![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
With thanks, May I ask you to help us to copy-edit this articel?-- Salman mahdi ( talk) 08:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Check this out..- The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh oh, TH - we may have a problem - see Origins_and_architecture_of_the_Taj_Mahal. Atsme☯ Consult 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
and let it hang loose. Abandon the ship, I mean the sandbox......-
The Herald •
the joy of the LORD
my strength 06:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)is now blown with your sniping at A1, following your sniping at ANI. You have clearly expressed ill will toward me, in matters that have no concern with you. I will be staying away from you, and look for the same. Jytdog ( talk) 23:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, not exactly "new", but please respond anyways. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have edited the Taj Mahal page and added a picture of the Yamuna as seen from behind the Taj Please do see if it is OK and can be retained -- Arunshank ( talk) 09:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.
For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I really respect your response to the deletion of the COI Ducks essay. I'm sure it was a great loss to have it deleted--as I'm sure it is to many of us who wanted it to be saved--but not a complete loss as it was correctly identified as "good faith" and is kept in user space. David Tornheim ( talk) 09:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
To test the archiver
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...an unwarranted speedy delete
Atsme ☎️ 📧 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jps ( talk) 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ( t) Josve05a ( c) 20:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, I went to Requests for undeletion. [1] AlbinoFerret 21:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Wikipedia talk:Advocacy ducks. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog ( talk) 18:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Be advised, you are the one who was disruptive and edit warring while I was in the process of moving an essay I authored. I have taken this issue to ANI. Atsme ☎️ 📧 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ca2james ( talk) 01:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Not your fault. It's too long. I know it doesn't work properly on phones, but yours is the first report that it doesn't work on a tablet. Could you see if you can reproduce the problem and, if so, please let me know (along with specs on the tablet) DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, a link to the original COI Ducks essay, just before it was moved into mainspace might be helpful to the current deletion discussion at some point. Do you remember when that was and where to find it in history? AlbinoFerret 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Saw you over there, then saw this on your user page: " Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is real and new editors are usually among the first to learn just how real it is. There are some pretty aggressive bullies out there who covet what they consider to be their articles." and had to laugh. Boy did I find that out the hard way too. She convinced an admin to block me for being a sock without filing an SPI. I managed to get it undone, and that admin was desyopped shortly thereafter. Not necessarily because of the abusive block, but I'm sure that was also taken into consideration. Anyway, I told her about the same thing you did: the reason the article keeps getting challenged is because there can be no civil discussion-it always devolves into personal attacks and accusations. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 17:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This outstanding feline passed away in January, and event accompanied by the sound of great weeping and knashing of teeth among the crawling insects and small rodents of the Afterlife. Formerly 98 talk| contribs| COI Statement 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering whether you had seen this. [2]DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Cheez, just when I thought everything was fixed on the laptop, it was "Shazam, Batman!" Same thing happened again. Will take it back to the fixer upper store and do what I can on this antiquated iPad original. Hopefully I won't leave too big a trail of "undos". -- Atsme 📞 📧 10:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it may have something to do with the graphic card but the tech here on the island did something to the motherboard and temporarily fixed it for all of 2 days. Left side of the laptop gets pretty hot but I can't pinpoint why that is happening or if it's related. The problem is that the display becomes a split screen - the left side of the image moves almost all the way over to the right and and wraps over to the left with a blank space between the two halves. The cursor becomes a dotted line, and there is also a narrow band on the left side of the screen (21" Macbook Pro) that is wavy and distorted. I took it back to the "hospital" yesterday morning and they got it up and running again but wanted to keep it overnight before releasing it to my care. Sounds a little like the ER, huh? *lol* Hopefully it is something they can fix without having to replace a harddrive or expensive graphic card. -- Atsme 📞 📧 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I don't specify my gender on Wikipedia so I'd appreciate it if you would refer to me as they or xie or xe instead of he or she. It seems to me that instead of responding to my comments or trying to understand what I was saying, you shifted into pointy attack mode by looking through my contributions and trying to draw some kinds of negative conclusions about my behaviour. You further expressed these as "concerns", which seems to me that you either didn't or don't want to understand what I was saying (which is that I thought there might possibly be grounds to challenge the close - that's all, and that's what I tried to express, and if I didn't express it clearly I'm sorry but that does not justify your comments). I commented at the teahouse? I tagged user pages for deletion because they didn't conform to Wikipedia policies? So what? If you think I've done something wrong or acted inappropriately, try talking to me, or take me to ANI, or do something other than make pointy comments like that. BTW this is preparation for the evidence I'm giving here, and it's allowed for that use. When the case is up I'll tag it for deletion as is appropriate. Ca2james ( talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I seem to have accidentally stumbled upon your user page. I've read some of your articles and thoughts, and find them interesting. You write well: your observations are intelligent and pertinent.
