an exception to the 3RR—doing that sort of thing actually involves you in the edit war.
Cheers, -- slakr\ talk / 06:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my page is all for raising money for charity and is of great interest to lots of people in South East England, so I don't understand why it's marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneyfrench ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barney - the main problem with its current iteration is that it is written in an overly promotional tone. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and cannot be written in excessively laudatory tones or serve as advertising - even for good causes. The article is also written in the first person, which is generally inappropriate here. You should also probably read WP:COI - if you are the same Barney who is listed elsewhere as organizing the festival, it is generally considered bad form for you to create/edit the article. If the event is notable, other people will eventually do so. (It could also use some more third party sources to establish it's wp:notability, but that's a secondary problem.) Kevin ( talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Kevin, if you have a moment to have another look over my page I would appreciate it. Barneyfrench ( talk) 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, if my edit has improved the suitability of my article, can you rescind the speedy deletion notice, or does it have to be done by someone else? Can I talk to an administrator? Will they just delete it without telling me? Sorry for so many questions, I'm new to this and am highly confused and frustrated. Barneyfrench ( talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You recently patrolled a wikipage on "Martin Hosking" that was being vandalized by people adding links to products he sold on his website. The Australian legal industry newsblog FirmSpy has recently published a letter from his lawyers saying they will no longer act for his company because of his pro-Hitler stance
http://firmspy.com/tag/martin-hosking
This step by his lawyers to publicly say they will not act for him for this reason is notable and should be included in the wiki bio by an experienced editor. Could you please assist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.114.192 ( talk) 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The company's lawyers call it "pro-Hitler merchandise" in their letter There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the lawyers had previously advised that they would not act for the company. If they had done so, they would have said they previously terminated the relationship. So it's is a strange suggestion that the lawyers strong disapproval of the pro-Hitler merchandise and the termination of the relationship are unconnected. Firmspy is cited as a source in Australia by commercial news organizations which have higher standards than Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmalqpp ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you seriously disagree with the former lawyers that this is "pro-Hitler" or neo-Nazi merchandise http://www.redbubble.com/people/hipsterhitler/t-shirts/6686222-back-to-the-f-hrer ? Why do you consider that you are more of an authority on this issue than the former lawyers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmalqpp ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what makes this organization less notable than any other photo club you have listed. Your explanation of deletion is not satisfactory. Freestoneriver ( talk) 02:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Freestoneriver
[1]. Drmies ( talk) 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey I saw your PM. I was asleep and accidentally left my client to idle. What did you want to ask about? cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Article on the VW test track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.217.45 ( talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gorman How do I proceed then with FOSS Analytical, I have read the policies and your recommendations, but I am not much wiser. I thought it would be valuable to have info on various technology companies in here, but I guess not? We corporate with many universities and Gorvernments and maybe it would be good for, for example students who are doing projects around analysis in any form, to be able to find us and se that we are actually using front edge technologies.
Examples of cooperation with universities •Faculty of Engineering, Lund University •Stockholm University •Technical University of Denmark (DTU) •Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen •IT university of Copenhagen •Copenhagen Business School (CBS)
I might very well have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia stands for, but I just need to be sure, so if you could just comment very briefly I would be gratefull. BR Stine —Preceding unsigned comment added by StineDibbern ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, really. Wikipedia needs to get a perspective on what they are and aren't going to be sued for. In particular, attempts to avoid libel should be targeted at things that are potentially defamatory rather than just potentially untrue. Distinguish WP:BLP from WP:RS.
Not that WP:RS is much good either; especially when the sources quoted are relying on each other (or Wikipedia) for support.
Meanwhile, WP:NOR also has deep flaws (there is stuff that is blatant OR that isn't picked up upon; other stuff that is basically harmless facts - useful, relevant and (maybe with a bit of work) verifiable are removed claiming "defamation").
Yet, it seems there's little recognition of any of this. Principles must be ideologically followed. I'm not advocating breaking or changing "community concensus", just pointing out what to me seems pretty obvious.
Anyway, my point was that the line of succession should point out that some people enjoy compiling these lists. They're probably a bit strange, but i can't see how they're really any different from Wikipedia hacks. Flying Fische ( talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kgorman-ucb. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! -- Σ ☭★ 05:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm Derrick, a fellow Berkeley student and Wikipedian and along with Matt Senate one of the Regional Ambassadors for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program for Northern California. I attended one of the Politics of Piracy editing parties this Spring and I believe I met you there briefly. Since you're going to be facilitating Politics of Piracy this fall, I wanted to get your feedback on how useful you felt Wikipedia was in the course, feedback on the course and syllabus, and whether you're thinking about using it again. If you are thinking about using it again, we'd like to get started on setting you up with volunteers such as Campus Ambassadors to support your class, and meet to talk about your plans for the class at some point. Feel free to respond here or e-mail me directly at dcoetzee@eecs.berkeley.edu. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
NovelSat is important becaue, as far as I am aware ( and I should be aware , because I ahve been a satelltite communications professional for many years) it is the ONLY company in the world that offers significant capacity imrovement in satellite communications links. I would be happy to explain this further if you ar familiar with this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neudorf ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are dozens of sources to choose from , here is one from satcoms UK . BTW, I am editing articles on different articles on satellite communications, and I intend to add names of major players in that market includimg Novelsat's competitors. Kevin, I did not suspect that what you did was personal - after all , we don't know each other... I do suspect, however, that you are not an expert on SATCOM :). BTW, while I have not written much in the English wikipedia, I did contribute a lot to the Hebew one, and I deleted many superflous articles, but alwatys after consulting experts in that field... thanks anyway for this fruitful discussion -- Neudorf ( talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, consider turning your email option on. Drmies ( talk) 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Kgorman-ucb, for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
... this? I'm not sure whether "tenacious" or "stupid" is the best adjective. Maybe both. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it pretty stunning that the guy is still trying. I think I have all relevant articles watchlisted at this point. Kevin ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.wikimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/KevinGormanAtWMF.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Is linking my picture here intended as some sort of really weird threat? I assume this is in relation to your edits at Jona Lendering that I recently reverted. You are right that public figures are subject to critiques, but the only sort of critiques that are appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles are those that are discussed in reliable sources, and none of the points you added were cited to RS's. If you find criticism of Jona Lendering in RS's, I won't remove it. Kevin ( talk) 05:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Who asked you to revert those citations, Kevin? Have you seen this? http://w ww.cais-soas.com/News/2009/January2009/05-01.htm And this? http://w ww.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/the_article_of_cyrus_cylinder_in_wikipedia_is_being_vandalized5.pdf And we are to suppose that a professor awarded the WALM best history book is not, "a reliable source"? And may I ask your qualifications for denigrating their credentials? http://w ww.kavehfarrokh.com/about/background/ And these gentlemen are also unqualified, right? http://w ww.cais-soas.com/CAIS/about_cais.htm From what I understood of your comment, you implied that you are reverting the article back yourself; looking forward to it because people like Lendering (or David Duke) and their supporters are properly critiqued. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 06:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:SPS. Whether or not they have credentials that might be impressive in other situations does not matter - the sources you provided simply do not meet Wikipedia's long-established policies on what we consider reliable sources, so they cannot be used as the basis for criticism of a living person here. Kevin ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you itemize why the sources are improper - please be as specific as possible because it appears that several articles are being prepared on the individuals that mask the numerous critiques made by the academic and public interest community against Lendering. A lot of people have complained, they certainly will want to know your viewpoint: Let me help you - Please finish these sentences while giving specifics ... [1] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by Rozaneh Magazine because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [2] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by Dr. Farrokh the recipient of the WALM best history book award because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [3] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by the academic staff at CAIS ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [4] The online content that that Lendering produces and uses as citations on Wikipedia are acceptable despite the fact that Lendering is a self-proclaimed historian without a Ph.D, but several of his award-winning critics may not be cited to on Wikipedia because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] * * * Please try not to be vague - because people will see right through equivocation. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 06:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I refer you again to WP:RS and WP:SPS. The credentials of the people criticizing Lendering do not matter in this discussion. Because the sources you cited are not sources that meet the criteria laid out at WP:RS, they categorically cannot be used to support material that is critical of a living person. Self-published sources can be used to support material that is of a non-critical nature, but absolutely cannot be used here to support material that is critical of a living person. Kevin ( talk) 07:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Kevin Gorman, again you failed to provide SPECIFIC reasons - describe specifically what you find faulty with the sources. I am trying to help you out here as it appears that several thousand people are interested in the subject matter and I have already received 9 messages about individuals wishing to use this talk page as the basis for articles. Here is your chance to show good faith and to provide the PRECISE faults you found with EACH of the citations and to defend the "Lendering/Gorman" position. The fewer riddles, equivocations and conclusionary language you use, the more good faith may be seen in your reversion of edits about a notorious character who uses his pseudo-scholarship to defame people; otherwise people may naturally draw a different conclusion. If you want, we can exchange contact information and conduct a conference over these issues. Please let me know. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 07:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I have literally never heard of this guy before an hour ago. I am not allying myself with him or defending him in any way, I am just following site-wide policies. I think that reading
WP:SPS and
WP:RS would provide a good overview of the issue here, but I will provide a point by point explanation for you.
I'm not saying that the criticisms of Lendering are incorrect or unfounded - I'm only saying that they are not published in sources that can be included in Wikipedia. Kevin ( talk) 07:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
@DougWeller: Your remark is off-point to what I was speaking to Kgorman about - my understanding is that there is an action pending against Lendering and several of his online associates; maybe you should wait to see the results and post that information as it arises. If you want to move your complaints about Farrokh to my talk page, please do so. Of course I will be happy to forward your representations to KFarrokh and ask him to defend himself. Of course, most reasonable people know that working in one field does not preclude working in others; If that's what KFarrokh did, it would not surprise me; nor would it surprise me that he teaches in other fields. But your citations are speculative at best, frivolous and libelous at worst. Why don't you write to him and ask him? Meanwhile, I'm focussed on the article concerning Lendering. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 08:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
According to your statement you have "never heard" of Lendering up until an hour ago - don't you think then its better to leave the content of article up to individuals who have more than one hour's experience with the subject of an Encyclopedia entry? It's a serious question.
No, I don't think it's appropriate to leave the article to those with more subject matter expertise. I am confident in my evaluation of your sources, and because negative information about living people can result in legal liability for wikipedia, we're required to be exceptionally cautious in articles about living people, removing questionable information as soon as it is noticed. The Farrokh article is clearly inappropriate, the petition is clearly inappropriate, and the Rozaneh article is almost certainly inappropriate.
You are right that I do not speak Persian, but there are still generally ways to identify what is and is not a reliable source. Rozaneh's website does not appear to have any description of their editorial policy and is obviously a non-professional website, which is a pretty solid indication that they won't meet our standard. Additionally, web analytics tools say that Rozaneh's website gets a very small amount of traffic, making it even less likely. There are also no hits in the google news archives for Rozaneh Magazine, and no independent google scholar hits - 99.9% of reliable publications, no matter what language they are written in, will be referenced in one of those databases. Because you are using the reference to make a negative claim about a living person, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is a reliable source, not on me to demonstrate that it is not one. If you have evidence that shows that Rozaneh has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and a solid editorial policy, post it and it can be reincluded. If it's in Persian, there are plenty of people who hang around here who speak persian.
If you look at our article on Jimmy Wales, you'll notice that our article about him does not include a single citation of Wikipedia. Our sourcing standards apply equally to all articles, including those that deal with online figures. If you look at the article on David Duke, although it does talk about criticisms that have been laid against him, absolutely none of the criticisms cited are from self-published sources.
You may be correct that citations of Lendering's website on other articles should be cleaned up, but the fact that they haven't been cleaned up doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to leave criticism of Lendering from self-published sources on his article. Two wrongs don't make a right. (BTW: citation of Lendering's website on his own article is probably appropriate. Our long-established policies consider it O.K. to cite a self-published source to establish facts about itself, but self-published sources are never okay to cite for negative information or contentious information.) Kevin ( talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to sleep shortly, so I will be unlikely to reply any further tonight. Kevin ( talk) 09:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You were right the first time, clear vandalism, not just because of the edit summary but because there was an earlier consensus that it was a BLP violation. Edit-warring from multiple IPs, probably a banned/blocked user. Dougweller ( talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, thanks for the feedback on Sublime Magazine! If I go through it again to take out any non-neutral wording of the magazine would it be possible for you to remove the tag you put in it? Steve Curtis ( talk) 09:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your calm, succinct comments in the disussions about Aelita Andre. I was glad to see that Cramyourspam claimed to be dropping the issue on the article's talk page, but I'm afraid that intentions are otherwise. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this. The debate keeps going in circles because Cramyourspam continues to put forth variants of the same argument that are all irrelevant under WP:NOTABILITY, as you know and have stated before. I've been keeping up regularly with news relevant to the article and, although I don't believe the article had any neutrality problem in the first place, I did manage to track down a single reliable source with criticism, which I inserted and sourced in the article. I can and will ignore Cramyourspam's incessant insistence on my alleged affiliations to whoever and whatever he claims, but I'm still not comfortable with the situation because Cramyourspam isn't showing any intention of leaving the article alone. Although for the time being he isn't editing himself, he's now recruiting other editors to support him. I don't want any more unsourced (or blog-sourced) information in this BLP, and I don't mind talking out the issue with the user involved. But now the user has gone a step further and is trying to involve other editors in his quest to negate the subject's notability and the article's credibility. I find that frustrating. I know that those familiar with WP notability guidelines won't sanction what he says, but I'm tired of it. This has dragged on intermittently for weeks. Can anything be done to put this to rest now, or will we have to patiently wait until it dies down? I don't mind waiting, but after all this time, more of that seems unnecessary to me. What has experience taught you in similar situations?
Armadillopteryx talk 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arma - I'm afraid the brevity was iphone-induced, rather than voluntary. I'll post a longer response when I get home later today, but in the meantime, I would encourage you not to stress over it. No matter how much he posts, his posts alone can't do anything - to delete it he would have to run it through a full AfD where his opinion would only be one of many (and opinions that ignore policy are generally ignored.) Anyway, iphone induced brevity is fun - I'll be back around later. Kevin ( talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arma - I'm at a real computer now, yay. First, for something unrelated to the rest of the issues here - I don't believe we can use this image in the article. As far as I'm aware photographs like that are considered reproductions of the original artwork, so as long as the artwork is still under copyright we would need the permission of the rights holder (Andre or her parents) before we would be able to use the photograph. It's outside of my normal area of focus so I could be wrong and thus haven't taken it down or anything. Unless you know positively that my understanding is incorrect, we should probably ask at this noticeboard for clarification from someone with more experience in the realm of images.
I can understand why CYS's actions are irritating, but most of it is not going to be stuff you can outright stop. However, most of it, you can safely ignore. You have no obligation to interact with him on the talk page, and unless he starts making significant changes to the actual article that need to be discussed or nominates it for deletion, it is unlikely to be productive for you to interact with him directly more. He has the ability to nominate the article for deletion (AfD) and if he does so you might want to comment on the AfD - but even then you don't really have to. Arguments made at AfD that ignore policy are ignored, and so far he hasn't made any policy-based arguments as to why the article should be deleted. Unless he comes up with some much better arguments, he would have no real chance at getting the article deleted at AfD.
The addition of unsourced material (or material that isn't sourced to BLP standards) is a concern for any BLP, but it hasn't happened much yet. I have the article watchlisted as I'm sure you do, and it's not a big deal to remove poorly sourced stuff as it crops up - it only takes a couple of buttons. If unsourced stuff starts popping up a bunch, there's other stuff we can do to stop it, but until it does a bunch we don't need to worry about it too much.
All of his COI accusations are certainly at least verging on violating a couple of policies, but unless they become substantially more offensive or persistent ignoring them is probably the best course of action. He's definitely not doing a very good job at assuming good faith and he also doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to the civility guideline, but since none of his edits are outrageously over the line trying to get the policies enforced strictly would create a lot more drama than it would stop.
It is worth mentioning that it is possible that, somehow, the article would fail at AfD. I don't think it would, and I'm generally right about such guesses, but stranger things have happened. Even if that somehow happens, I would encourage you to stick around - usually, we're pretty decent at making sense and although sometimes annoying things happen, I think the good of the project far outweighs the bad overall. BTW: I'm usually good at checking my talk page regularly, but if something comes up and I seem to have missed it, feel free to drop me an email. You can do so via a link on the lefthand toolbar from my userpage if you have an email address associated with your account. Kevin ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello to you too. I'll leave my own contact info below; I'm staying in Boston until 15th, after that 'normal service' will be resumed (ie, I'm very often available on IRC). Cheers, Chzz ► 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if your referring to last weeks nominations or something more recent. If it is something recent I don't know what you are talking about because I haven't communicated with Libstar for the past week and don't intend to as it is totally pointless. The only thing that gets me is that you guys are fine with him nominating pages without consulting the authors while any upset this has caused is ignored. Have you talked to Libstar and said perhaps you better cool it on the nominating? Cheers. jsmith006 ( talk) 08:40, 10 July 2011
Ah, that makes sense. I forgot I spammed up meta recent changes that badly. Kevin ( talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kgorman-ucb, I noticed that you have revert the link ( http://www.evisaasia.com/visa-requirement/tourist-visa-requirements-for-china-citizens/) that was being added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens.
I found that the page consist of useful information that may benefit the readers. May I know why it is being identified as spam? I would be glad if you could review the website to see whether the content is suitable for wiki readers or not.
Thanks.
TW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi TW - our external link guidelines are outlined here, with this section being especially relevant. Kevin ( talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the info. I will be glad if you could point me to the exact
number of that section where the link has violated the guideline.
Thanks. TW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, The page has visa requirement information which is arranged by time required on trip planning, ie no advance planning, 3-days planning and 2 weeks planning. It presents an unique way for travelers to make decision on which countries they wish to travel to. The page is a compilation of research and many years of experience in dealing with tourist visa in Asia. I would be appreciate if you can browse through the website again to read the content in details. Thx. TW 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I see you deleted an external link to 'finewinepress' from the Ramandolo article. I saw this link added yesterday and also comtemplated deleting it. Concerned that it might be a promotional thing I looked for all the links to 'finewinepress'. I found five, all to wine and food articles and reviewed each one. In each case I think the links add value and suggest that the link for the Ramalodo article is restored. Regards. Orenburg1 ( talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Does a kitten need a reason?
Drmies (
talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
KIIIIIIITTEEEEEEENS!!!!! Thank you.
