User talk:Endercase
Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could
[edit]You may leave any and all messages here you want. If I don't like it (it is inappropriate) I might remove it though. (I have never done so though)Endercase (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
All subpages are linked on my userpage. Please join any conversation and edit at will. Endercase (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Embedded Archive
|
|---|
|
Headings and links[edit]Welcome back to Wikipedia! This is just a quick note to point out that the wiki guidelines discourage the inclusion of links within headings especially when only part of the heading is linked. See MOS:HEAD. The subject of the link has often been mentioned and linked earlier in the article (and in this case probably should not be linked again) or will be mentioned early in the section and can be linked at that point. — Jpacobb (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Stealth banning[edit]I fail to see how removing references to Breitbart and Infowars violates NPOV. Neither is considered a reliable source. I will not revert my edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Who are you? Also re: your comments on RSN[edit]Sorry if this seems confrontational, but I'm just curious if you have used any other accounts or been editing logged out. It's pretty unusual for an account to make five edits, disappear for half a decade, and then come back and become relatively prolific on two talk pages and a noticeboard, and I'm noticing that a significant number of your opinions on said noticeboard appear to be somewhat extreme. Have you read WP:RS? Being a dissenting voice is fine (I usually try to give some alternative point of view on matters brought up there that attract my attention), but if you regularly post things that are not supported by community consensus, there's a small chance no one else will post and your opinion could mislead someone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017[edit]
Confederate money[edit]Endercase, I can't answer at AN/I, but your question deserves a response. It's an American euphemism. During the Civil War, the Confederacy (south) issued its own money. According to American law, and certainly after the war, it had no value; thus a comment that crackles (the sound crisp paper bills make) like Confederate money means it's valueless, phony or fake. We usually use it when someone says something that sounds like what another wants to hear, but they don't really mean what they say, or variations on that scenario. --Drmargi (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Your templated welcomes[edit]Why in the world are you welcoming obvious vandals/socks as well as editors who have been around for years? --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I notice you're still working on pages in the WP: namespace...[edit]Now, that essay will almost certainly be userfied, so that's a thing, but I really think you should just forget about it and move on to writing more articles. 13/210 of your edits this month have been to the mainspace, and I can't see one of them because you reinserted something that an admin, User:Diannaa, had removed as a copyvio. You also are currently proposing a "boomerang" for another admin on ANI, but ... think about that for a second. What boomerang would be appropriate for User:Beeblebrox? I am limiting my ANI activity in order to focus more on content than I already have been, but the only outside parties who have advised me to do so were doing so informally and as friends; I find it really weird that you appear to be doing the opposite, especially considering an admin recently threatened to block you if you didn't stop making comments like your recent comment on a certain user talk page (and, again, your comment about Beeblebrox honestly looks exactly the same, at least to my eyes). Seriously, why not just stay the heck away from the WP: namespace and write articles? I feel like I've said this to you about eight million times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
By the way -- being blocked is part of being a Wikipedian, and you would be hard-pressed to find a long-term contributor with a clean block log. People who are not able to emotionally deal with being blocked are not the kond of people who should be editing Wikipedia, because it would not be fair on the rest of us if they didn't get blocked for the same behaviour that the rest of us get blocked for. Saying that such users need to "grow a pair" is essentially the same as this, and demanding that someone strike it as "ad hominem" completely misses the point. But I can't possibly understand why you are fixating on that page given how you haven't been blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It should be noted that I struck a portion of your post at the RfC, you once again referred to the mentorship as mandatory while demeaning my !vote, as I have already shown to you the close was "No Consensus". I highly suggest that you read Wp:civil again and the comments that I made that caused you to end your mentorship with me. I would also request that you stop harassing/hounding me is various locations throughout Wikipedia as you have done since we first encountered each other. Endercase (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Conversation about Essay[edit]I'm sorry, but I can't even take the essay seriously after "For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life." Not only that, but it masks the damage of vandalism and disruptive editing by pulling on the heart strings of readers with this line, "This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified." Such blocks more than likely only happen when an editor is being extremely disruptive, and the administrator has no other choice. Our administrators understand that blocks are not meant to be punishment, but a preventative safeguard to protect Wikipedia, since anybody can edit it. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 14:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Except it provides no information on how to actually deal with such blocks. All it does is pad disruptive behavior. Let's go over it.
"Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites. Anybody can edit it (normally). Being blocked from editing it is distressing. This is doubly so if any of these factors apply: no warning or engagement, no proper explanation, or the block is unjustified or only arguably justified."
"Of course many blocks are necessary and we're not saying they're not, but there's an emotional toll. Consider that some people, or a few people at any rate, have never been in jail (or even arrested). have never been sued. have never been suspended from school (or even had detention, or failed a class). have never been fired from a job for cause (or even called on the carpet for a serous dressing down by their boss). have never been in a physical fight (or even shouting verbal confrontation (except maybe as a schoolchild or maybe a lover's quarrel)). have never been kicked out of their house or come home to find the locks changed. We know that a lot of people have had some (or, God forbid, all) of these things happen to them, but the average person – you can call them goody-goodies if you want to – tries to follow the rules and takes sanctions by authorities very much to heart. For a few people, being blocked is the worst punishment they've ever had in their adult life. This is the first time someone has said to them "You've broken the rules, and badly, and you're in a lot of trouble here". Or one of the few times. And that certainly is the message one takes from being blocked, regardless of how we try to gild that. It's a pretty hard thing to hear, for a few people."