I'm assuming you're a lady in America. I'm a Brit in Thailand. Have a great day! Singora ( talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Better one
Enjoy your day! petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
When one responds to a thread that has not yet been opened at DRN, one should either be responding as a party or as a neutral volunteer. I struck the comments of SageRad entirely because a non-neutral comment was being offered by an editor who is not a registered volunteer. I ignored your suggestion to partially unstrike, because you weren't neutral in that conflict either. I am not criticizing you, because you weren't responding as a volunteer, but offering an off-line suggestion to me. SageRad could more reasonably have expressed an opinion as a party. I can see that you are neutral in Osgoode Hall Law School. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
When you accept a case as mediator, please make the case header as Open to make it in progress. I have done that for you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
When you closed the Osgoode Hall Law School discussion due to no response, you accidentally put {{drn archive top}} at both the top and the bottom of the discussion, rather than putting {{drn archive bottom}} at the bottom. This had the effect of hiding all of the open cases after that case. I corrected your closure. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
With your edits in the general area of alternative health, lately found forcing their way onto kombucha, I am inclined to ask for an arbitration enforcement topic ban for you since the articles are under discretionary sanctions. If you continue playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and summarily reverting everyone else's contributions, I will have no choice but to ask for your removal from this general topic area. Your editing history is already enough to demonstrate to administrators that there is a problem.
jps ( talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You probably don't want to hear this, but I think you need to concentrate on making your case on the TP before you can make your text stick. I'm very reluctant to PP a page where there is edit warring (I didn't even do that on the dog article) because any claimed independence is compromised by having to favour one version of the other. Usually PP, other than preventing recreation, is only used to halt outright vandalism. I haven't followed every twist and turn, and I have zero medical expertise, but I think you need to clarify why antioxidants are a good thing, and whether that is currently accepted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The laptop is back in the shop and I am once again confined to the very limited iPad (original). Ugh. -- Atsme 📞 📧 12:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not
violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. You appear to be linking to illicit copies of Elsevier's copyrighted material. [4] Alexbrn ( talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, the template is not a punishment but a request & a warning. It begins "When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." Please do as it says. By and large if you come across copyrighted material from a major publisher on a file-sharing site like scribd.com, and the publisher is charging $41.95 for individual access to it [5] then it's not rocket science to work out it's a ripped-off copy. I find it astonishing and worrying you'd think otherwise. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Kww. It is much appreciated. Working on this antiquated 256k iPad has been a nightmare, especially considering I'm accustomed to editing on a 17" laptop. I saw the OPEN ACCESS tag at Elsevier and made the mistake of assuming it was when I found the .pdf at a university [6], in scribd, and on kombucha share. I am guilty of AGF and not doing a more thorough investigation, and hope I won't make that same mistake again. What I should have done was simply not include the url and we would not be having this discussion.
Alex could have acted in GF and removed the url and made it a simple DOI reference which is what one expects in GF collaboration, but no, he had to come to my TP and harass me a little more with yet a 4th template knowing full well I couldn't edit the article - oh, but wait - the passage was reverted by project team member, Yobol, before anyone could do anything anyway. Instead of trying to be good collaborators, this bunch is too busy reverting, attacking other editors and looking for ways to get them blocked or banned so they can enjoy free reign to push their POV on WP. It is downright shameful. The beehive behavior on my TP - 6 freaking warning templates - and the discussion at the article TP provides the evidence I need regarding the behavior. Compare Red Bull to Kombucha and let me know what you think. Exposing this very disruptive "cabal-like" behavior at ARBCOM may well be worth the risk and the time it takes to gather the diffs because I've grown weary of being baited, harassed, politely hounded, ridiculed, reverted, and sniped at with snarky, condescending remarks....for what? A beverage that is being sold commercially world-wide and has been around for at least 2,000 years? After what this same group of editors put me through at Griffin, and again when I authored WP:AVDUCK, and now Kombucha, well...I think I've tolerated more than should be expected of any editor. Those diffs will also be included.