Kevin (
talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A glass of wine for you! | |
Great talking to you on IRC and I hope to meet you next week. :) Viva la revolution! SarahStierch ( talk) 01:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you! | |
Thanks for all of your help, Kevin! You Rock! :) Mokapantages ( talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
What do you think? Drmies ( talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, It's Harrison. I just emailed Matt a few hours ago just to make sure if he is okay with me being an ambassador for the politics of piracy class this semester of if he needs me somewhere else. I'll let you know when I find out. Talk to you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmmma ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
On 2 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psilocybe cyanescens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that approximately 100,000 psychedelic Psilocybe cyanescens mushrooms were once found growing on a racetrack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psilocybe cyanescens.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice Trout. (",) Just a comment. 99.181.156.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
For joining WP:XX...and because you were whining about being out of cold beer =) SarahStierch ( talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC) |
MEOW
SarahStierch (
talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
B-3 | |
BATTLESHIP SarahStierch ( talk) 01:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
thanks for coming to the workshop today! Anonymousnobodyperson ( talk) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
And remove that content, thanks for posting the policy regarding it, I was searching for it. And thanks for being bold. Regardless of where both parties stand, attacks on either side aren't welcome here and talk pages aren't meant to be places for people to use as a soapbox. Thanks again. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment on Kaldari's talk page mentioning the need for oversight on the men's rights article. Fluffernutter also took a look and decided against semi-protecting it at this time due to "see how things work out" (from IRC). I'm really sorry that the Jay user called you a bigot - and the community - at that. SarahStierch ( talk) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it beer time yet in Berkeley? SarahStierch ( talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
I'm sorry to do this on a publicly visible page, but I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to correct your disrespectful behaviour towards myself and other editors on the Men's Rights page. Citing policies everyone is already well aware of, threatening bans and actually going through with them is not exactly exhibiting the assumption of good faith that you demand from others. As I have made it clear, I believe the majority of users are acting in good faith in their attempts to bring Men's Rights up to a decent standard. In fact, I am endeavouring to make it the sort of article that is featured on the front page.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an open community, it is not acceptable for administrators to be threatening users who make edits they do not agree with with suspensions. Please do not make such threats again without good cause.
I hope we can turn our attention to more productive subjects in the future. Hermiod ( talk) 08:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you. -- Hermiod ( talk) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware of any threats against you or the way you have been treated on the greater Internet. Whatever dispute you and I may have, I do not condone such behaviour and if it means anything you have my sympathy. Hermiod ( talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Though, i'm sad to say, not in a good way. :(
See " Men’s Rights Fight Breaks Out On Wikipedia". Silver seren C 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well... although it's not the way I'd prefer to be internet famous, it's a substantially better way to be internet famous than that which has occupied most of the last couple days. I'd prefer to be on jezebel for 'Wikipedia editors miraculously reach agreement and produce encyclopedic high quality page on men's rights' - but given the choice between being on jezebel for this and being everywhere else I've been lately, I'd definitely take jezebel, heh. Kevin ( talk) 04:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
But apparently Cybermud managed to not notice the editnotice. We can still hope it will cut down on such instances, though. Hopefully others will notice and read it. :-/ KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Jayhammers. Kaldari ( talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I miss you! :( My IRC is not nearly as fun without you around. SarahStierch ( talk) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
On 17 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawson Adit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lawson Adit, a tunnel on UC Berkeley's campus, was intentionally dug through the Hayward Fault? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lawson Adit.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Mind the Gap Award | ||
Thank you for taking on the task of moderator on Gender Gap-l! It is so appreciated; as is your offline work. I can't wait to see what happens next! :) SarahStierch ( talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Kgorman-ucb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:R T Kiran, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Its a user page so i believe that does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Kangaroo powah 06:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it looks like they're all done (ages ago). If you're still up for it, could you please fly through the articles and fill in the ticks? Many thanks. (If you can't for some reason, please let me know, and I will look after it.) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a new article about an event. Just wanted your feedback on it. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week. Varunr ( talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad to be of help, please let me know if I can be more helpful. HectorMoffet ( talk) 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note - I'll leave the article alone for now, and look forward to seeing your additions. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 09:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, no offence was intended regarding the lookup. You had commented in the WP:AN thread regarding discretionary sanctions for Indian subcontinent caste-related issues and I was merely trying to figure out who the heck you were. I've only been truly active for the last 12 months and could not recall seeing your name bandied about ... but it was obvious that you understood what has been going on. It is a very handy tool and something needs to be sorted out but it really is beyond my capabilities. - Sitush ( talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I threw out about 50 messages about interviews for an MSU class at the request of a fellow ambassador. It didn't actually occur to me that research committee approval or bot approval might be needed before AWB'ing out invitations for something like that until I was about fifty messages in. I'm poking in to it currently, but if you received a message about it, please don't take offense :) Kevin ( talk) 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg | Rubber duckies for you |
Happy Valentine's Day Kevin! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for acting as a responsible contributing editor on Richard Santulli and being objective. Monstermike99 ( talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Et de deux ...!
a round of applause... | |
...for your rapid, no-nonsense, wiki-justified editing of Richard Santulli. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Well, thanks guys. Kevin ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Kgorman-ucb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nicholas forrest, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the TFD has largely turned into a platform for people to attack each other without actually addressing anything, I'll reply to you here. If you look further up in the TFD, you'll see where I linked to some of the discussions regarding {{ Deleted template}}, so its use is not exactly without some sort of prior discussion or practice. It is currently in use for {{ Expand}}, and using it with such a previously widely used template helped work out a number of logic bugs in {{ Deleted template}}'s code. The template works well for message box templates such as these, but at present it would likely be ill-suited for lower level templates. I suppose for templates that a typical editor would normally add by hand, such as message boxes, navigation boxes, etc, {{ Deleted template}} could work well, but I don't know that it would be of much use without some significant additional code for say a depreciated formatting template or citation template. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this. Thick skins! I saw it and decided to ignore, mainly because if it is one person who does the necessary every time then the idea of a cabal just becomes stronger. I've had death threats, so this is (relatively) minor. Nonetheless, I am grateful to you for stepping in. Someone has to. - Sitush ( talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have made subsequent comments at the AN discussion about a topic ban.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | ||
Nothing like fixing my day-olde typos! Cheers, oh great Userpage stalker, Cheers! Achowat ( talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for you kind comments. I'm going to go on wikibreak now to see how things play out and whether my already-invested time gets used or wasted. I know I could spent a lifetime adding cites to the Kernighan article, but I have no faith that time would sway minds.
I started a number of articles for you guys, and nearly half of them got CSDed within instants. "All the world's knowledge" includes people currently in power in major US cities-- if wikipedia can't include that information (with enought RS sources), I'm wasting my time here and should just give up and join facebook.
I have more sympathy for the Category deletion. It's a group of people who, if you look at them, they all have something in common. Will the Wikipedia experts find a good name to describe this group, or will they delete the hours I spent tracking those individuals down. The title needs to change, that's always been obvious to me.
What I didn't anticipate was just how easy it is to copy "delete per nom" compared to actually helping solve the problem. Solutions are hard and they take time. Deletion is easy, and sweeps the problem under the rug.
Anyway, I whine too much. There' a timeline in my userspace of the oakland city council. Obviously, I'm not inclined to debug timeline code until I have a better sense of whether my work will be used in Wikipedia or not.
If I wind up vanishing, you might try to rescue it and putting it in the appropriate articles, if any. If it's not appropriate for any articles, you many delete it on your own authority-- I trust ya.
thanks again for your kind words. I realize I'm being a bit of a diva here, but it never cross my minds that Wikipedia can't cover legislators and imprisoned journalists. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, I was making a minor modification to my post for clarity but got an EC. As I didn't feel my modifications changed the meaning, I went ahead and submitted them anyway even though you had already replied [5]. Cheers Nil Einne ( talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to invite your students and whatnots :) WP:Teahouse SarahStierch ( talk) 00:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Please read my reply to Phlippe. Thank you. -- Meno25 ( talk) 07:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello - I have reverted your edit of the Grant Cardone article. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Cardone's to email Scientologists is copyright. Has he made such a claim that you are aware of? I know the email was published in the Village Voice and there has been no such claim made against that publication. I would value your comment on this. Many thanks. Henry Sewell ( talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Bisexual erasure is a new topic, poorly sourced in the real world, with little or no academic papers on the subject. According to WP under Wikipedia:Verifiability in the section entitled:
What counts as a reliable source The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.
The key words here are "the work itself," which in this case is the website itself, which is cited.
In addition "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." From the 5th pillar of Wikipedia "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." at Wikipedia:Five pillars
This is the basis of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kgorman-ucb! I left a note for you on the "Maggie's Farm" talk page with a request for feedback. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon for Women's History Month :)
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012 from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM (PT)
Location: Wikimedia Foundation Offices 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th floor San Francisco, CA 94105
Bring: Your laptop and charger (we'll have some extra computers available), your questions, and your friends!
What to expect: A fun, laid-back environment with food, drink, a great mix of people, and a wealth of knowledge and resources.
Public transport: BART to Montgomery station and walk 1 block down New Montgomery St.
Reminder: The St. Patricks Day parade will be starting at 11:30 on Market Street. Market street will most likely be closed to cars so please plan your journey accordingly ;-)
When you arrive: A volunteer will be at the front of the building to greet everyone arriving 12:40 - 1:20. You will take the elevator up to the 6th floor.
If you are early: If you expect to come earlier than 12:40 to help set-up, please let us know, so we can give you a contact number.
If you arrive later: No problem. There will be a phone number posted to the front door of the office building. A volunteer will run down and let you in.
We can't wait to see you on Saturday! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On 16 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, a court in Oregon, United States, held that a blogger was not a member of the media? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Just wanted to drop by and say hi! It was great meeting you at the San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon. Thanks for all of your great input on incorporating Wikipedia into undergrad coursework! Cupcakemuffin ( talk) 02:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed
this message of yours just now. You didn't include a timestamp when posting these messages, so the archive
bots can't know how old the message is (and thus simply don't ever move the message into an archive subpage). Please remember to always sign your posts with ~~~~
(or you can include just a timestamp by using ~~~~~
).
It also wouldn't be the worst idea in the world for you to go back through your old messages and correct them, if you have time. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.
I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kevin Gorman. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings,
I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.
The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
I'm not sure what's going on ... for some reason you have a bot running now that is posting a message that I do not want posted on talk pages. Please stop!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, hope everything is going well :-) Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name here. Best -- Frank Schulenburg (Wikimedia Foundation) ( talk) 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for this mistake; and now I don't know whose page I was on when I typed that. Get well soon! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
at Men's Rights. I found the statement "the inability of feminist to acknowledge that men have problems worthy of being rectified." to be particularly noteworthy because I can think of no feminist, and I've known quite a few, who would not acknowledge that men have problems worthy of being rectified. In fact, a lot of them. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at the history and I edited that last October. Since then there have been maybe 500 edits and a lot of BS. I bailed out and must commend you for hanging in there. A nasty job that someone needs to do, but, it turns out, not me. Carptrash ( talk) 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarah ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What, were you hoping to date her? Drmies ( talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Kevin!
It's evening here in Romania and I'm back on WP. Thanks for your offer to help. Here's the story in a nutshell: I went to school with a famous sportsperson and multiple Olympic champion and she's still a rather close friend. Needless to say none of the existing WP articles about her were written by me because, despite the notability being out of question, I felt I couldn't be objective. But those articles exist. Yesterday she brought to my attention that a book was published in the States,(apparently in 2010) containing her biography and with the statement on the cover that it was "based on high quality Wikipedia articles". She says that, according to what she was told, it sells on Amazon for 50 USD/48 EUR and that she would send me a link from the Barnes&Noble website. There are several issues here: first, both she and I don't think it's ethical to publish any kind of biography of a living person without notifying the person (and at least her business address is widely known). Secondly, and which has to do directly with Wikipedia, both she and I don't believe that one can, just like that, copy &paste content that is made available for free and make profit out of it (how much of this book did the authors actually work for? we don't know, because we don't have it yet; but they take pride in "basing" it on wp which is not a good sign).
OK, I tried to read my way through the terms of use pages, read about the new terms of use, too (although probably they shouldn't apply retroactively) but I couldn't get a clear picture of what applies here and what can be done. I'll come back with the link when I get it. Thanks again Cristixav ( talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) One would want to read [6]. Trust me. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, thanks for your help with the Anne Bremer page. I didn't get any notice that you'd replied at the Teahouse, but maybe that's because I eliminated that heading on my talk page. It's all so confusing! Ann HarZim ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The FOR SCIENCE! Barnstar | ||
Hey, Kevin! Thanks for your awesome hand-coding work for WP:AFT5 :). Have a barnstar! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
... please tell me which campus ambassador was involved with approving these articles for DYK and Good Article. I do not in anyway blame the students here and I will apologise profusely to them for my incivil behavior, explain my frustration was borne not out of their individual actions but because their instructor and campus ambassador did not meet WP:COMPETENCE, that the programme they were involved in was not designed to maximise to set them up for success and actually set them up to fail. I will offer to help them improve their articles after their course is done because really? It isn't their fault. In the mean time, please help clean up the rest of the problems that you're culpable in supporting and busily not fixing. This is an example of WP:COMPETENCE on your part and a violation of WP:CIVIL because of your obligation to help and your helping to maximise student failure. -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!! It's totally okay to undo what I did completely if that's easier! heather walls ( talk) 06:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your fine work on the Education noticeboard, and for helping to ensure that we all remember what it was like to be a new contributor. -Philippe ( talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC) |
On 9 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Occupy the Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that protesters have occupied and started to farm a tract of land owned by the University of California, Berkeley? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupy the Farm.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm not sure whether you remember me, but a year ago, you helped resolve a small disagreement related to User:Cramyourspam inserting POV material in the Aelita Andre article. Would you be willing to weigh in on a resurgence of this issue? It appeared to be resolved last June, but this week, Cramyourspam has returned to the article insistent upon listing Vanity gallery as a related topic. He (or she) is also adding Aelita Andre as a related topic to the Vanity gallery article. I have already reverted these edits twice, and given the user's editing patterns, I don't assume the re-addition of this material will stop anytime soon. I think these edits place undue weight on something that is appropriately mentioned in the relevant section of the article. If you have time, would you mind helping out on that page as you did last year? I really appreciate what you did already and would be grateful if you're willing to do it again. Thanks, Armadillopteryx talk 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vanity_gallery#Aelita_Andre cheers. Cramyourspam ( talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Please stick around on the Putin page and give your opinion whenever you feel like it. We need some more diversity there, it's getting rather monotonous ;) Thanks. Malick78 ( talk) 09:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited! | |
---|---|
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! |
San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park | ||
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. — Max Klein { chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite. |
Thanks for expressing interest in the Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting. I'm investigating ways to make the meeting more effective, and I'd love to get feedback from you as to what we could do to improve the meeting. Please weigh in on the discussion there! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Kevin! As if I don't ask enough of you already, I thought I'd post this message to you in case you have some time to spare this week:
If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.
If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bbb23. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You're way out of line, pal, attacking an admin. I'm going to hunt you down and shove that badge down your throat. (I'm attending DGG's session, BTW.) Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am currently working on the Wiki page for Ms Radha Thomas. She is an Indian jazz singer and songwriter. In fact, she is known as a diva in the Indian jazz scene. She previously was with the band Human Bondage and has sung and performed globally. The article is still under development. I haven't completed it or submitted it for review yet. You can have a look at it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas. I will be requesting your help and advice (as usual) in making it conform to all Wiki standards. If you do a Google Search for Radha ( https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Radha+Thomas&oq=Radha+Thomas&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l2.1190.3159.0.3385.12.12.0.0.0.0.282.1949.0j11j1.12.0...0.0...1c.dYmnNUlMsQM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f6ee012440c72a74&biw=1024&bih=509) you will find dozens of articles and links to her work. As of now, the article is still under development and I will come bug you for help soon! Varunr ( talk) 06:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!
The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.
For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.
Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.
Thank you, Daria Cybulska ( talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project.
Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Wikipedia! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Please note this action at WP:ANI, in which you have been named.
Best wishes,
Noetica Tea? 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Kevin, thanks for the explanations but in fact they highlight my biggest concern about making controversial title changes outside the RM process. The biggest concern is that outside RM and more specifically WP:RMCI we run the risk of poorly made moves that screw things up and cause a lot of unneccessary work after the fact, not only technically, but from a title policy standpoint as well. WP:RMCI has pretty clear guidance on the balance of consensus and title policy, the responsibilities of the closer assess that balance, make a decision and to do all the cleanup after the move. Additionally, this section of RMCI Conflicts of interest is clear on the need for uninvolved Admins to make the close and do the clean-up work. In your explanation, you're suggesting that involved admins help make the move. I was never suggesting that KC did anything wrong, however if you applied the standards in WP:RMCI to the close, she didn't live up to the closer's responsibility. We don't make deletion decisions outside the established 3 tier deletion process--CSD, PROD and AfD. Why should we make controversial title decisions outside a long-standing RM process? No body has yet to explain that rationally. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a strong reason to have an uninvolved editor find the balance of consensus of a controversial discussion. There's not an equally strong reason to require that uninvolved closer to handle the mechanics of moving a page immediately upon closing a discussion. And there's a strong reason not to do so in any situation where implementing the close in a way that makes sense requires making decisions about content, as in this case. In pretty much any other situation it would be considered strongly inappropriate for someone who just closed a contentious discussion as an uninvolved editor to jump in and start making content decisions immediately after, and I see no reason for this type of situation to be different. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Noetica Tea? 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Saw that comment about gender-specific pronouns. :) Personally, I prefer to avoid using pronouns altogether if I can't nail the right one. On Wikipedia that generally means saying "editor", "person", "individual" or simply using the username. That way I don't risk offending anyone if I say "he" when I am actually talking to a "she" and I don't end up making grammatical errors or using obscure terminology.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.
There are three events planned:
We look forward to seeing you there!
You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have created an article about Ms Radha Thomas and am contemplating moving it to the AFC space. Before that, I'd really appreciate if you could have a look and give me some inputs, suggestions and advice and hopefully a green signal :-). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas Varunr ( talk) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Come celebrate
Ada Lovelace Day at the
Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the
Ada Initiative, the
Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in
STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.