I just want this very aggressive, contentious, POV-pushing, disruptive, WP:OWN, advocacy-like, beehive behavior to stop. We've been losing editors faster than we can recruit them and what you're seeing here is one of the reasons why. I've dismissed all thought of it being gender related, but now I'm beginning to wonder. There may not be a better time than now for ARBCOM to do a thorough review of this highly disruptive, unwarranted behavior. If it turns out that I am indeed considered to be the problematic editor, then I will honor ARBCOM's decision. I just find it rather hard to believe that I have become the targeted editor for edit warring when it was I who contested the noncompliant material in the first place, contributed to the discussions for days and provided valid reasons on the article TP. So what happens? An editor shows who has done nothing but revert edits, has contributed dip-poopy to the article, and walks away free and clear. We all know the onus for restoring challenged material is on the editors who are pointing their fingers at me - not to mention 6 templates worth of BS. Atsme 📞 📧 20:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I looked back through the history, and as far as I can see, the only admin who has edited recently was Doc Watson. Neither the admin who topic blocked you nor the the admin who protected it has edited the page at all AFAIK. If you feel that either has a conflict of interest, you should raise it at ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's an alternate Sun.
-Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Kombucha. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ca2james ( talk) 01:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 23:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Atsme. As you know, I work a great deal on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia.
Way back in Sept 2011 you started by adding a bunch of links to Earthwave Society and edit warring over them...
list of some sample difs |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
And earthwave.org was posted for spam blacklisting but was for some reason not acted on.
You soon went to WP:ELN where you disclosed the following:
I added an external link from Wiki's sturgeon page to Earthwave Society's sturgeon page in an effort to enhance the Wiki resource. I serve as Exec. Director of Earthwave Society (EWS), and had authority to do so. I did the same for the Wiki gar page, and paddlefish page by adding external links to corresponding species pages at the EWS website. Over the years, EWS has accumulated valuable information and rare footage on some of the primitive fishes. I produced several of the first video documentaries ever produced on gar, the 7 North American species of sturgeon, and the paddlefish. PBS initially aired several of the primitive species documentaries, and received excellent ratings. We also allowed the public to come in and view the documentaries at our Texas location. Of course, not everyone can travel to Texas to watch the programs, so we made them available at the EWS website for a small donation which includes the cost of duplication, shipping & handling. There are also several reviews and testimonials at the EWS website from students, teachers, and researchers who appreciate the excellent resources at the EWS website.
That whole thread is here. There is no consensus in that thread to include those links, per WhatamIdoing's last remark, which you seemed to accept at that time.
You left for a while between Oct 2011 and Jan 2014 and when you came back, you worked over many of those articles you had originally edited, and went right back and added a bunch of cites to earthwave. You didn't re-disclose your relationship with earthwave this time.
Today there are 21 links to Earthwave in Wikipedia, some on talk and other pages. Here are the instances in article space:
As you are executive director of Earthwave and you are citing yourself, this is all undisclosed COI editing. As you know there are some among us who think self-citation should be banned in WP. That is not my stance, but it is not good that you went ahead and added all those citations to earthwave after folks said "no" at ELN. Would you please add a disclosure of your COI to your Userpage, and refrain from citing your organization going forward?
I don't know what the relationship is between Gabor B. Racz and your or Earthwave, but for some reason there is a posting on the earthwave facebook page that his WP article is complete, which you have worked on quite a bit. Is he perhaps on the Board of Directors?
I am providing you with formal notice of our COI guideline, just in case you are not aware of it. I am also tagging articles and their Talk pages where you have edited with a COI.
Hello, Atsme. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.
Summarizing the requests here:
Thanks, and best regards, Jytdog ( talk) 22:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)