The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome! You must RSVP
here - see you there! |
|
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/10/16/wikipedia-evangelist-spreads-the-word/ Congratulations. Good work Kevin. — Ched ZILLA 07:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
One more of these and you could meet WP:GNG, which will help Wikipedia expand it's article base with a Kevin Gorman article. Thanks for giving 110%! -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In cause you are interested in expanding the article more, there's a lot more information about the Lawson Adit in Google books. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I was asked to look into some cross-wiki harassment, and guess what I ran into--reference to our old pal LGM, here. I hope that editor (indef-blocked here) has nothing to do with him. How are you, Kevin? Still living large, West Coast style? Drmies ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
We look forward to seeing you there! |
San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! See you there | |
---|---|
|
It is a sentence fragment I recently added, since you forgot to use {{ cite needed}} I have re added it with appropriate source. if you have any further with it please take it to the talk page.-- Mor2 ( talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding what we talked about. I seen your recent edits and I still think that phrasing there is little bit murky, though overall its a great improvement.-- Mor2 ( talk) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I noticed your post on Drmies' talk page about this mushroom. I'm curious to know where the species has been described, because I can't find any information about it. Can you let me know/add the reference to the article? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Thanks for posting on my page and for your offer of help with planning the upcoming sessions. I would be delighted to meet with you to discuss this more, especially as I'm now in the active planning phases. Are you free any time this week to meet by phone? Please feel free to email me, as well. Thanks! Michaelturken ( talk) 07:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You inspired me to do it. Wikipedia:Recruiting those in academia or WP:RECRUIT. Could you share your wisdom there? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.
If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! - Pete ( talk) 04:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.
You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.
Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.
If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.
First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).
After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)
As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.
In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.
The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.
Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!
-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 20:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin Gorman. I have notice that you have recently edited or reverted a couple of my contributions to Wikipedia.
I know you are a Wikimedia and Wikipedia expert. However, I'd like to talk about something.
I improve Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a wonderful website where you can
ignore all rules if (and only if) it makes Wikipedia better.
Since Mozio was definitely a notable startup (it was featured on the Huffington Post, TechCrunch, The Daily Californian, and much more), I decided to add it as a "test" of my first article. It was nominated for deletion, but because it had too many citations from various sources, the result was keep.
I have written Mozio, to the best of my ability, in an NPOV manner. I have NOT introduced any kind of original research on the Mozio article. All data on that article is paraphrased from the citations. If you do not believe me, please carefully read through all the references and look at the contents of each cited article, as well as the "Additional Sources Used" for the page. —
Carrot Lord (
talk) 13:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hey Kevin! (I remember leaving a message about this last week, but I must not have successfully saved.) Thanks for helping get the Bay Area classes situated. Two things:
Regarding this edit [7] Please refrain from replying to people who talk to me on my talk page. Your lack of manners is frankly upsetting, rude and blatantly uncivil and reflects poorly upon you. Even worse is the fact that you do so after having opposed my edits on various occasions based on what you undoubtedly know that I view, right or wrong, as a POV pushing agenda. It's amazing that it even needs to be said, but if you want to talk to editors who talk to me do it on your own talk page or on theirs.-- Cybermud ( talk) 19:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, You're doing a great job of adding more balance to that article. I went in and made a couple of simple edits to tighten up the language a bit--but you're the one who is doing the real work there. Best of luck with it! EMP ( talk 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your help in the Teahouse! Jackson Peebles ( talk) 06:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) |
I've put the notice up - sorry for the delay. I ended up using the range [37.6, -122], [38, -122.5], which should cover the city, but you might want to double-check the university is covered - it sometimes happens that institutional networks do strange things on geo-IP lookups. I've set it to run until the end of 10 February (UTC); let me know if you'd like longer. Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
---|---|---|---|
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
Hi, I'm hoping that, as an experienced Wikipedian, you may be able to help with Carptrash on the Men's rights movement talk page. 4 years ago when I initially created this account, I stopped contributing after a short time because of similar behavior levied in my direction. I decided to not let that happen this time and was just going to ignore them, but after seeing them immediately act the same way against another user, I can't believe that it will be isolated to just this situation unless something is done to express how toxic these types of actions are to well intentioned and well behaving new editors. I've looked through Wikipedia policies, but they seem to be acting with impunity and I could not find where or how to report this type of behavior. In particular, I am talking about what started with this, then led to this and what finally made me seek out a more experienced Wikipedian of this. Honestly, I'm not sure how much of this sort of thing I can ignore before just giving up again. Ismarc ( talk) 01:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Chris troutman ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin. you have expressed an interest in r/mensrights about have more people come in to improve this page. I have two users WLU and sonicyouth who are creating a very hostile environment on this page, including singling me out with ad hominem rather than discussing my edits. In addition, they are disputing one of my recently added sources, which I believe to be reliable, and repeatedly deleting my contributions without discussion. I believe they are current working in conjunction to get me banned for edit warring by taking turns removing my material. You intervention would be appreciated. Yhwhsks ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, atm the Men's_rights_movement page is close to demonstrating that the Wikipedia idea does not work. I heeded the call for editors to give it another try. It was working for a while but 2 or more editors then re-appeared, they are now violating every conceivable rule of Wikipedia. It is bare face vandalism and disruptive editing. Someone with some clout needs to pay the page a visit and lay down the law, issue some warnings and act as mediator for a while. All of this is tragic. CSDarrow ( talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Given that you have taken it upon yourself to revert this article back to the false and misleading Jbmurray version and given comments by you (at 3RR) which indicate sympathy with him, what will your reaction be when I set about removing all false, misleading, dubious and out of scope content to restore the veracity and credibility of the article based on sources which are reputable having been created by recognised authorities and not by some charlatan whose work has rightly been described by User:CDTPP (a subject matter expert) as "risible"? I think that's a fair question. ---- Jack | talk page 21:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berkeley Student Cooperative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Gray ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you created an IEG grant proposal.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the IdeaLab soon.
Happy editing,
Siko and Jonathan, Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Llewelyn Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see my question at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 7 about File:Leicester city council advert on Ugandan Argus.jpg. In order to keep the image, it needs to be demonstrated not just the advertisement is historically significant, but that seeing the advertisement sufficiently improves the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that could not be accomplished in text alone. -- B ( talk) 15:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
|
On 30 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death during consensual sex, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that contemporary reports claimed that French President Félix Faure died receiving fellatio and his penis had to be surgically removed from his mistress's locked jaw? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death during consensual sex. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!
to two upcoming Bay Area events:
I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 01:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Hey Kevin, I'm following up on an email I sent you last week, asking for your insights on editor engagement. If you didn't get that email, could you please contact me at fflorinwikimedia.org, so I can tell you more? Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) ( talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for the help reverting vandalism on Edward Snowden. I didn't mean to blame you or any of the other editors for not doing a full revert on the semi-protect request; I was just having problems doing the simple approach of clicking "undo" or just rolling back to the old version because I kept getting conflicts with other editors when trying to revert it myself, and figured that was worth pointing out as a reason why semi-protection might work better than relying on people reverting. — λ ( talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
|
|
It's easier for the investigators if articles aren't deleted until after the socks have been confirmed. If you notice a likely sock who hasn't been reported, it would be helpful if you'd make a report. — rybec 05:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As you have shown an interest in holding up biographical articles to a high standard, I'd like for you to take a look at Michele Miscavige and what you think of the BLP violations there, considering the article is almost completely based on unverifiable rumor and speculation. If we're going to maintain high standards for BLP as far as sourcing quality and wording, then this article in particular is extremely problematic considering the violations of BLP at play here. I've also left a note at the noticeboard [9] for other editors to chime in since it's one of those articles where even tagging the article as problematic gets one reverted immediately. If we're going to maintain BLP at high standards across Wikipedia, it should be universal without prejudice. Laval ( talk) 00:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin Gorman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gary Read, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's at least one source that's good enough for A7. May not be enough for AfD, though. . Thank you. Ged UK 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, good sir! May all your perambulations be fascinating, and end with fine beverages and company. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys :) it's been a long time coming, and feels really weird to finally get it over with. And Rybec, I'll drop you an unrelated email tomorrow. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Beebee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Causation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for taking the time to look and review my edit on Grant Cardone's page. However, I think you edited too much out. It's my 10th wikipedia page, and thus I know a little bit about make one. Here, I respected the rules, and granted the page with a lot of content, value and great resources. I'd love for you to point out the points you think must be changed, rather than deleting everything. So let me please suggest you to review your edits, and let's fix the man a better page, wouldn't you agree?
Best, Val — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valefebvre ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for this answer, I appreciate your time and attention on this particular page and my efforts regarding a better outcome.
I get your position, and I respect your points. Indeed as you mentioned, let's work together in enhancing this page to enrich the profile.
I believe we can have a positive touch thanks to our experience and resources to make that page more accurate and rich.
How shall we proceed from there? Should I just put back all the changes I made and then iterate from there? what's best, perhaps posting bits after bits? Let me know I'm eager to work on it.
Best, Val — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Valefebvre (
talk •
contribs) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Kevin Gorman. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about the RA that worked towards a potentially funded position. I hope I haven't aggravated you over at WP:ENB. I'd appreciate the chance to meet and chat on Skype sometime. Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Snow, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freedom and Marquette ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We should have a monthly contest, most cited missing Wikipedia article. What a find for August! --( AfadsBad ( talk) 06:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
Thanks for the kind words AfadsBad and Cullen; I should've figured that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page would rapidly get derailed in the specifics of an example (76, vs the 90's, etc) rather than spark a general discussion about what really is a major problem, Steven just had me feeling overly optimistic :p. I probably should've avoided mentioning citation indexes at all given that they're really only great in the hard sciences (fields like philosophy have fewer journals indexed and also tend to generate less citations in proportion to the prominence of someone in the first place.) It kind of floors me that some editors apparently don't accept that, given our demographic base and the research that has been done in to the issue so far that we have significant content biases. Jaggar is a person of such prominence within her field that any ethicist, feminist philosopher, anyone active in gender and women's studies, and many general academic philosophers would be shocked at the absence of an article about her (and I say that having talked to (and witnessed the shock of) many dozen of them recently.) I think her article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is work incredibly well-respected by 99% of academic philosophers, may literally be the only SEP article where I've ever seen it suggested that it would be nigh impossible to better someone's work, regardless of what field of philosophy they worked in - philosophers just don't make that kind of statement.
Oh well. I'll do what I can in this realm and with helping the educational and cultural institutions that reach out to me concerned about systemic bias (at least half a dozen have proactively done so in the last couple of months.) I'm hopeful that either the Foundation or a chapter will eventually have some sort of systemic bias collaboration coordinator position, analogous to Lori's GLAM position a while back. We have so much social capital right now, and with this many institutions proactively reaching out to us concerned about our biases, I'm sure a coordinated outreach effort with someone's full attention behind it backed by the social capital of the WMF or a chapter would be colossally successful. Btw, I've just started ignoring that section of Jimbo's talk page for now, because the heat to light ratio doesn't seem worth it at this point - please ping me if you happen to notice something there that warrants my attention. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for improving our coverage of mushrooms, and also, and even more so, for your exemplary work to deal with our pervasive problem with systemic bias. Thanks for all you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
Perhaps a 17 year old being signed for a quarter of a million pounds by one of the biggest clubs in England and playing for his national side 3 years in advance of his age isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. But then again, half of his team mates at Wolverhampton, without international recognition, older and with the same number of senior appearances ARE 'notable' enough to have their own pages, so I guess consistancy is an issue ?
Sorry to have wasted your time submitting free information.
Dgreid ( talk) 16:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Starting to collapse sections, going to go ahead and agree with Fluffernutter's post.
|
---|
[10] Or any other definition of the idiom I could find on the Web, all suggest taking joy or celebration over the fact of someone's death. You seem to be well educated, probably more than me, but even I can see the faultiness of accusing Eric Corbett what you accused him. (Eric was making a point, a point to the discussion that he felt was absent and was important to make; his point is best left to him to define -- I won't attempt to paraphrase. His point was conceptual however, and about what is or isn't valid or sensible or fair presumed expectations and responsibilities of Wikipedia editors when online at WP. One thing I'm sure, very sure, he did not do or suggest or emote, was to take any kind or degree of delight, celebration, joy, etc., in the young man's suicide. And to suggest such a thing, to accuse Eric of same, which you did twice [11] [12], is really a kind of careless maliciousness on your part. You should apologize to him for that accusation -- it wasn't right, and it wasn't fair. I personally forgive you in your rush to keep things ideal for the parents of the young man on Jimbo's Talk, since in your rush you made that oversight. But what an oversight to make. [If anyone accused me unfairly, untruely, of taking joy and celebrating someone else's death, when I never did or thought any such thing, I would take that as a cruel and malicious and willful misinterpretation of what I said and meant. And I'd be downright upset about it.]) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. If you can find any definition on the web which does not include celebrating a death, please link it here for my education. Otherwise, I don't think you're so powerful that you can make up your own meanings to language idioms for your own purposes. Words have meanings, even modern idioms.
That discussion was utterly baffling. Who is the late editor that was its subject? — Scott • talk 20:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
YGM. Go Phightins ! 13:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Starting to collapse sections, going to go ahead and agree with Fluffernutter's post.
|
---|
When I supported your RfA last month, I didn't think you would be coming on board to threaten one of our best content contributors with a ban for some meaningless and twee nonsense at our co-founder's talk page. More fool him for getting into that debate, and more fool you for behaving like that. You didn't say at your RfA you were going to do stuff like that; I suggest a period of reflection ensue. We do not always need to wave a big stick. There are better ways of doing business than that. That was not a BLP violation. -- John ( talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
To start off with: I have had no prior contact with any of the editors involved in this situation, so no WP:INVOLVED issues. Last night, a thread was started on Jimmy's talkpage concerning an editor who recently committed suicide. You can view the (now archived) thread here. Direct reference to the editor's name was not made, but enough details were given that anyone who knew the editor knew who it was, and anyone who didn't know who the editor was would be able to find out in five minutes or less from the details given in the original post. The first half of the thread essentially served as a memorial to the valued, deceased editor. Part of the way through the thread, User:Eric Corbett arrived and began to make comments likely to offend friends of the deceased editor, and even more likely to offend the family of the editor, should they happen to ever find the thread. I viewed this as a significant WP:BLP concern - to excerpt a quote from the policy, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - that's from a section of BLP pertaining to articles, but I think it sums up the spirit of WP:BLP very nicely. Wikipedia has a duty to not cause unnecessary harm to living people. Seeing the BLP problems as an administrative issue to be dealt with, I began to intervene, asking people to stay on topic, hatting irrelevant material, etc. This was not effective; Eric undid my hatting, etc. I used heavier wording in my initial posts in the thread than I normally would because of the significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedia editors and family members of the deceased. After having a conversation with a number of other admins about how to deal with the issue, I went ahead and decided to use the arbcom remedy dealing with biographies of living people to try to ensure the thread did not detiorate further. I placed a notification on Eric's page, instructing him to stop posting in that one particular thread on Jimmy's talkpage, using the BLP discretionary sanctions (which include enforcing the 'spirit' of BLP, as well as the letter of it,) as justification. I did so because I believed there was a significant risk of emotional harm if Eric continued posting in that thread. I stated that if he did not comply I would enforce the thread-ban through other means, but unlike what has been suggested elsewhere, I did not threaten to outright block or ban him. (Eric responded with a string of profanity and misunderstood policy that would have pulled anyone else a block.) Eric stopped posting in the thread, and after further discussion with User:The_ed17 (one of the admins I had spoken with before applying the discretionary sanctions,) Ed archived the thread, and after further discussion with him, I went ahead and collapsed it. I expected that my actions would result in some degree of Streisand effect, but not to the extent it has. If I could redo the situation, I would attempt to find an alternate solution that would minimize the potential harm of hijacking while also minimizing the resultant Streisand effect. However, I believe the actions I took were 100% within policy, were appropriate, and were the best course of action to take barring an alternative method that would have minimized the resultant Streisand effect. Eric's actions were inappropriate, both on Jimmy's talk page and on his own talk page. When I initially posted a warning to stay off the thread citing the BLP sanctions, his first response was, quoting, "What are you, an idiot? How can I be under a BLP sanction for commenting on someone who's dead?" - demonstrating both a poor understanding of our civility policies and a poor understanding of WP:BLP (of which WP:BDP is a subsection.) At various other points, he's also referred to me as a fucking idiot, told me to shut the fuck up, and slung various other personal attacks. I would like to note that I'm typically very light on tool use; if you look through recent posts, you'll note that I lean far more towards guidance and try to avoid blocks. My harsh approach in this situation was because I perceived significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedians and to the family of the deceased. No benefit would be had from allowing the thread to be hijacked, and significant harm would come from allowing it to be hijacked from being essentially a memorial to being a combative thread that would cause emotional harm to both close friends of the deceased and to the family of the deceased if they happened across it. If I am presented with a similar situation in the future where the only alternative to allowing Wikipedia editors and potentially someone's family from experiencing potentially significant emotional harm, I would not hesitate to make use of the BLP discretionary sanctions in a similar way. I believe that my actions were fully policy compliant, and I stand by them. I believe that Wikipedia has a duty to avoid harming living people whenever possible, and this was one of those situations. Realistically, if this situation involved anyone other than Malleus, his personal attacks alone would have resulted in an uncontroversial block, rather than hordes of upset people on our talk pages. This should be a dead issue. Appropriate action was taken to avoid harming living people for no purpose, and it worked. The thread in question is now archived, Eric heeded the warning to not participate in it further, and emotional harm to Wikipedians has been minimized and emotional harm to the family of the deceased has been avoided. Wikipedia is often cited as having a toxic environment, and this is a perfect example of that. Reactions like this significantly harm editor retention and related issues. I'm happy to answer any questions about the situation. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Enough said.
|
---|
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
Kevin, your editsum message to me: Re your other editsum message to me: Again, if you can find a definition anywhere on the web re idiom gravedance that doesn't include celebrating or expressing joy over the death of someone, please link it here for my education. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator Kevin Gorman. Thank you. Ross Hill Talk to me! 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Your opinion has been noted and appropriately filed.
|
---|
|
Little productive likely to come out of this section
|
---|
No doubt you will be encouraged by the foolishly given barnstars above. However, this vainglorious beginning to your admin career has placed you amongst Wikipedia's least respected administrators. Whether through ignorance, immaturity or a desire to see your name on the map, you have not served yourself or the project well. To falsely accuse another editor or gravedancing and then attempt a smear campaign to save your own wretched career is deplorable. I'm sure no one, including Eric Corbett, feels anything less than deep sorrow that an editor committed suicide; however, few, if any, of us knew him personally and to use his tragic death as an excuse to excite sentiment and attack other editors in order to promote oneself is something of which you should feel thoroughly ashamed. Your behaviour suggests to me that you are not very old, so I will make allowances for you on grounds of immaturity. Nevertheless, I feel you should resign your tools at once, learn from this experience and re-apply when you are a little older and wiser. Giano 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Collapsed comment from Giano
|
---|
|
Keep in mind:
So, maybe you should just apologize. And maybe just for fun tell him to fuck off here on your own talk page, block yourself for 5 minutes, and then he'll perhaps feel better that someone blocked you. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, I see what you're trying to prove--a long track record and thus this incivility is one more, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back, but I'm not exactly sure what "this incivility" in my sentence is supposed to point at. It can't be his initial remark, and while I may have missed something, the rest of the exchange a. wasn't so bad, relatively speaking of course (YMMV) and b. is at least in part explained, if not justified, by the context: quite naturally he took offense at your warning, and would have even if it were correct. In other words, it won't get you anywhere, and I don't want to see you becoming entrenched in something that will be more and more difficult to get away from.
Well, like you needed more advice. You know I think highly of you as an editor; as an admin this is really the first thing I've seen you do. Folks all over the place, some of whom I respect, are calling for your head. I don't and I won't--but I think it is important, especially with your new admin t-shirt and the responsibility that comes with it, to be more flexible, so to speak. Take it easy Kevin, Drmies ( talk) 02:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Northern Antarctica ( talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kevin, sometimes the best medicine is the passage of time. As I contributed to that initial thread, I hope nothing I said contributed to the escalation. You are a sincere person and clearly acted in good faith, though "mistakes were made". I wish you the very best, as always, and encourage you to take it easy, stay low key, think about things over time, and learn from the experience. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You are still using an incorrect user name to refer to Eric (see NE Ent's question above), and you have dismissively referred to him as a "vested contributor" as if all the objections to your actions are based solely on Eric's edit count. That is not correct—your assessment of the situation was in good faith, but it was wrong. Rather than "When I accused Malleus of grave-dancing" in (3) above, the comment should say "When I said that Eric was grave-dancing I was incorrect, and I apologize for that error". His comments were blunt—they were not "uncivil" and to believe otherwise would be a second error. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to take a stand against what vested contributors are doing to our community.
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For an uncommonly, and very justifiably, brave start to your career. Pak aran 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For calmly and coolly dealing with a deluge of abuse, personal attacks and harassment that resulted from a good-faith effort to enforce Wikipedia policies. You handled this ugly mess far better than most users would. Robofish ( talk) 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For recognising that actions on-wiki have implications off-wiki too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For believing in the importance of human dignity and being willing to defend that belief. Kaldari ( talk) 03:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For standing by your values in the face of calls to step down as a brand-new administrator. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 04:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
.... is great advice, given to me several years ago. Wikipedia is about contributing your own time, free of charge (for most of us), to better the collection of human knowledge that's freely available. Becoming an admin is a good thing mostly, it means once you've had enough experience, you can help reduce the ever-increasing tide of detritus (alternatively, it opens you up to a tirade of insults, false accusations etc). It also makes you feel that you are better enabled to wade into situations. Most often, that wading will end up with you up to (if not over) your neck. There's an inherent inertia (or forcefield, or something) in Wikipedia in certain corners, and there are dark and dusty and cobwebby cubbyholes where you are probably best advised to avoid, a bit like a "dark Wikipedia", where all the normal pillars are ignored.
I see you're through the maelstrom, and hopefully that means you can return to doing (a) what you found interesting and enjoyable about Wikipedia and (b) things to benefit the encyclopaedia. Getting involved in certain patches around here is inevitably going to end in disaster, and sadly you picked one of those. My advice is harmless, really, but I do get tired of some editors spewing bile, threatening retirement time after time after time after time after time......., diva-esque, while their defensive minions rush around screeching. To reiterate, do something you enjoy. Best wishes. Feel free to delete, of course. Just some ramblings. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have requested a case for arbitration which involves you. Giano 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Intended point taken Gerda, I hadn't noticed the cat before. I hadn't intended anything particularly malicious from commenting on his misspelling of his name, I just legitimately found it a bit amusing, especially given that I tend to refer to Eric by his former username out of completely innocuous reasons (mainly, if I refer to someone just as "Eric" in a conversation with people who are active on Wikimedia projects outside of ENWP, people tend to think of a number of people before they think of Eric Corbett. (AFAIK, Eric's never asked anyone not to refer to him as Malleus; I'd certainly avoid doing so if he'd asked me to do so, or if I had ever noticed him asking anyone else not to do so.) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Why not just go and apologize to Eric/Malleus? That wouldn't hurt anyone.-- MONGO 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As a note, I'm not ignoring John's comment, have replied on his talk page, and will likely reply further.
As a note, I've not ignored Dennis's comments. I'm currently talking with him about this situation elsewhere.
( talk page stalker)Kevin. You are missing a significant point. Regardless of Eric's comments (which I happen to agree with but that is by the by) the original post was the thread that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP protection in articles and discussions where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page offended in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. Blaming Eric for BDP while ignoring the same clear offence in the OP is ignorance of the meaning of the very policy you quoted. All Eric did was criticise it in open and honest terms. You jumped on Eric's repudiation of the thread and failed to see the violation in the thread. A double error of judgement. Leaky Caldron 17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. An Arbitration Case Request that you were listed as being an involved party to titled Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: BLP special enforcement ( permalink). For what it's worth, while I think your actions were monumentally stupid, I disagree with many people that you acted with malicious intent; I'm more interested in getting ArbCom to clarify the bounds of BLP special enforcement than I am in getting you sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Kevin. I think the problem here is that, while you've admitted you've made mistakes, you haven't been explicit about what those mistakes were. Saying "I made mistakes" is good, but the point is that it's more than just that you handled it sub-optimally. It's that what you did (invoking BLP/BDP and AE for a non-BLP/BDP comment) was intrinsically wrong. I don't think you've actually acknowledged that aspect of it onwiki, and that's why this keeps going on. (Well, there are other reasons that people keep trying to restart it, of course, but this is why it keeps getting traction, at least.) The way you've apologized has been vague about what you've actually learned; it could've been "I'll be more careful about invoking BLP and AE", but it also could've been just "I'll remember about page protection next time" or "I'll email Arbcom/emergency first" or any number of other things; some of these lessons are good ones, but most miss the point that you can't use BLP/BDP and AE that way. I don't think many of us are asking for self-flagellation here; it's just that people need to be sure that this kind of misapplication of BLP/BDP and AE won't happen again, and your statements have been equivocal (at best) about that so far. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope you'll understand why I didn't respond immediately, and be more patient next time. I answered you several times yesterday, and do not think "WP:ARBACCT" (a flawed concept, by the way, as arbitrators' terms are limited, whereas administrators sit indefinitely) requires me to answer a quick succession of questions. AGK [•] 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If I encounter a similar situation in the future that involves someone like Malleus - a vested contributor - where I am unable to resolve the situation without taking such an action, I'm sending it straight to arbcom and the office.could be taken as an indirect admission of this, but it's far from unambiguous, especially with qualifiers like "vested contributor"--invoking BLP and AE for a comment that didn't violate BLP is just as problematic against a newbie as a vested contributor. If that's not the diff you're talking about, I'll keep digging around, but my point is that perhaps you haven't said what you thought you said. And yeah, you're right that writing yet another statement or whatever is not going to stop anything; I'm not really asking you to do so. I'm just trying to explain why at least I wanted further clarification on this. Anyway, archive away or whatever; just wanted to explain myself. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 that you were a party to has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:
For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 01:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|
On a hike around here, it crossed my mind to invite you to a stroll of my 2013 talk, looking at the (not many) contributions by MF and Eric, including discussion of the name change. I will not judge, look yourself, - of course every guest is "tamed" by my edit notice (not by me) "Every editor is a human being", to something like "OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle." I miss him, not only as a content editor but as a person, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko, I did say I'd block you if you used the same IPs you used on my talk elsewhere.
|
---|
Sorry to change on you again and bring this here but it seems another admin removed talk page access. It really is a trivial thing to get another account and or IP. Anyway, in regards to the ban, that was a dozen users, most of whom wanted me gone long ago and it was closed far too soon. I received many emails fro users saying they never had a chance to vote (some were oppose and some were support). Several also told me that they feared reprisal if they voted so they stayed away. When you have users afraid to vote for fear of being blocked by Arbcom or some admins for supporting a user who is critical of them, that is a major problem IMO. You yourself have seen how petty and frankly stupid they can be. I also understand there is no bad blood between us and you are just, excuse the comment, blindly following policy and blocking a sockmaster. For what its worth, more than half of the socks (about 60 of the 100+) that are accused of being me are not. They are just evidence of how shitty the checkuser tool is. Anyway, feel free to block this IP or whatever, I can get another one. Its amazing but there are literally millions of IP's available for use. 172.56.3.236 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Well I don't think that is acceptable. He has exactly at the time of writing 101 socks and you want to give him succour by letting him come here? No way. Off to ANI if that's your way of undermining policy. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I appreciate the sentiment you and I both know the Standard offer is basically BS as can be seen even in as recently as right now with the Will Beback case. So wether I waited 6 months or 10 years, it wouldn't matter. When a ban is enacted it is forever and even those who abide by it are given no more comment than an F off from Arbcom. Also in regards to the suggestion I had about the watchlists, that is only one of many things. If I really wanted to do harm, I wouldn't be doing it from my home/work computer and I wouldn't use my phone. There are a lot of open IP's around and I travel a fair amount. So all I would need do is wait till my next trip to San Fran and do it from the Starbucks down the street from the WMF (Yes I have been to their office a couple times). I also wanted to point out that I have tried every method of bringing Arbcom and abusive admins to task over the years. I started extremely nicely, then I went to being kirt, then rude and now borderline abusive. Nothing works because those in power do not care. They want to stay in power and they will do anything and use any justification to do so.
@Kumioko - effective change is possible. In the time I've been around Wikimedia projects, we were able to enact significant changes to how images of living people are treated on the Wikimedia Commons. Someone still has to bring up each image, and there's still always debate about it, but it's gone from "we should totally keep these pictures of topless sunbathing women that were taken with a 50x optical zoom through a fence" to "we can't label this lady who is standing in a street known for prostitution as a prostitute without some form of evidence that she is." Effective change will eventually happen on ENWP. It'll be slow, and for the most part it won't involve intentional disruption, but it will happen. The SO sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. If you don't sock for the next six months, and return in a way that focuses primarily on building encyclopedic content - something you are quite good at, I will vigorously support your return, and would be surprised if it wasn't allowed. And then eventually, in the slow semi-bureaucratic way that Wikipedia tends to work, a lot of the problems you see with arbcom that also appear with other groups will begin to be addressed. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
|
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ihardlythinkso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Northern Antarctica ( talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I'd be interested to know whether you think I've been a good detective or am just paranoid here... Some obvious paid editors IMO and I keep on finding more, but as with Morning277 it's difficult to know how they're linked. What do you reckon should be done about this stale edit by a new editor removing a PROD from an article written by an elancer? SmartSE ( talk) 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes since you asked - I do know the policy against trolling (at least on Meta Wiki).
It is located here: [22]
"Trolls in the internet sense of the word are not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves, etc. There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for w:Wikipedia::Miscellany for deletion, nomination of stubs for w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment"
Uncle uncle uncle 02:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this isn't a blatant one sided attack on this article. Meaning, I should be able to put something there immediately after that saying that mens rights are also seen as a proper movement and something related to the womens rights movement. There is nothing in the first section of /info/en/?search=Women%27s_rights_movement that is an attack on it. Nothing. I see your revert as nothing more than an ideological edit, and feel that your opinion is clouding what the article should be, completely neutral. - StevieY19
Saturday, April 5 -
WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The
University of California, Berkeley's
Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
Surely it's poor practice to redirect to a different article? 'Domestic violence against men' is not the same as 'Violence against men' and until that article is written, the page itself should probably be deleted. -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Case Request titled Ihardlythinkso has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Some your userspace drafts, including
User:Kevin Gorman/ResortsandLodges.com,
User:Kevin Gorman/RxWiki and
User:Kevin Gorman/Search Engine People, have on them categories which should only be added to mainspace articles. These can be removed by adding a colon between the [[
and Category:Foo
. Because these pages are fully protected, I cannot do this myself and so ask you if you would remove them until the articles are moved to the mainspace. Thanks,
Rcsprinter123
(gas) @ 12:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Kevin, I've been following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center conversation, including your recent comments on @ IronGargoyle:'s talk page. I think you need to take a step back and think about your actions here.
From what I can see, things first went wrong when you stated on the oringal AfD that you knew of reliable sources, but didn't disclose them. If your goal was to improve the encyclopedia, a better thing to do would have been to tell people what these sources were that you had discovered. Even if you didn't have the time to insert them into the article and format them properly, just pasting the raw references into the AfD, or the article's talk page, would have been progress. Instead, you hinted at their existence, and when two other editors said they could not locate these, you failed to supply the needed details. If I was closing the AfD, I would have seen exactly what @ Salvio giuliano: saw when he did the close; three people making policy-based arguments for deletion, and one person arguing to keep, but failing to provide any real information. Closing it as delete was a no-brainer.
Then, you dragged it to delrev. You don't seem to understand the purpose of delrev. It is not to give people a second chance to argue the AfD. It is to review if the admin who closed the AfD did so in accordance with policy. Seven people agreed that the close was correct. One person disagreed. 7:1 is about as strong a consensus as we ever get. It's over.
But, what I really don't understand is why you then felt the need to harangue the admin who closed the delrev, on his talk page. There, you state that you don't even really care about the article in question, you're just trying to effect some kind of policy change. That's called making a WP:POINT. It is disruptive, and counter-productive to what we're trying to do here, which is write an encyclopedia. If you believe there is some change needed int the Afd and/or delrev processes, the place to lobby for your desired changes is on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy, and/or Wikipedia talk:Deletion review.
-- RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am sorry you have to go through a trial like fire such as this. If you need any help just ask on my talk page cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Also your AfD nomination ended in deletion. --
Guerillero |
My Talk 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FREDDYP
Hey Kevin, I'm writing my own page and new to this I've read what i thought I was suppose to do. Rather than reverting my edits can you tell me what maybe I did wrong? Thanks Fred Price — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyp7 ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CSD#A7 does in fact cover individual animals. It probably wouldn't be appropriate in this case, since competing in the Grand National could be a credible claim of significance. PROD is perfectly acceptable. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha, thanks. I typed that looking at the shortened twinkle reminder of the guidelines and not the actual list itself. Kevin ( talk) 05:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello — I'm just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of
The DJ Girlzables, a page you tagged, because of the following concern: Not a member of the categories to which A7 applies. Let me know if you have any questions.
Feezo
(send a signal |
watch the sky) 07:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, excuse me, but why did my recent articile that I made get deleted? Did I do something wrong? If so, can you tell me what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlerock232 ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Littlerock - from what you had put in the article so far, it was very unclear what it was supposed to be about (or what a "Civil was encyclopedia" is.) RHaworth left a comment on your page that might be relevant. Kevin ( talk) 19:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm new to wikipedia so I don't really know all the rules, but I just got my Ecopunk page deleted due to "ambiguous copyright infringement", and I'd just like to say that I'm also the creator of the original page it was referred to, and I can't really do infringement on my own stuff, can I? :P Frankichiro ( talk) 00:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that bug in the survey. Very astute of you. Maximilianklein ( talk) 09:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Yo, Kgorman-ucb thanks for the edit of WHS. Now it looks more neutral which is a good thing, i think well leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.207.202 ( talk) 22:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I have searched the links and their website and found the claims are bogus and are using wikipedia citations for Search Engine Optimization and for marketing. I think it doesnt follow notability guidelines. Haribhagirath ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Media coverage says what the CEO says about the company and it does not independently cite the technology or features of the firm which makes it relevant to be cited in a knowledge database. Moreover their claims seem exaggerated as the website doesn't work as they claim and the organization doesnt seem to have the resources to maintain 500 million records or a suitable platform to extract information at such a magnitude Haribhagirath ( talk) 05:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Many firms misuse online press releases and citations to open a page in Wikipedia, since it brings credibility among clients and visibility in google. And seldom the claims have been backed in secondary sources. In most sources it have been quoted by someone from the firm, than the media mentioning it. 300 million records needs a huge infrastructure or a powerful search mechanism. So I felt suspicious and checked in detail, and they haven't provided basic details about CEO, firm address and even number of employees or the technology. Therefore the assumption of using WIkipedia as a marketing platform is strengthened. Haribhagirath ( talk) 04:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to use AFD, so can you resubmit. When the Angelo Sepe article was up for AFD, it was 6 years ago. There should be a new discussion. There is not enough references about Sepe to prove he is a notable. He was involved in a heist with a dozen of others guys. There is information about Sepe's involvement in the Lufthansa heist. -- Vic49 ( talk) 22:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin! Hey, I didn't start the article I just WP:MOVEd the page to its current name! You're right, it looks either a G11 or G12. I'll try to chop it into shape. -- Shirt58 ( talk) 07:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JO Josh Eastman Entertainment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JO Josh Eastman Entertainment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ScottSteiner ✍ 08:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I have responded to your message on the discussion page you started for the deletion of this article. Please respond there. thanks-- History Sleuth ( talk) 21:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
You tagged this article as an unsourced BLP, despite the fact that she died 59 years ago... However, it did still need references, so I added a fairly comprehensive findagrave page that I think the original author got the information from. Sellyme Talk 09:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 14:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I am swinging by to invite you to Editing Fridays. This time around the topic is whatever the students present would like to be improved. If you are free this friday and would like to attend please sign up. cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, just wanted to clarify what I meant by being there longer. I was saying that I could not have followed him there as I had thought I was editing the talk before he showed up on there tonight. I didn't mean it to sound like anything about seniority. Sorry if it came out that way. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 04:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi; Just letting you know that I have declined your PROD and redirected the school to its locality as per standard procedure for non notable schools that are not Grade 12 high schools. This is an uncontroversial operation that you can do yourself. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I've given your account reviewer and rollback rights. See WP:ROLL and WP:REVIEWER for info on how to use them. Prodego talk 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I saw the post about you on the Wikimedia Blog today. Congrats and good work! / ƒETCH COMMS / 04:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh, though it's a good thing to understand not to do it, it's not just an issue of technicality of how an edit's rolled back, but it's mainly that no edit summary/rationale is given to the revert, combined with the one-up, technology-wise—on top of it being yet another revert in an edit war. It's the difference between two people just clicking the rollback button back and forth—regardless of what technology they use—versus clicking "undo" (or reverting to a particular revision) and typing out a reason for why they're doing so/disagreeing with the edit(s) in question.
On a related note, the easiest way to "fix" an accidental rollback or botched edit summary is by simply using a dummy edit. That way, you can kinda-sorta give a retroactive edit summary for others in the page history as to what happened without having to actually perform the edit all over again.
Finally, always keep in mind that undoing an edit because it presumably violates the 3RR is in no way an exception to the 3RR—doing that sort of thing actually involves you in the edit war.
Cheers, -- slakr\ talk / 06:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my page is all for raising money for charity and is of great interest to lots of people in South East England, so I don't understand why it's marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneyfrench ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Barney - the main problem with its current iteration is that it is written in an overly promotional tone. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and cannot be written in excessively laudatory tones or serve as advertising - even for good causes. The article is also written in the first person, which is generally inappropriate here. You should also probably read WP:COI - if you are the same Barney who is listed elsewhere as organizing the festival, it is generally considered bad form for you to create/edit the article. If the event is notable, other people will eventually do so. (It could also use some more third party sources to establish it's wp:notability, but that's a secondary problem.) Kevin ( talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi again Kevin, if you have a moment to have another look over my page I would appreciate it. Barneyfrench ( talk) 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, if my edit has improved the suitability of my article, can you rescind the speedy deletion notice, or does it have to be done by someone else? Can I talk to an administrator? Will they just delete it without telling me? Sorry for so many questions, I'm new to this and am highly confused and frustrated. Barneyfrench ( talk) 13:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You recently patrolled a wikipage on "Martin Hosking" that was being vandalized by people adding links to products he sold on his website. The Australian legal industry newsblog FirmSpy has recently published a letter from his lawyers saying they will no longer act for his company because of his pro-Hitler stance
http://firmspy.com/tag/martin-hosking
This step by his lawyers to publicly say they will not act for him for this reason is notable and should be included in the wiki bio by an experienced editor. Could you please assist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.114.192 ( talk) 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The company's lawyers call it "pro-Hitler merchandise" in their letter There is nothing in the letter to suggest that the lawyers had previously advised that they would not act for the company. If they had done so, they would have said they previously terminated the relationship. So it's is a strange suggestion that the lawyers strong disapproval of the pro-Hitler merchandise and the termination of the relationship are unconnected. Firmspy is cited as a source in Australia by commercial news organizations which have higher standards than Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmalqpp ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you seriously disagree with the former lawyers that this is "pro-Hitler" or neo-Nazi merchandise http://www.redbubble.com/people/hipsterhitler/t-shirts/6686222-back-to-the-f-hrer ? Why do you consider that you are more of an authority on this issue than the former lawyers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmalqpp ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what makes this organization less notable than any other photo club you have listed. Your explanation of deletion is not satisfactory. Freestoneriver ( talk) 02:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Freestoneriver
[1]. Drmies ( talk) 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey I saw your PM. I was asleep and accidentally left my client to idle. What did you want to ask about? cheers -- Guerillero | My Talk 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Article on the VW test track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.217.45 ( talk) 02:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Gorman How do I proceed then with FOSS Analytical, I have read the policies and your recommendations, but I am not much wiser. I thought it would be valuable to have info on various technology companies in here, but I guess not? We corporate with many universities and Gorvernments and maybe it would be good for, for example students who are doing projects around analysis in any form, to be able to find us and se that we are actually using front edge technologies.
Examples of cooperation with universities •Faculty of Engineering, Lund University •Stockholm University •Technical University of Denmark (DTU) •Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen •IT university of Copenhagen •Copenhagen Business School (CBS)
I might very well have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia stands for, but I just need to be sure, so if you could just comment very briefly I would be gratefull. BR Stine —Preceding unsigned comment added by StineDibbern ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, really. Wikipedia needs to get a perspective on what they are and aren't going to be sued for. In particular, attempts to avoid libel should be targeted at things that are potentially defamatory rather than just potentially untrue. Distinguish WP:BLP from WP:RS.
Not that WP:RS is much good either; especially when the sources quoted are relying on each other (or Wikipedia) for support.
Meanwhile, WP:NOR also has deep flaws (there is stuff that is blatant OR that isn't picked up upon; other stuff that is basically harmless facts - useful, relevant and (maybe with a bit of work) verifiable are removed claiming "defamation").
Yet, it seems there's little recognition of any of this. Principles must be ideologically followed. I'm not advocating breaking or changing "community concensus", just pointing out what to me seems pretty obvious.
Anyway, my point was that the line of succession should point out that some people enjoy compiling these lists. They're probably a bit strange, but i can't see how they're really any different from Wikipedia hacks. Flying Fische ( talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kgorman-ucb. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! -- Σ ☭★ 05:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm Derrick, a fellow Berkeley student and Wikipedian and along with Matt Senate one of the Regional Ambassadors for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program for Northern California. I attended one of the Politics of Piracy editing parties this Spring and I believe I met you there briefly. Since you're going to be facilitating Politics of Piracy this fall, I wanted to get your feedback on how useful you felt Wikipedia was in the course, feedback on the course and syllabus, and whether you're thinking about using it again. If you are thinking about using it again, we'd like to get started on setting you up with volunteers such as Campus Ambassadors to support your class, and meet to talk about your plans for the class at some point. Feel free to respond here or e-mail me directly at dcoetzee@eecs.berkeley.edu. Thanks! Dcoetzee 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
NovelSat is important becaue, as far as I am aware ( and I should be aware , because I ahve been a satelltite communications professional for many years) it is the ONLY company in the world that offers significant capacity imrovement in satellite communications links. I would be happy to explain this further if you ar familiar with this topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neudorf ( talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are dozens of sources to choose from , here is one from satcoms UK . BTW, I am editing articles on different articles on satellite communications, and I intend to add names of major players in that market includimg Novelsat's competitors. Kevin, I did not suspect that what you did was personal - after all , we don't know each other... I do suspect, however, that you are not an expert on SATCOM :). BTW, while I have not written much in the English wikipedia, I did contribute a lot to the Hebew one, and I deleted many superflous articles, but alwatys after consulting experts in that field... thanks anyway for this fruitful discussion -- Neudorf ( talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, consider turning your email option on. Drmies ( talk) 21:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Kgorman-ucb, for your comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayen466_wikihounding_User:Cirt. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 01:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
... this? I'm not sure whether "tenacious" or "stupid" is the best adjective. Maybe both. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it pretty stunning that the guy is still trying. I think I have all relevant articles watchlisted at this point. Kevin ( talk) 02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
http://blog.wikimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/KevinGormanAtWMF.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Is linking my picture here intended as some sort of really weird threat? I assume this is in relation to your edits at Jona Lendering that I recently reverted. You are right that public figures are subject to critiques, but the only sort of critiques that are appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles are those that are discussed in reliable sources, and none of the points you added were cited to RS's. If you find criticism of Jona Lendering in RS's, I won't remove it. Kevin ( talk) 05:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Who asked you to revert those citations, Kevin? Have you seen this? http://w ww.cais-soas.com/News/2009/January2009/05-01.htm And this? http://w ww.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/the_article_of_cyrus_cylinder_in_wikipedia_is_being_vandalized5.pdf And we are to suppose that a professor awarded the WALM best history book is not, "a reliable source"? And may I ask your qualifications for denigrating their credentials? http://w ww.kavehfarrokh.com/about/background/ And these gentlemen are also unqualified, right? http://w ww.cais-soas.com/CAIS/about_cais.htm From what I understood of your comment, you implied that you are reverting the article back yourself; looking forward to it because people like Lendering (or David Duke) and their supporters are properly critiqued. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 06:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:SPS. Whether or not they have credentials that might be impressive in other situations does not matter - the sources you provided simply do not meet Wikipedia's long-established policies on what we consider reliable sources, so they cannot be used as the basis for criticism of a living person here. Kevin ( talk) 06:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you itemize why the sources are improper - please be as specific as possible because it appears that several articles are being prepared on the individuals that mask the numerous critiques made by the academic and public interest community against Lendering. A lot of people have complained, they certainly will want to know your viewpoint: Let me help you - Please finish these sentences while giving specifics ... [1] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by Rozaneh Magazine because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [2] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by Dr. Farrokh the recipient of the WALM best history book award because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [3] Lendering a self-designated historian who publishes his work on the internet cannot be subject to criticism by the academic staff at CAIS ... [fill in the blank Kevin] [4] The online content that that Lendering produces and uses as citations on Wikipedia are acceptable despite the fact that Lendering is a self-proclaimed historian without a Ph.D, but several of his award-winning critics may not be cited to on Wikipedia because ... [fill in the blank Kevin] * * * Please try not to be vague - because people will see right through equivocation. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 06:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I refer you again to WP:RS and WP:SPS. The credentials of the people criticizing Lendering do not matter in this discussion. Because the sources you cited are not sources that meet the criteria laid out at WP:RS, they categorically cannot be used to support material that is critical of a living person. Self-published sources can be used to support material that is of a non-critical nature, but absolutely cannot be used here to support material that is critical of a living person. Kevin ( talk) 07:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Kevin Gorman, again you failed to provide SPECIFIC reasons - describe specifically what you find faulty with the sources. I am trying to help you out here as it appears that several thousand people are interested in the subject matter and I have already received 9 messages about individuals wishing to use this talk page as the basis for articles. Here is your chance to show good faith and to provide the PRECISE faults you found with EACH of the citations and to defend the "Lendering/Gorman" position. The fewer riddles, equivocations and conclusionary language you use, the more good faith may be seen in your reversion of edits about a notorious character who uses his pseudo-scholarship to defame people; otherwise people may naturally draw a different conclusion. If you want, we can exchange contact information and conduct a conference over these issues. Please let me know. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 07:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I have literally never heard of this guy before an hour ago. I am not allying myself with him or defending him in any way, I am just following site-wide policies. I think that reading
WP:SPS and
WP:RS would provide a good overview of the issue here, but I will provide a point by point explanation for you.
I'm not saying that the criticisms of Lendering are incorrect or unfounded - I'm only saying that they are not published in sources that can be included in Wikipedia. Kevin ( talk) 07:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
@DougWeller: Your remark is off-point to what I was speaking to Kgorman about - my understanding is that there is an action pending against Lendering and several of his online associates; maybe you should wait to see the results and post that information as it arises. If you want to move your complaints about Farrokh to my talk page, please do so. Of course I will be happy to forward your representations to KFarrokh and ask him to defend himself. Of course, most reasonable people know that working in one field does not preclude working in others; If that's what KFarrokh did, it would not surprise me; nor would it surprise me that he teaches in other fields. But your citations are speculative at best, frivolous and libelous at worst. Why don't you write to him and ask him? Meanwhile, I'm focussed on the article concerning Lendering. 67.169.112.181 ( talk) 08:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
According to your statement you have "never heard" of Lendering up until an hour ago - don't you think then its better to leave the content of article up to individuals who have more than one hour's experience with the subject of an Encyclopedia entry? It's a serious question.
No, I don't think it's appropriate to leave the article to those with more subject matter expertise. I am confident in my evaluation of your sources, and because negative information about living people can result in legal liability for wikipedia, we're required to be exceptionally cautious in articles about living people, removing questionable information as soon as it is noticed. The Farrokh article is clearly inappropriate, the petition is clearly inappropriate, and the Rozaneh article is almost certainly inappropriate.
You are right that I do not speak Persian, but there are still generally ways to identify what is and is not a reliable source. Rozaneh's website does not appear to have any description of their editorial policy and is obviously a non-professional website, which is a pretty solid indication that they won't meet our standard. Additionally, web analytics tools say that Rozaneh's website gets a very small amount of traffic, making it even less likely. There are also no hits in the google news archives for Rozaneh Magazine, and no independent google scholar hits - 99.9% of reliable publications, no matter what language they are written in, will be referenced in one of those databases. Because you are using the reference to make a negative claim about a living person, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it is a reliable source, not on me to demonstrate that it is not one. If you have evidence that shows that Rozaneh has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and a solid editorial policy, post it and it can be reincluded. If it's in Persian, there are plenty of people who hang around here who speak persian.
If you look at our article on Jimmy Wales, you'll notice that our article about him does not include a single citation of Wikipedia. Our sourcing standards apply equally to all articles, including those that deal with online figures. If you look at the article on David Duke, although it does talk about criticisms that have been laid against him, absolutely none of the criticisms cited are from self-published sources.
You may be correct that citations of Lendering's website on other articles should be cleaned up, but the fact that they haven't been cleaned up doesn't mean that it would be appropriate to leave criticism of Lendering from self-published sources on his article. Two wrongs don't make a right. (BTW: citation of Lendering's website on his own article is probably appropriate. Our long-established policies consider it O.K. to cite a self-published source to establish facts about itself, but self-published sources are never okay to cite for negative information or contentious information.) Kevin ( talk) 09:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to sleep shortly, so I will be unlikely to reply any further tonight. Kevin ( talk) 09:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You were right the first time, clear vandalism, not just because of the edit summary but because there was an earlier consensus that it was a BLP violation. Edit-warring from multiple IPs, probably a banned/blocked user. Dougweller ( talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, thanks for the feedback on Sublime Magazine! If I go through it again to take out any non-neutral wording of the magazine would it be possible for you to remove the tag you put in it? Steve Curtis ( talk) 09:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thank you for your calm, succinct comments in the disussions about Aelita Andre. I was glad to see that Cramyourspam claimed to be dropping the issue on the article's talk page, but I'm afraid that intentions are otherwise. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this. The debate keeps going in circles because Cramyourspam continues to put forth variants of the same argument that are all irrelevant under WP:NOTABILITY, as you know and have stated before. I've been keeping up regularly with news relevant to the article and, although I don't believe the article had any neutrality problem in the first place, I did manage to track down a single reliable source with criticism, which I inserted and sourced in the article. I can and will ignore Cramyourspam's incessant insistence on my alleged affiliations to whoever and whatever he claims, but I'm still not comfortable with the situation because Cramyourspam isn't showing any intention of leaving the article alone. Although for the time being he isn't editing himself, he's now recruiting other editors to support him. I don't want any more unsourced (or blog-sourced) information in this BLP, and I don't mind talking out the issue with the user involved. But now the user has gone a step further and is trying to involve other editors in his quest to negate the subject's notability and the article's credibility. I find that frustrating. I know that those familiar with WP notability guidelines won't sanction what he says, but I'm tired of it. This has dragged on intermittently for weeks. Can anything be done to put this to rest now, or will we have to patiently wait until it dies down? I don't mind waiting, but after all this time, more of that seems unnecessary to me. What has experience taught you in similar situations?
Armadillopteryx talk 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arma - I'm afraid the brevity was iphone-induced, rather than voluntary. I'll post a longer response when I get home later today, but in the meantime, I would encourage you not to stress over it. No matter how much he posts, his posts alone can't do anything - to delete it he would have to run it through a full AfD where his opinion would only be one of many (and opinions that ignore policy are generally ignored.) Anyway, iphone induced brevity is fun - I'll be back around later. Kevin ( talk) 13:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Arma - I'm at a real computer now, yay. First, for something unrelated to the rest of the issues here - I don't believe we can use this image in the article. As far as I'm aware photographs like that are considered reproductions of the original artwork, so as long as the artwork is still under copyright we would need the permission of the rights holder (Andre or her parents) before we would be able to use the photograph. It's outside of my normal area of focus so I could be wrong and thus haven't taken it down or anything. Unless you know positively that my understanding is incorrect, we should probably ask at this noticeboard for clarification from someone with more experience in the realm of images.
I can understand why CYS's actions are irritating, but most of it is not going to be stuff you can outright stop. However, most of it, you can safely ignore. You have no obligation to interact with him on the talk page, and unless he starts making significant changes to the actual article that need to be discussed or nominates it for deletion, it is unlikely to be productive for you to interact with him directly more. He has the ability to nominate the article for deletion (AfD) and if he does so you might want to comment on the AfD - but even then you don't really have to. Arguments made at AfD that ignore policy are ignored, and so far he hasn't made any policy-based arguments as to why the article should be deleted. Unless he comes up with some much better arguments, he would have no real chance at getting the article deleted at AfD.
The addition of unsourced material (or material that isn't sourced to BLP standards) is a concern for any BLP, but it hasn't happened much yet. I have the article watchlisted as I'm sure you do, and it's not a big deal to remove poorly sourced stuff as it crops up - it only takes a couple of buttons. If unsourced stuff starts popping up a bunch, there's other stuff we can do to stop it, but until it does a bunch we don't need to worry about it too much.
All of his COI accusations are certainly at least verging on violating a couple of policies, but unless they become substantially more offensive or persistent ignoring them is probably the best course of action. He's definitely not doing a very good job at assuming good faith and he also doesn't seem to be paying too much attention to the civility guideline, but since none of his edits are outrageously over the line trying to get the policies enforced strictly would create a lot more drama than it would stop.
It is worth mentioning that it is possible that, somehow, the article would fail at AfD. I don't think it would, and I'm generally right about such guesses, but stranger things have happened. Even if that somehow happens, I would encourage you to stick around - usually, we're pretty decent at making sense and although sometimes annoying things happen, I think the good of the project far outweighs the bad overall. BTW: I'm usually good at checking my talk page regularly, but if something comes up and I seem to have missed it, feel free to drop me an email. You can do so via a link on the lefthand toolbar from my userpage if you have an email address associated with your account. Kevin ( talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello to you too. I'll leave my own contact info below; I'm staying in Boston until 15th, after that 'normal service' will be resumed (ie, I'm very often available on IRC). Cheers, Chzz ► 18:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if your referring to last weeks nominations or something more recent. If it is something recent I don't know what you are talking about because I haven't communicated with Libstar for the past week and don't intend to as it is totally pointless. The only thing that gets me is that you guys are fine with him nominating pages without consulting the authors while any upset this has caused is ignored. Have you talked to Libstar and said perhaps you better cool it on the nominating? Cheers. jsmith006 ( talk) 08:40, 10 July 2011
Ah, that makes sense. I forgot I spammed up meta recent changes that badly. Kevin ( talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kgorman-ucb, I noticed that you have revert the link ( http://www.evisaasia.com/visa-requirement/tourist-visa-requirements-for-china-citizens/) that was being added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens.
I found that the page consist of useful information that may benefit the readers. May I know why it is being identified as spam? I would be glad if you could review the website to see whether the content is suitable for wiki readers or not.
Thanks.
TW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi TW - our external link guidelines are outlined here, with this section being especially relevant. Kevin ( talk) 04:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for the info. I will be glad if you could point me to the exact
number of that section where the link has violated the guideline.
Thanks. TW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 04:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, The page has visa requirement information which is arranged by time required on trip planning, ie no advance planning, 3-days planning and 2 weeks planning. It presents an unique way for travelers to make decision on which countries they wish to travel to. The page is a compilation of research and many years of experience in dealing with tourist visa in Asia. I would be appreciate if you can browse through the website again to read the content in details. Thx. TW 175.138.135.148 ( talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kevin - I see you deleted an external link to 'finewinepress' from the Ramandolo article. I saw this link added yesterday and also comtemplated deleting it. Concerned that it might be a promotional thing I looked for all the links to 'finewinepress'. I found five, all to wine and food articles and reviewed each one. In each case I think the links add value and suggest that the link for the Ramalodo article is restored. Regards. Orenburg1 ( talk) 22:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Does a kitten need a reason?
Drmies (
talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
KIIIIIIITTEEEEEEENS!!!!! Thank you.
Kevin (
talk) 02:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A glass of wine for you! | |
Great talking to you on IRC and I hope to meet you next week. :) Viva la revolution! SarahStierch ( talk) 01:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you! | |
Thanks for all of your help, Kevin! You Rock! :) Mokapantages ( talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC) |
What do you think? Drmies ( talk) 20:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Kevin, It's Harrison. I just emailed Matt a few hours ago just to make sure if he is okay with me being an ambassador for the politics of piracy class this semester of if he needs me somewhere else. I'll let you know when I find out. Talk to you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemmmma ( talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
On 2 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Psilocybe cyanescens, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that approximately 100,000 psychedelic Psilocybe cyanescens mushrooms were once found growing on a racetrack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psilocybe cyanescens.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice Trout. (",) Just a comment. 99.181.156.11 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
For joining WP:XX...and because you were whining about being out of cold beer =) SarahStierch ( talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC) |
MEOW
SarahStierch (
talk) 20:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
B-3 | |
BATTLESHIP SarahStierch ( talk) 01:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
thanks for coming to the workshop today! Anonymousnobodyperson ( talk) 19:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
And remove that content, thanks for posting the policy regarding it, I was searching for it. And thanks for being bold. Regardless of where both parties stand, attacks on either side aren't welcome here and talk pages aren't meant to be places for people to use as a soapbox. Thanks again. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment on Kaldari's talk page mentioning the need for oversight on the men's rights article. Fluffernutter also took a look and decided against semi-protecting it at this time due to "see how things work out" (from IRC). I'm really sorry that the Jay user called you a bigot - and the community - at that. SarahStierch ( talk) 21:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it beer time yet in Berkeley? SarahStierch ( talk) 17:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC) |
I'm sorry to do this on a publicly visible page, but I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to correct your disrespectful behaviour towards myself and other editors on the Men's Rights page. Citing policies everyone is already well aware of, threatening bans and actually going through with them is not exactly exhibiting the assumption of good faith that you demand from others. As I have made it clear, I believe the majority of users are acting in good faith in their attempts to bring Men's Rights up to a decent standard. In fact, I am endeavouring to make it the sort of article that is featured on the front page.
Wikipedia is supposed to be an open community, it is not acceptable for administrators to be threatening users who make edits they do not agree with with suspensions. Please do not make such threats again without good cause.
I hope we can turn our attention to more productive subjects in the future. Hermiod ( talk) 08:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you. -- Hermiod ( talk) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware of any threats against you or the way you have been treated on the greater Internet. Whatever dispute you and I may have, I do not condone such behaviour and if it means anything you have my sympathy. Hermiod ( talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Though, i'm sad to say, not in a good way. :(
See " Men’s Rights Fight Breaks Out On Wikipedia". Silver seren C 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Well... although it's not the way I'd prefer to be internet famous, it's a substantially better way to be internet famous than that which has occupied most of the last couple days. I'd prefer to be on jezebel for 'Wikipedia editors miraculously reach agreement and produce encyclopedic high quality page on men's rights' - but given the choice between being on jezebel for this and being everywhere else I've been lately, I'd definitely take jezebel, heh. Kevin ( talk) 04:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
But apparently Cybermud managed to not notice the editnotice. We can still hope it will cut down on such instances, though. Hopefully others will notice and read it. :-/ KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Jayhammers. Kaldari ( talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I miss you! :( My IRC is not nearly as fun without you around. SarahStierch ( talk) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC) |
On 17 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawson Adit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lawson Adit, a tunnel on UC Berkeley's campus, was intentionally dug through the Hayward Fault? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lawson Adit.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 00:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Mind the Gap Award | ||
Thank you for taking on the task of moderator on Gender Gap-l! It is so appreciated; as is your offline work. I can't wait to see what happens next! :) SarahStierch ( talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Kgorman-ucb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of User:R T Kiran, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Its a user page so i believe that does not apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Kangaroo powah 06:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it looks like they're all done (ages ago). If you're still up for it, could you please fly through the articles and fill in the ticks? Many thanks. (If you can't for some reason, please let me know, and I will look after it.) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have created a new article about an event. Just wanted your feedback on it. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week. Varunr ( talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad to be of help, please let me know if I can be more helpful. HectorMoffet ( talk) 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note - I'll leave the article alone for now, and look forward to seeing your additions. AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 09:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, no offence was intended regarding the lookup. You had commented in the WP:AN thread regarding discretionary sanctions for Indian subcontinent caste-related issues and I was merely trying to figure out who the heck you were. I've only been truly active for the last 12 months and could not recall seeing your name bandied about ... but it was obvious that you understood what has been going on. It is a very handy tool and something needs to be sorted out but it really is beyond my capabilities. - Sitush ( talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I threw out about 50 messages about interviews for an MSU class at the request of a fellow ambassador. It didn't actually occur to me that research committee approval or bot approval might be needed before AWB'ing out invitations for something like that until I was about fifty messages in. I'm poking in to it currently, but if you received a message about it, please don't take offense :) Kevin ( talk) 03:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
File:Valentine's Ducks.jpg | Rubber duckies for you |
Happy Valentine's Day Kevin! May this year bring you lots of #WikiLove, as you deserve it! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for acting as a responsible contributing editor on Richard Santulli and being objective. Monstermike99 ( talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Et de deux ...!
a round of applause... | |
...for your rapid, no-nonsense, wiki-justified editing of Richard Santulli. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
Well, thanks guys. Kevin ( talk) 02:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Kgorman-ucb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nicholas forrest, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Since the TFD has largely turned into a platform for people to attack each other without actually addressing anything, I'll reply to you here. If you look further up in the TFD, you'll see where I linked to some of the discussions regarding {{ Deleted template}}, so its use is not exactly without some sort of prior discussion or practice. It is currently in use for {{ Expand}}, and using it with such a previously widely used template helped work out a number of logic bugs in {{ Deleted template}}'s code. The template works well for message box templates such as these, but at present it would likely be ill-suited for lower level templates. I suppose for templates that a typical editor would normally add by hand, such as message boxes, navigation boxes, etc, {{ Deleted template}} could work well, but I don't know that it would be of much use without some significant additional code for say a depreciated formatting template or citation template. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this. Thick skins! I saw it and decided to ignore, mainly because if it is one person who does the necessary every time then the idea of a cabal just becomes stronger. I've had death threats, so this is (relatively) minor. Nonetheless, I am grateful to you for stepping in. Someone has to. - Sitush ( talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have made subsequent comments at the AN discussion about a topic ban.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 18:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | ||
Nothing like fixing my day-olde typos! Cheers, oh great Userpage stalker, Cheers! Achowat ( talk) 22:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for you kind comments. I'm going to go on wikibreak now to see how things play out and whether my already-invested time gets used or wasted. I know I could spent a lifetime adding cites to the Kernighan article, but I have no faith that time would sway minds.
I started a number of articles for you guys, and nearly half of them got CSDed within instants. "All the world's knowledge" includes people currently in power in major US cities-- if wikipedia can't include that information (with enought RS sources), I'm wasting my time here and should just give up and join facebook.
I have more sympathy for the Category deletion. It's a group of people who, if you look at them, they all have something in common. Will the Wikipedia experts find a good name to describe this group, or will they delete the hours I spent tracking those individuals down. The title needs to change, that's always been obvious to me.
What I didn't anticipate was just how easy it is to copy "delete per nom" compared to actually helping solve the problem. Solutions are hard and they take time. Deletion is easy, and sweeps the problem under the rug.
Anyway, I whine too much. There' a timeline in my userspace of the oakland city council. Obviously, I'm not inclined to debug timeline code until I have a better sense of whether my work will be used in Wikipedia or not.
If I wind up vanishing, you might try to rescue it and putting it in the appropriate articles, if any. If it's not appropriate for any articles, you many delete it on your own authority-- I trust ya.
thanks again for your kind words. I realize I'm being a bit of a diva here, but it never cross my minds that Wikipedia can't cover legislators and imprisoned journalists. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, I was making a minor modification to my post for clarity but got an EC. As I didn't feel my modifications changed the meaning, I went ahead and submitted them anyway even though you had already replied [5]. Cheers Nil Einne ( talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to invite your students and whatnots :) WP:Teahouse SarahStierch ( talk) 00:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. Please read my reply to Phlippe. Thank you. -- Meno25 ( talk) 07:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello - I have reverted your edit of the Grant Cardone article. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Cardone's to email Scientologists is copyright. Has he made such a claim that you are aware of? I know the email was published in the Village Voice and there has been no such claim made against that publication. I would value your comment on this. Many thanks. Henry Sewell ( talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Bisexual erasure is a new topic, poorly sourced in the real world, with little or no academic papers on the subject. According to WP under Wikipedia:Verifiability in the section entitled:
What counts as a reliable source The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.
The key words here are "the work itself," which in this case is the website itself, which is cited.
In addition "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." From the 5th pillar of Wikipedia "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." at Wikipedia:Five pillars
This is the basis of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin9832 ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Kgorman-ucb! I left a note for you on the "Maggie's Farm" talk page with a request for feedback. Thanks. Allreet ( talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon for Women's History Month :)
Date: Saturday, March 17, 2012 from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM (PT)
Location: Wikimedia Foundation Offices 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th floor San Francisco, CA 94105
Bring: Your laptop and charger (we'll have some extra computers available), your questions, and your friends!
What to expect: A fun, laid-back environment with food, drink, a great mix of people, and a wealth of knowledge and resources.
Public transport: BART to Montgomery station and walk 1 block down New Montgomery St.
Reminder: The St. Patricks Day parade will be starting at 11:30 on Market Street. Market street will most likely be closed to cars so please plan your journey accordingly ;-)
When you arrive: A volunteer will be at the front of the building to greet everyone arriving 12:40 - 1:20. You will take the elevator up to the 6th floor.
If you are early: If you expect to come earlier than 12:40 to help set-up, please let us know, so we can give you a contact number.
If you arrive later: No problem. There will be a phone number posted to the front door of the office building. A volunteer will run down and let you in.
We can't wait to see you on Saturday! Maryana (WMF) ( talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On 16 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, a court in Oregon, United States, held that a blogger was not a member of the media? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Just wanted to drop by and say hi! It was great meeting you at the San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon. Thanks for all of your great input on incorporating Wikipedia into undergrad coursework! Cupcakemuffin ( talk) 02:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed
this message of yours just now. You didn't include a timestamp when posting these messages, so the archive
bots can't know how old the message is (and thus simply don't ever move the message into an archive subpage). Please remember to always sign your posts with ~~~~
(or you can include just a timestamp by using ~~~~~
).
It also wouldn't be the worst idea in the world for you to go back through your old messages and correct them, if you have time. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.
I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah ( talk) 21:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kevin Gorman. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Greetings,
I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.
The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
I'm not sure what's going on ... for some reason you have a bot running now that is posting a message that I do not want posted on talk pages. Please stop!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaobar ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, hope everything is going well :-) Just wanted to let you know that I mentioned your name here. Best -- Frank Schulenburg (Wikimedia Foundation) ( talk) 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for this mistake; and now I don't know whose page I was on when I typed that. Get well soon! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
at Men's Rights. I found the statement "the inability of feminist to acknowledge that men have problems worthy of being rectified." to be particularly noteworthy because I can think of no feminist, and I've known quite a few, who would not acknowledge that men have problems worthy of being rectified. In fact, a lot of them. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I just looked at the history and I edited that last October. Since then there have been maybe 500 edits and a lot of BS. I bailed out and must commend you for hanging in there. A nasty job that someone needs to do, but, it turns out, not me. Carptrash ( talk) 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarah ( talk) 16:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What, were you hoping to date her? Drmies ( talk) 17:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Kevin!
It's evening here in Romania and I'm back on WP. Thanks for your offer to help. Here's the story in a nutshell: I went to school with a famous sportsperson and multiple Olympic champion and she's still a rather close friend. Needless to say none of the existing WP articles about her were written by me because, despite the notability being out of question, I felt I couldn't be objective. But those articles exist. Yesterday she brought to my attention that a book was published in the States,(apparently in 2010) containing her biography and with the statement on the cover that it was "based on high quality Wikipedia articles". She says that, according to what she was told, it sells on Amazon for 50 USD/48 EUR and that she would send me a link from the Barnes&Noble website. There are several issues here: first, both she and I don't think it's ethical to publish any kind of biography of a living person without notifying the person (and at least her business address is widely known). Secondly, and which has to do directly with Wikipedia, both she and I don't believe that one can, just like that, copy &paste content that is made available for free and make profit out of it (how much of this book did the authors actually work for? we don't know, because we don't have it yet; but they take pride in "basing" it on wp which is not a good sign).
OK, I tried to read my way through the terms of use pages, read about the new terms of use, too (although probably they shouldn't apply retroactively) but I couldn't get a clear picture of what applies here and what can be done. I'll come back with the link when I get it. Thanks again Cristixav ( talk) 18:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) One would want to read [6]. Trust me. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, thanks for your help with the Anne Bremer page. I didn't get any notice that you'd replied at the Teahouse, but maybe that's because I eliminated that heading on my talk page. It's all so confusing! Ann HarZim ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The FOR SCIENCE! Barnstar | ||
Hey, Kevin! Thanks for your awesome hand-coding work for WP:AFT5 :). Have a barnstar! Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 12:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
... please tell me which campus ambassador was involved with approving these articles for DYK and Good Article. I do not in anyway blame the students here and I will apologise profusely to them for my incivil behavior, explain my frustration was borne not out of their individual actions but because their instructor and campus ambassador did not meet WP:COMPETENCE, that the programme they were involved in was not designed to maximise to set them up for success and actually set them up to fail. I will offer to help them improve their articles after their course is done because really? It isn't their fault. In the mean time, please help clean up the rest of the problems that you're culpable in supporting and busily not fixing. This is an example of WP:COMPETENCE on your part and a violation of WP:CIVIL because of your obligation to help and your helping to maximise student failure. -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!! It's totally okay to undo what I did completely if that's easier! heather walls ( talk) 06:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For your fine work on the Education noticeboard, and for helping to ensure that we all remember what it was like to be a new contributor. -Philippe ( talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC) |
On 9 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Occupy the Farm, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that protesters have occupied and started to farm a tract of land owned by the University of California, Berkeley? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Occupy the Farm.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin, I'm not sure whether you remember me, but a year ago, you helped resolve a small disagreement related to User:Cramyourspam inserting POV material in the Aelita Andre article. Would you be willing to weigh in on a resurgence of this issue? It appeared to be resolved last June, but this week, Cramyourspam has returned to the article insistent upon listing Vanity gallery as a related topic. He (or she) is also adding Aelita Andre as a related topic to the Vanity gallery article. I have already reverted these edits twice, and given the user's editing patterns, I don't assume the re-addition of this material will stop anytime soon. I think these edits place undue weight on something that is appropriately mentioned in the relevant section of the article. If you have time, would you mind helping out on that page as you did last year? I really appreciate what you did already and would be grateful if you're willing to do it again. Thanks, Armadillopteryx talk 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vanity_gallery#Aelita_Andre cheers. Cramyourspam ( talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Please stick around on the Putin page and give your opinion whenever you feel like it. We need some more diversity there, it's getting rather monotonous ;) Thanks. Malick78 ( talk) 09:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!
We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! You are invited! | |
---|---|
The San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2 will be held on Saturday, June 16, 2012 at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco. Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join us! This event will be specifically geared around encouraging women to learn how to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. Workshops on copy-editing, article creation, and sourcing will be hosted. Bring a friend! Come one, come all! |
San Francisco Wiknic at Golden Gate Park | ||
You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Golden Gate Park, in San Francisco, on Saturday, June 23, 2012. We're still looking for input on planning activities, and thematic overtones. List your add yourself to the attendees list, and edit the picnic as you like. — Max Klein { chat} 18:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Invite. |
Thanks for expressing interest in the Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting. I'm investigating ways to make the meeting more effective, and I'd love to get feedback from you as to what we could do to improve the meeting. Please weigh in on the discussion there! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) ( talk)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Kevin! As if I don't ask enough of you already, I thought I'd post this message to you in case you have some time to spare this week:
If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.
I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.
If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bbb23. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You're way out of line, pal, attacking an admin. I'm going to hunt you down and shove that badge down your throat. (I'm attending DGG's session, BTW.) Drmies ( talk) 18:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I am currently working on the Wiki page for Ms Radha Thomas. She is an Indian jazz singer and songwriter. In fact, she is known as a diva in the Indian jazz scene. She previously was with the band Human Bondage and has sung and performed globally. The article is still under development. I haven't completed it or submitted it for review yet. You can have a look at it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas. I will be requesting your help and advice (as usual) in making it conform to all Wiki standards. If you do a Google Search for Radha ( https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Radha+Thomas&oq=Radha+Thomas&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l2.1190.3159.0.3385.12.12.0.0.0.0.282.1949.0j11j1.12.0...0.0...1c.dYmnNUlMsQM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f6ee012440c72a74&biw=1024&bih=509) you will find dozens of articles and links to her work. As of now, the article is still under development and I will come bug you for help soon! Varunr ( talk) 06:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!
The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.
For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.
Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.
Thank you, Daria Cybulska ( talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah ( talk) 08:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi Kevin! I hope all is well. I wanted to stop by to share a new project with you that I am developing, called the WikiWomen's Collaborative. I would love your input about the project.
Thank you for the consideration and I hope you'll participate in developing this exciting new project to bring more women to Wikipedia! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Please note this action at WP:ANI, in which you have been named.
Best wishes,
Noetica Tea? 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Kevin, thanks for the explanations but in fact they highlight my biggest concern about making controversial title changes outside the RM process. The biggest concern is that outside RM and more specifically WP:RMCI we run the risk of poorly made moves that screw things up and cause a lot of unneccessary work after the fact, not only technically, but from a title policy standpoint as well. WP:RMCI has pretty clear guidance on the balance of consensus and title policy, the responsibilities of the closer assess that balance, make a decision and to do all the cleanup after the move. Additionally, this section of RMCI Conflicts of interest is clear on the need for uninvolved Admins to make the close and do the clean-up work. In your explanation, you're suggesting that involved admins help make the move. I was never suggesting that KC did anything wrong, however if you applied the standards in WP:RMCI to the close, she didn't live up to the closer's responsibility. We don't make deletion decisions outside the established 3 tier deletion process--CSD, PROD and AfD. Why should we make controversial title decisions outside a long-standing RM process? No body has yet to explain that rationally. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a strong reason to have an uninvolved editor find the balance of consensus of a controversial discussion. There's not an equally strong reason to require that uninvolved closer to handle the mechanics of moving a page immediately upon closing a discussion. And there's a strong reason not to do so in any situation where implementing the close in a way that makes sense requires making decisions about content, as in this case. In pretty much any other situation it would be considered strongly inappropriate for someone who just closed a contentious discussion as an uninvolved editor to jump in and start making content decisions immediately after, and I see no reason for this type of situation to be different. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
Noetica Tea? 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Saw that comment about gender-specific pronouns. :) Personally, I prefer to avoid using pronouns altogether if I can't nail the right one. On Wikipedia that generally means saying "editor", "person", "individual" or simply using the username. That way I don't risk offending anyone if I say "he" when I am actually talking to a "she" and I don't end up making grammatical errors or using obscure terminology.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.
There are three events planned:
We look forward to seeing you there!
You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot ( talk) 00:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have created an article about Ms Radha Thomas and am contemplating moving it to the AFC space. Before that, I'd really appreciate if you could have a look and give me some inputs, suggestions and advice and hopefully a green signal :-). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas Varunr ( talk) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Come celebrate
Ada Lovelace Day at the
Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the
Ada Initiative, the
Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in
STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.
The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome! You must RSVP
here - see you there! |
|
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/10/16/wikipedia-evangelist-spreads-the-word/ Congratulations. Good work Kevin. — Ched ZILLA 07:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
One more of these and you could meet WP:GNG, which will help Wikipedia expand it's article base with a Kevin Gorman article. Thanks for giving 110%! -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
In cause you are interested in expanding the article more, there's a lot more information about the Lawson Adit in Google books. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 05:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
So, I was asked to look into some cross-wiki harassment, and guess what I ran into--reference to our old pal LGM, here. I hope that editor (indef-blocked here) has nothing to do with him. How are you, Kevin? Still living large, West Coast style? Drmies ( talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really. | |
---|---|
We look forward to seeing you there! |
San Francisco WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon 2! See you there | |
---|---|
|
It is a sentence fragment I recently added, since you forgot to use {{ cite needed}} I have re added it with appropriate source. if you have any further with it please take it to the talk page.-- Mor2 ( talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding what we talked about. I seen your recent edits and I still think that phrasing there is little bit murky, though overall its a great improvement.-- Mor2 ( talk) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I noticed your post on Drmies' talk page about this mushroom. I'm curious to know where the species has been described, because I can't find any information about it. Can you let me know/add the reference to the article? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. Thanks for posting on my page and for your offer of help with planning the upcoming sessions. I would be delighted to meet with you to discuss this more, especially as I'm now in the active planning phases. Are you free any time this week to meet by phone? Please feel free to email me, as well. Thanks! Michaelturken ( talk) 07:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You inspired me to do it. Wikipedia:Recruiting those in academia or WP:RECRUIT. Could you share your wisdom there? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you will be joining us tomorrow afternoon at the Edit-a-thon at Tech Liminal, in Oakland. We'll be working on articles relating to women and democracy (and anything else that interests you). It's sponsored by the California League of Women Voters, Tech Liminal, and me.
If this is the first you are hearing of this event, my apologies for the last-minute notice! I announced it on the San Francisco email list and by a banner on your watchlist, but I neglected to look at the San Francisco invitation list until this evening. If you can't make it this time, I hope to see you at a similar event soon! - Pete ( talk) 04:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.
You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.
Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.
If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.
First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).
After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)
As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.
In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.
The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.
Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!
-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 20:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin Gorman. I have notice that you have recently edited or reverted a couple of my contributions to Wikipedia.
I know you are a Wikimedia and Wikipedia expert. However, I'd like to talk about something.
I improve Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a wonderful website where you can
ignore all rules if (and only if) it makes Wikipedia better.
Since Mozio was definitely a notable startup (it was featured on the Huffington Post, TechCrunch, The Daily Californian, and much more), I decided to add it as a "test" of my first article. It was nominated for deletion, but because it had too many citations from various sources, the result was keep.
I have written Mozio, to the best of my ability, in an NPOV manner. I have NOT introduced any kind of original research on the Mozio article. All data on that article is paraphrased from the citations. If you do not believe me, please carefully read through all the references and look at the contents of each cited article, as well as the "Additional Sources Used" for the page. —
Carrot Lord (
talk) 13:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
|
Hey Kevin! (I remember leaving a message about this last week, but I must not have successfully saved.) Thanks for helping get the Bay Area classes situated. Two things:
Regarding this edit [7] Please refrain from replying to people who talk to me on my talk page. Your lack of manners is frankly upsetting, rude and blatantly uncivil and reflects poorly upon you. Even worse is the fact that you do so after having opposed my edits on various occasions based on what you undoubtedly know that I view, right or wrong, as a POV pushing agenda. It's amazing that it even needs to be said, but if you want to talk to editors who talk to me do it on your own talk page or on theirs.-- Cybermud ( talk) 19:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin, You're doing a great job of adding more balance to that article. I went in and made a couple of simple edits to tighten up the language a bit--but you're the one who is doing the real work there. Best of luck with it! EMP ( talk 18:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your help in the Teahouse! Jackson Peebles ( talk) 06:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) |
I've put the notice up - sorry for the delay. I ended up using the range [37.6, -122], [38, -122.5], which should cover the city, but you might want to double-check the university is covered - it sometimes happens that institutional networks do strange things on geo-IP lookups. I've set it to run until the end of 10 February (UTC); let me know if you'd like longer. Andrew Gray ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.
Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric | Control group | Teahouse group | Contrast |
---|---|---|---|
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit) | 5.02 weeks | 8.57 weeks | 1.7x retention |
Average number of articles edited | 58.7 articles | 116.9 edits | 2.0x articles edited |
Average talk page edits | 36.5 edits | 85.6 edits | 2.4x talk page edits |
Average article space edits | 129.6 edits | 360.4 edits | 2.8x article edits |
Average total edits (all namespaces) | 182.1 edits | 532.4 edits | 2.9x total edits |
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
Hi, I'm hoping that, as an experienced Wikipedian, you may be able to help with Carptrash on the Men's rights movement talk page. 4 years ago when I initially created this account, I stopped contributing after a short time because of similar behavior levied in my direction. I decided to not let that happen this time and was just going to ignore them, but after seeing them immediately act the same way against another user, I can't believe that it will be isolated to just this situation unless something is done to express how toxic these types of actions are to well intentioned and well behaving new editors. I've looked through Wikipedia policies, but they seem to be acting with impunity and I could not find where or how to report this type of behavior. In particular, I am talking about what started with this, then led to this and what finally made me seek out a more experienced Wikipedian of this. Honestly, I'm not sure how much of this sort of thing I can ignore before just giving up again. Ismarc ( talk) 01:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Chris troutman ( talk) 19:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin. you have expressed an interest in r/mensrights about have more people come in to improve this page. I have two users WLU and sonicyouth who are creating a very hostile environment on this page, including singling me out with ad hominem rather than discussing my edits. In addition, they are disputing one of my recently added sources, which I believe to be reliable, and repeatedly deleting my contributions without discussion. I believe they are current working in conjunction to get me banned for edit warring by taking turns removing my material. You intervention would be appreciated. Yhwhsks ( talk) 20:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, atm the Men's_rights_movement page is close to demonstrating that the Wikipedia idea does not work. I heeded the call for editors to give it another try. It was working for a while but 2 or more editors then re-appeared, they are now violating every conceivable rule of Wikipedia. It is bare face vandalism and disruptive editing. Someone with some clout needs to pay the page a visit and lay down the law, issue some warnings and act as mediator for a while. All of this is tragic. CSDarrow ( talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
|
Given that you have taken it upon yourself to revert this article back to the false and misleading Jbmurray version and given comments by you (at 3RR) which indicate sympathy with him, what will your reaction be when I set about removing all false, misleading, dubious and out of scope content to restore the veracity and credibility of the article based on sources which are reputable having been created by recognised authorities and not by some charlatan whose work has rightly been described by User:CDTPP (a subject matter expert) as "risible"? I think that's a fair question. ---- Jack | talk page 21:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Berkeley Student Cooperative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Gray ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you created an IEG grant proposal.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the IdeaLab soon.
Happy editing,
Siko and Jonathan, Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.
This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Llewelyn Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see my question at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 7 about File:Leicester city council advert on Ugandan Argus.jpg. In order to keep the image, it needs to be demonstrated not just the advertisement is historically significant, but that seeing the advertisement sufficiently improves the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that could not be accomplished in text alone. -- B ( talk) 15:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
|
On 30 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death during consensual sex, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that contemporary reports claimed that French President Félix Faure died receiving fellatio and his penis had to be surgically removed from his mistress's locked jaw? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death during consensual sex. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wiknic 2013
Sunday, June 23rd · 12:34pm · Lake Merritt, Oakland
Theme: Hyperlocal list-making
This year's 2013 SF Wiknik will be held at Lake Merritt, next to Children's Fairyland in Oakland. This event will be co-attended by people from the hyperlocal Oakland Wiki. May crosspollination of ideas and merriment abound!
to two upcoming Bay Area events:
I hope you can join us at one or both! -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 01:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Hey Kevin, I'm following up on an email I sent you last week, asking for your insights on editor engagement. If you didn't get that email, could you please contact me at fflorinwikimedia.org, so I can tell you more? Thanks! Fabrice Florin (WMF) ( talk) 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for the help reverting vandalism on Edward Snowden. I didn't mean to blame you or any of the other editors for not doing a full revert on the semi-protect request; I was just having problems doing the simple approach of clicking "undo" or just rolling back to the old version because I kept getting conflicts with other editors when trying to revert it myself, and figured that was worth pointing out as a reason why semi-protection might work better than relying on people reverting. — λ ( talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
|
|
It's easier for the investigators if articles aren't deleted until after the socks have been confirmed. If you notice a likely sock who hasn't been reported, it would be helpful if you'd make a report. — rybec 05:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As you have shown an interest in holding up biographical articles to a high standard, I'd like for you to take a look at Michele Miscavige and what you think of the BLP violations there, considering the article is almost completely based on unverifiable rumor and speculation. If we're going to maintain high standards for BLP as far as sourcing quality and wording, then this article in particular is extremely problematic considering the violations of BLP at play here. I've also left a note at the noticeboard [9] for other editors to chime in since it's one of those articles where even tagging the article as problematic gets one reverted immediately. If we're going to maintain BLP at high standards across Wikipedia, it should be universal without prejudice. Laval ( talk) 00:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevin Gorman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gary Read, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There's at least one source that's good enough for A7. May not be enough for AfD, though. . Thank you. Ged UK 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, good sir! May all your perambulations be fascinating, and end with fine beverages and company. :) – Quiddity ( talk) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys :) it's been a long time coming, and feels really weird to finally get it over with. And Rybec, I'll drop you an unrelated email tomorrow. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Helen Beebee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Causation ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Kevin,
Thanks for taking the time to look and review my edit on Grant Cardone's page. However, I think you edited too much out. It's my 10th wikipedia page, and thus I know a little bit about make one. Here, I respected the rules, and granted the page with a lot of content, value and great resources. I'd love for you to point out the points you think must be changed, rather than deleting everything. So let me please suggest you to review your edits, and let's fix the man a better page, wouldn't you agree?
Best, Val — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valefebvre ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for this answer, I appreciate your time and attention on this particular page and my efforts regarding a better outcome.
I get your position, and I respect your points. Indeed as you mentioned, let's work together in enhancing this page to enrich the profile.
I believe we can have a positive touch thanks to our experience and resources to make that page more accurate and rich.
How shall we proceed from there? Should I just put back all the changes I made and then iterate from there? what's best, perhaps posting bits after bits? Let me know I'm eager to work on it.
Best, Val — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Valefebvre (
talk •
contribs) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Kevin Gorman. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to hear more about the RA that worked towards a potentially funded position. I hope I haven't aggravated you over at WP:ENB. I'd appreciate the chance to meet and chat on Skype sometime. Best regards. Biosthmors ( talk) 08:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nancy Snow, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freedom and Marquette ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
|
Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
We should have a monthly contest, most cited missing Wikipedia article. What a find for August! --( AfadsBad ( talk) 06:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
Thanks for the kind words AfadsBad and Cullen; I should've figured that a discussion on Jimbo's talk page would rapidly get derailed in the specifics of an example (76, vs the 90's, etc) rather than spark a general discussion about what really is a major problem, Steven just had me feeling overly optimistic :p. I probably should've avoided mentioning citation indexes at all given that they're really only great in the hard sciences (fields like philosophy have fewer journals indexed and also tend to generate less citations in proportion to the prominence of someone in the first place.) It kind of floors me that some editors apparently don't accept that, given our demographic base and the research that has been done in to the issue so far that we have significant content biases. Jaggar is a person of such prominence within her field that any ethicist, feminist philosopher, anyone active in gender and women's studies, and many general academic philosophers would be shocked at the absence of an article about her (and I say that having talked to (and witnessed the shock of) many dozen of them recently.) I think her article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is work incredibly well-respected by 99% of academic philosophers, may literally be the only SEP article where I've ever seen it suggested that it would be nigh impossible to better someone's work, regardless of what field of philosophy they worked in - philosophers just don't make that kind of statement.
Oh well. I'll do what I can in this realm and with helping the educational and cultural institutions that reach out to me concerned about systemic bias (at least half a dozen have proactively done so in the last couple of months.) I'm hopeful that either the Foundation or a chapter will eventually have some sort of systemic bias collaboration coordinator position, analogous to Lori's GLAM position a while back. We have so much social capital right now, and with this many institutions proactively reaching out to us concerned about our biases, I'm sure a coordinated outreach effort with someone's full attention behind it backed by the social capital of the WMF or a chapter would be colossally successful. Btw, I've just started ignoring that section of Jimbo's talk page for now, because the heat to light ratio doesn't seem worth it at this point - please ping me if you happen to notice something there that warrants my attention. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
I award you this barnstar for improving our coverage of mushrooms, and also, and even more so, for your exemplary work to deal with our pervasive problem with systemic bias. Thanks for all you do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
Perhaps a 17 year old being signed for a quarter of a million pounds by one of the biggest clubs in England and playing for his national side 3 years in advance of his age isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. But then again, half of his team mates at Wolverhampton, without international recognition, older and with the same number of senior appearances ARE 'notable' enough to have their own pages, so I guess consistancy is an issue ?
Sorry to have wasted your time submitting free information.
Dgreid ( talk) 16:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Starting to collapse sections, going to go ahead and agree with Fluffernutter's post.
|
---|
[10] Or any other definition of the idiom I could find on the Web, all suggest taking joy or celebration over the fact of someone's death. You seem to be well educated, probably more than me, but even I can see the faultiness of accusing Eric Corbett what you accused him. (Eric was making a point, a point to the discussion that he felt was absent and was important to make; his point is best left to him to define -- I won't attempt to paraphrase. His point was conceptual however, and about what is or isn't valid or sensible or fair presumed expectations and responsibilities of Wikipedia editors when online at WP. One thing I'm sure, very sure, he did not do or suggest or emote, was to take any kind or degree of delight, celebration, joy, etc., in the young man's suicide. And to suggest such a thing, to accuse Eric of same, which you did twice [11] [12], is really a kind of careless maliciousness on your part. You should apologize to him for that accusation -- it wasn't right, and it wasn't fair. I personally forgive you in your rush to keep things ideal for the parents of the young man on Jimbo's Talk, since in your rush you made that oversight. But what an oversight to make. [If anyone accused me unfairly, untruely, of taking joy and celebrating someone else's death, when I never did or thought any such thing, I would take that as a cruel and malicious and willful misinterpretation of what I said and meant. And I'd be downright upset about it.]) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 09:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. If you can find any definition on the web which does not include celebrating a death, please link it here for my education. Otherwise, I don't think you're so powerful that you can make up your own meanings to language idioms for your own purposes. Words have meanings, even modern idioms.
That discussion was utterly baffling. Who is the late editor that was its subject? — Scott • talk 20:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
YGM. Go Phightins ! 13:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Starting to collapse sections, going to go ahead and agree with Fluffernutter's post.
|
---|
When I supported your RfA last month, I didn't think you would be coming on board to threaten one of our best content contributors with a ban for some meaningless and twee nonsense at our co-founder's talk page. More fool him for getting into that debate, and more fool you for behaving like that. You didn't say at your RfA you were going to do stuff like that; I suggest a period of reflection ensue. We do not always need to wave a big stick. There are better ways of doing business than that. That was not a BLP violation. -- John ( talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
To start off with: I have had no prior contact with any of the editors involved in this situation, so no WP:INVOLVED issues. Last night, a thread was started on Jimmy's talkpage concerning an editor who recently committed suicide. You can view the (now archived) thread here. Direct reference to the editor's name was not made, but enough details were given that anyone who knew the editor knew who it was, and anyone who didn't know who the editor was would be able to find out in five minutes or less from the details given in the original post. The first half of the thread essentially served as a memorial to the valued, deceased editor. Part of the way through the thread, User:Eric Corbett arrived and began to make comments likely to offend friends of the deceased editor, and even more likely to offend the family of the editor, should they happen to ever find the thread. I viewed this as a significant WP:BLP concern - to excerpt a quote from the policy, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - that's from a section of BLP pertaining to articles, but I think it sums up the spirit of WP:BLP very nicely. Wikipedia has a duty to not cause unnecessary harm to living people. Seeing the BLP problems as an administrative issue to be dealt with, I began to intervene, asking people to stay on topic, hatting irrelevant material, etc. This was not effective; Eric undid my hatting, etc. I used heavier wording in my initial posts in the thread than I normally would because of the significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedia editors and family members of the deceased. After having a conversation with a number of other admins about how to deal with the issue, I went ahead and decided to use the arbcom remedy dealing with biographies of living people to try to ensure the thread did not detiorate further. I placed a notification on Eric's page, instructing him to stop posting in that one particular thread on Jimmy's talkpage, using the BLP discretionary sanctions (which include enforcing the 'spirit' of BLP, as well as the letter of it,) as justification. I did so because I believed there was a significant risk of emotional harm if Eric continued posting in that thread. I stated that if he did not comply I would enforce the thread-ban through other means, but unlike what has been suggested elsewhere, I did not threaten to outright block or ban him. (Eric responded with a string of profanity and misunderstood policy that would have pulled anyone else a block.) Eric stopped posting in the thread, and after further discussion with User:The_ed17 (one of the admins I had spoken with before applying the discretionary sanctions,) Ed archived the thread, and after further discussion with him, I went ahead and collapsed it. I expected that my actions would result in some degree of Streisand effect, but not to the extent it has. If I could redo the situation, I would attempt to find an alternate solution that would minimize the potential harm of hijacking while also minimizing the resultant Streisand effect. However, I believe the actions I took were 100% within policy, were appropriate, and were the best course of action to take barring an alternative method that would have minimized the resultant Streisand effect. Eric's actions were inappropriate, both on Jimmy's talk page and on his own talk page. When I initially posted a warning to stay off the thread citing the BLP sanctions, his first response was, quoting, "What are you, an idiot? How can I be under a BLP sanction for commenting on someone who's dead?" - demonstrating both a poor understanding of our civility policies and a poor understanding of WP:BLP (of which WP:BDP is a subsection.) At various other points, he's also referred to me as a fucking idiot, told me to shut the fuck up, and slung various other personal attacks. I would like to note that I'm typically very light on tool use; if you look through recent posts, you'll note that I lean far more towards guidance and try to avoid blocks. My harsh approach in this situation was because I perceived significant potential for emotional harm both to Wikipedians and to the family of the deceased. No benefit would be had from allowing the thread to be hijacked, and significant harm would come from allowing it to be hijacked from being essentially a memorial to being a combative thread that would cause emotional harm to both close friends of the deceased and to the family of the deceased if they happened across it. If I am presented with a similar situation in the future where the only alternative to allowing Wikipedia editors and potentially someone's family from experiencing potentially significant emotional harm, I would not hesitate to make use of the BLP discretionary sanctions in a similar way. I believe that my actions were fully policy compliant, and I stand by them. I believe that Wikipedia has a duty to avoid harming living people whenever possible, and this was one of those situations. Realistically, if this situation involved anyone other than Malleus, his personal attacks alone would have resulted in an uncontroversial block, rather than hordes of upset people on our talk pages. This should be a dead issue. Appropriate action was taken to avoid harming living people for no purpose, and it worked. The thread in question is now archived, Eric heeded the warning to not participate in it further, and emotional harm to Wikipedians has been minimized and emotional harm to the family of the deceased has been avoided. Wikipedia is often cited as having a toxic environment, and this is a perfect example of that. Reactions like this significantly harm editor retention and related issues. I'm happy to answer any questions about the situation. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Enough said.
|
---|
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
Kevin, your editsum message to me: Re your other editsum message to me: Again, if you can find a definition anywhere on the web re idiom gravedance that doesn't include celebrating or expressing joy over the death of someone, please link it here for my education. Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 19:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|
collapsing a few more discussions (though as I've said, I'll still answer good faith questions about my actions gladly.)
|
---|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrator Kevin Gorman. Thank you. Ross Hill Talk to me! 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Your opinion has been noted and appropriately filed.
|
---|
|
Little productive likely to come out of this section
|
---|
No doubt you will be encouraged by the foolishly given barnstars above. However, this vainglorious beginning to your admin career has placed you amongst Wikipedia's least respected administrators. Whether through ignorance, immaturity or a desire to see your name on the map, you have not served yourself or the project well. To falsely accuse another editor or gravedancing and then attempt a smear campaign to save your own wretched career is deplorable. I'm sure no one, including Eric Corbett, feels anything less than deep sorrow that an editor committed suicide; however, few, if any, of us knew him personally and to use his tragic death as an excuse to excite sentiment and attack other editors in order to promote oneself is something of which you should feel thoroughly ashamed. Your behaviour suggests to me that you are not very old, so I will make allowances for you on grounds of immaturity. Nevertheless, I feel you should resign your tools at once, learn from this experience and re-apply when you are a little older and wiser. Giano 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
|
Collapsed comment from Giano
|
---|
|
Keep in mind:
So, maybe you should just apologize. And maybe just for fun tell him to fuck off here on your own talk page, block yourself for 5 minutes, and then he'll perhaps feel better that someone blocked you. -- SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, I see what you're trying to prove--a long track record and thus this incivility is one more, perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back, but I'm not exactly sure what "this incivility" in my sentence is supposed to point at. It can't be his initial remark, and while I may have missed something, the rest of the exchange a. wasn't so bad, relatively speaking of course (YMMV) and b. is at least in part explained, if not justified, by the context: quite naturally he took offense at your warning, and would have even if it were correct. In other words, it won't get you anywhere, and I don't want to see you becoming entrenched in something that will be more and more difficult to get away from.
Well, like you needed more advice. You know I think highly of you as an editor; as an admin this is really the first thing I've seen you do. Folks all over the place, some of whom I respect, are calling for your head. I don't and I won't--but I think it is important, especially with your new admin t-shirt and the responsibility that comes with it, to be more flexible, so to speak. Take it easy Kevin, Drmies ( talk) 02:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Northern Antarctica ( talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kevin, sometimes the best medicine is the passage of time. As I contributed to that initial thread, I hope nothing I said contributed to the escalation. You are a sincere person and clearly acted in good faith, though "mistakes were made". I wish you the very best, as always, and encourage you to take it easy, stay low key, think about things over time, and learn from the experience. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You are still using an incorrect user name to refer to Eric (see NE Ent's question above), and you have dismissively referred to him as a "vested contributor" as if all the objections to your actions are based solely on Eric's edit count. That is not correct—your assessment of the situation was in good faith, but it was wrong. Rather than "When I accused Malleus of grave-dancing" in (3) above, the comment should say "When I said that Eric was grave-dancing I was incorrect, and I apologize for that error". His comments were blunt—they were not "uncivil" and to believe otherwise would be a second error. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Someone needs to take a stand against what vested contributors are doing to our community.
The Admin's Barnstar | ||
For an uncommonly, and very justifiably, brave start to your career. Pak aran 00:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For calmly and coolly dealing with a deluge of abuse, personal attacks and harassment that resulted from a good-faith effort to enforce Wikipedia policies. You handled this ugly mess far better than most users would. Robofish ( talk) 00:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For recognising that actions on-wiki have implications off-wiki too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 01:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For believing in the importance of human dignity and being willing to defend that belief. Kaldari ( talk) 03:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For standing by your values in the face of calls to step down as a brand-new administrator. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 04:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC) |
.... is great advice, given to me several years ago. Wikipedia is about contributing your own time, free of charge (for most of us), to better the collection of human knowledge that's freely available. Becoming an admin is a good thing mostly, it means once you've had enough experience, you can help reduce the ever-increasing tide of detritus (alternatively, it opens you up to a tirade of insults, false accusations etc). It also makes you feel that you are better enabled to wade into situations. Most often, that wading will end up with you up to (if not over) your neck. There's an inherent inertia (or forcefield, or something) in Wikipedia in certain corners, and there are dark and dusty and cobwebby cubbyholes where you are probably best advised to avoid, a bit like a "dark Wikipedia", where all the normal pillars are ignored.
I see you're through the maelstrom, and hopefully that means you can return to doing (a) what you found interesting and enjoyable about Wikipedia and (b) things to benefit the encyclopaedia. Getting involved in certain patches around here is inevitably going to end in disaster, and sadly you picked one of those. My advice is harmless, really, but I do get tired of some editors spewing bile, threatening retirement time after time after time after time after time......., diva-esque, while their defensive minions rush around screeching. To reiterate, do something you enjoy. Best wishes. Feel free to delete, of course. Just some ramblings. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have requested a case for arbitration which involves you. Giano 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Intended point taken Gerda, I hadn't noticed the cat before. I hadn't intended anything particularly malicious from commenting on his misspelling of his name, I just legitimately found it a bit amusing, especially given that I tend to refer to Eric by his former username out of completely innocuous reasons (mainly, if I refer to someone just as "Eric" in a conversation with people who are active on Wikimedia projects outside of ENWP, people tend to think of a number of people before they think of Eric Corbett. (AFAIK, Eric's never asked anyone not to refer to him as Malleus; I'd certainly avoid doing so if he'd asked me to do so, or if I had ever noticed him asking anyone else not to do so.) 22:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Why not just go and apologize to Eric/Malleus? That wouldn't hurt anyone.-- MONGO 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
As a note, I'm not ignoring John's comment, have replied on his talk page, and will likely reply further.
As a note, I've not ignored Dennis's comments. I'm currently talking with him about this situation elsewhere.
( talk page stalker)Kevin. You are missing a significant point. Regardless of Eric's comments (which I happen to agree with but that is by the by) the original post was the thread that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP protection in articles and discussions where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page offended in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. Blaming Eric for BDP while ignoring the same clear offence in the OP is ignorance of the meaning of the very policy you quoted. All Eric did was criticise it in open and honest terms. You jumped on Eric's repudiation of the thread and failed to see the violation in the thread. A double error of judgement. Leaky Caldron 17:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. An Arbitration Case Request that you were listed as being an involved party to titled Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here.-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: BLP special enforcement ( permalink). For what it's worth, while I think your actions were monumentally stupid, I disagree with many people that you acted with malicious intent; I'm more interested in getting ArbCom to clarify the bounds of BLP special enforcement than I am in getting you sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Kevin. I think the problem here is that, while you've admitted you've made mistakes, you haven't been explicit about what those mistakes were. Saying "I made mistakes" is good, but the point is that it's more than just that you handled it sub-optimally. It's that what you did (invoking BLP/BDP and AE for a non-BLP/BDP comment) was intrinsically wrong. I don't think you've actually acknowledged that aspect of it onwiki, and that's why this keeps going on. (Well, there are other reasons that people keep trying to restart it, of course, but this is why it keeps getting traction, at least.) The way you've apologized has been vague about what you've actually learned; it could've been "I'll be more careful about invoking BLP and AE", but it also could've been just "I'll remember about page protection next time" or "I'll email Arbcom/emergency first" or any number of other things; some of these lessons are good ones, but most miss the point that you can't use BLP/BDP and AE that way. I don't think many of us are asking for self-flagellation here; it's just that people need to be sure that this kind of misapplication of BLP/BDP and AE won't happen again, and your statements have been equivocal (at best) about that so far. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I hope you'll understand why I didn't respond immediately, and be more patient next time. I answered you several times yesterday, and do not think "WP:ARBACCT" (a flawed concept, by the way, as arbitrators' terms are limited, whereas administrators sit indefinitely) requires me to answer a quick succession of questions. AGK [•] 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If I encounter a similar situation in the future that involves someone like Malleus - a vested contributor - where I am unable to resolve the situation without taking such an action, I'm sending it straight to arbcom and the office.could be taken as an indirect admission of this, but it's far from unambiguous, especially with qualifiers like "vested contributor"--invoking BLP and AE for a comment that didn't violate BLP is just as problematic against a newbie as a vested contributor. If that's not the diff you're talking about, I'll keep digging around, but my point is that perhaps you haven't said what you thought you said. And yeah, you're right that writing yet another statement or whatever is not going to stop anything; I'm not really asking you to do so. I'm just trying to explain why at least I wanted further clarification on this. Anyway, archive away or whatever; just wanted to explain myself. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 that you were a party to has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:
For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 01:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)
The motion reads as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|
On a hike around here, it crossed my mind to invite you to a stroll of my 2013 talk, looking at the (not many) contributions by MF and Eric, including discussion of the name change. I will not judge, look yourself, - of course every guest is "tamed" by my edit notice (not by me) "Every editor is a human being", to something like "OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle." I miss him, not only as a content editor but as a person, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko, I did say I'd block you if you used the same IPs you used on my talk elsewhere.
|
---|
Sorry to change on you again and bring this here but it seems another admin removed talk page access. It really is a trivial thing to get another account and or IP. Anyway, in regards to the ban, that was a dozen users, most of whom wanted me gone long ago and it was closed far too soon. I received many emails fro users saying they never had a chance to vote (some were oppose and some were support). Several also told me that they feared reprisal if they voted so they stayed away. When you have users afraid to vote for fear of being blocked by Arbcom or some admins for supporting a user who is critical of them, that is a major problem IMO. You yourself have seen how petty and frankly stupid they can be. I also understand there is no bad blood between us and you are just, excuse the comment, blindly following policy and blocking a sockmaster. For what its worth, more than half of the socks (about 60 of the 100+) that are accused of being me are not. They are just evidence of how shitty the checkuser tool is. Anyway, feel free to block this IP or whatever, I can get another one. Its amazing but there are literally millions of IP's available for use. 172.56.3.236 ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Well I don't think that is acceptable. He has exactly at the time of writing 101 socks and you want to give him succour by letting him come here? No way. Off to ANI if that's your way of undermining policy. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Although I appreciate the sentiment you and I both know the Standard offer is basically BS as can be seen even in as recently as right now with the Will Beback case. So wether I waited 6 months or 10 years, it wouldn't matter. When a ban is enacted it is forever and even those who abide by it are given no more comment than an F off from Arbcom. Also in regards to the suggestion I had about the watchlists, that is only one of many things. If I really wanted to do harm, I wouldn't be doing it from my home/work computer and I wouldn't use my phone. There are a lot of open IP's around and I travel a fair amount. So all I would need do is wait till my next trip to San Fran and do it from the Starbucks down the street from the WMF (Yes I have been to their office a couple times). I also wanted to point out that I have tried every method of bringing Arbcom and abusive admins to task over the years. I started extremely nicely, then I went to being kirt, then rude and now borderline abusive. Nothing works because those in power do not care. They want to stay in power and they will do anything and use any justification to do so.
@Kumioko - effective change is possible. In the time I've been around Wikimedia projects, we were able to enact significant changes to how images of living people are treated on the Wikimedia Commons. Someone still has to bring up each image, and there's still always debate about it, but it's gone from "we should totally keep these pictures of topless sunbathing women that were taken with a 50x optical zoom through a fence" to "we can't label this lady who is standing in a street known for prostitution as a prostitute without some form of evidence that she is." Effective change will eventually happen on ENWP. It'll be slow, and for the most part it won't involve intentional disruption, but it will happen. The SO sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't. If you don't sock for the next six months, and return in a way that focuses primarily on building encyclopedic content - something you are quite good at, I will vigorously support your return, and would be surprised if it wasn't allowed. And then eventually, in the slow semi-bureaucratic way that Wikipedia tends to work, a lot of the problems you see with arbcom that also appear with other groups will begin to be addressed. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 22:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
|
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ihardlythinkso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Northern Antarctica ( talk) 16:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevin. I'd be interested to know whether you think I've been a good detective or am just paranoid here... Some obvious paid editors IMO and I keep on finding more, but as with Morning277 it's difficult to know how they're linked. What do you reckon should be done about this stale edit by a new editor removing a PROD from an article written by an elancer? SmartSE ( talk) 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes since you asked - I do know the policy against trolling (at least on Meta Wiki).
It is located here: [22]
"Trolls in the internet sense of the word are not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves, etc. There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls. Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for w:Wikipedia::Miscellany for deletion, nomination of stubs for w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment"
Uncle uncle uncle 02:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how this isn't a blatant one sided attack on this article. Meaning, I should be able to put something there immediately after that saying that mens rights are also seen as a proper movement and something related to the womens rights movement. There is nothing in the first section of /info/en/?search=Women%27s_rights_movement that is an attack on it. Nothing. I see your revert as nothing more than an ideological edit, and feel that your opinion is clouding what the article should be, completely neutral. - StevieY19
Saturday, April 5 -
WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited! | |
---|---|
The
University of California, Berkeley's
Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman
Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon.
Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch ( talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
Surely it's poor practice to redirect to a different article? 'Domestic violence against men' is not the same as 'Violence against men' and until that article is written, the page itself should probably be deleted. -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Case Request titled Ihardlythinkso has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here. For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang ( talk) 02:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Some your userspace drafts, including
User:Kevin Gorman/ResortsandLodges.com,
User:Kevin Gorman/RxWiki and
User:Kevin Gorman/Search Engine People, have on them categories which should only be added to mainspace articles. These can be removed by adding a colon between the [[
and Category:Foo
. Because these pages are fully protected, I cannot do this myself and so ask you if you would remove them until the articles are moved to the mainspace. Thanks,
Rcsprinter123
(gas) @ 12:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Kevin, I've been following the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center conversation, including your recent comments on @ IronGargoyle:'s talk page. I think you need to take a step back and think about your actions here.
From what I can see, things first went wrong when you stated on the oringal AfD that you knew of reliable sources, but didn't disclose them. If your goal was to improve the encyclopedia, a better thing to do would have been to tell people what these sources were that you had discovered. Even if you didn't have the time to insert them into the article and format them properly, just pasting the raw references into the AfD, or the article's talk page, would have been progress. Instead, you hinted at their existence, and when two other editors said they could not locate these, you failed to supply the needed details. If I was closing the AfD, I would have seen exactly what @ Salvio giuliano: saw when he did the close; three people making policy-based arguments for deletion, and one person arguing to keep, but failing to provide any real information. Closing it as delete was a no-brainer.
Then, you dragged it to delrev. You don't seem to understand the purpose of delrev. It is not to give people a second chance to argue the AfD. It is to review if the admin who closed the AfD did so in accordance with policy. Seven people agreed that the close was correct. One person disagreed. 7:1 is about as strong a consensus as we ever get. It's over.
But, what I really don't understand is why you then felt the need to harangue the admin who closed the delrev, on his talk page. There, you state that you don't even really care about the article in question, you're just trying to effect some kind of policy change. That's called making a WP:POINT. It is disruptive, and counter-productive to what we're trying to do here, which is write an encyclopedia. If you believe there is some change needed int the Afd and/or delrev processes, the place to lobby for your desired changes is on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy, and/or Wikipedia talk:Deletion review.
-- RoySmith (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)