"We know for a lot of experienced Wikipedians (which includes all admins), "Under the spreading chestnut tree / I blocked you and you blocked me" is all part of the WP:MMORPG. But most of our editors, particularly new editors, come from a place called "real life"."
"A person, particularly a new user, on being blocked is not likely to say "Oh, well, here is part of the functioning of this site. I'll just put in this template, formatted properly, and enter litigation on this matter, all in good fun". The person is likely to be appalled, horrified, angry, sad, alarmed, and disgusted. They'll likely close the page at once and never come back (but they'll have a story about what a screwup the Wikipedia is). So whether its a new user or not, any block of any duration has a non-trivial chance of being permanent, in that the user is likely to just throw up his hands and walk away. Again, lots of blocks are necessary, and we thank our volunteer administrators for enhancing the functioning of the Wikipedia in this way. But, you know, we want to be careful here." This entire essay is basically saying that administrators should be more lenient when blocking new editors, regardless of if their behavior is disruptive, due to a risk to the editor retention rate, as well as victimizing those who are reaping what they sown as a fruit of their behavior. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017[edit]
Welcoming blocked user?[edit]Why [2]? It seems ... well, not in keeping with community spirit. - Bri (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Military courts have different burdens of proof, are we closer to that? I think this encyclopedia is a society, things don't have to be fair or just but they should benefit the encyclopedia. We do need a better solution to Socks, maybe emoji recognition (South Park reff). Anyway, thank you for the discussion, I will temper my defence of peers I feel have not been given a fair shake and try preventive measures instead (as I am doing with BulbAtop (who has odd contribs)). Endercase (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
If you revert again or otherwise comment at this account's Talk page, I will block you for your disruption and your disruptive attitude.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017[edit] {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 15:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)To prevent further disruption by your attempts at "discussion". --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
My most recent attempt at communication via template with an admin was ineffective. I know know that templating the regulars may result in a block (once unblocked I will leave a note at the relevant essay (or make a list) that specific regulars may not be templated without consequences (anyone may sign that (list?))). I will work on conveying my ideas about socks and COI into an essay or addendum to current policy, such that I can effectively communicate my views on the issue. To be clear I do think that socks should be regulated or blocked or banned in an effective preventive manner. It should now be obvious to all parties involved that templates are not effective communication or discussion starting tools. Endercase (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The sheer idiocy of comparing sockmasters to a class of people historically discriminated against leaves me breathless. @GB fan, Bbb23, and DoRD: I will be recusing myself from taking any future admin actions with regards to this editor. --NeilN talk to me 20:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 Endercase (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) UTRS appeal #18181 was submitted on May 02, 2017 23:01:38. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC) @NeilN, Bbb23, and Just Chilling: I would like to continue discussion on the above topics until I have a full understanding. But, I fear doing so would be deemed disruptive. May I archive these two discussions to help remove the temptation? Endercase (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
|
Advice and warning
[edit]I've been looking at this WP:ANI discussion, which was closed as recently as 20 March. You were quite strongly criticized by experienced editors and admins there, and a topic ban from WP:RSN gained considerable support. It looks like you escaped sanctions for two reasons: 1) because the idea of mentoring was broached, and you yourself appeared to accept mentoring by the two people who offered, though the way it would work was left a little vague both by you and the closer of the thread,[3] and 2) because you seemed at least somewhat ready to accept responsibility for the disruption you had caused.
After the ANI thread was closed, I looked to see how you were doing, alerted by a post on User talk:MjolnirPants, which I watch. I was a little taken aback to note your passive-aggressive and condescending comment about Hijiri88 — one of your mentors at that time, no less — on Vfrickey's talkpage, in a fake 'defence' of them against Vfrickey's lengthy wikilawyering: "..I do not feel like Hijiri 88 is beyond help in these matters. If you (=Vfrickey) are able to convince them that their specific actions were harmful to the encyclopedia I am certain that they would change their behavior moving forward"[4] followed the next day by an actual attack on the same page: "You have a history of edit warring and demeaning behavior. In addition, you are also a rampant POV pusher and constantly and consistently fail to observe good faith. .. While I do appreciate you and your efforts to make me a better editor, you are kinda a wp:dick.."[5]
Having noticed these highly personal comments and others, such as an utterly irrelevant attack on Guy here, followed by MjolnirPants's reply that Guy has tons of experience and is widely respected, then followed by egregious wikilawyering by you: "So you are saying they are experts in Wikipedia (more than equals?)? I thought that was a violation of policy." Have you noticed how conversation stops when you go into that mode..? Believe me, it's not because the other person has been convinced.
I considered blocking you, specifically for talking in this way to somebody who had spent time trying to help you, but I think you may not realize how your manner affects others. Therefore I'll give you some advice instead: 1) please don't comment on other people at all (because I really don't think you have much sense for how it affects them, perhaps even when you're trying to be nice) and 2) please try to read policies for their spirit, not for finding policy fragments that prove how right you are. People will soon get tired of trying to explain things to you, simply because you make so many insensitive comments about other people, and you cherry-pick so many policies in defence of yourself. Both these approaches are fundamentally wrong. Put your listening ears on instead. If you don't, you'll end up blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC).
- Adding: I just noticed that you changed the post I particularly objected to while I was writing up the above[6] (writing it rather slowly, as I do, and with RL interruptions). I'm very glad to see you did. Those changes show good sense, even if they took you 15 hours. Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking "save". Bishonen | talk 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC).
- Bishonen TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work.
- I accept any punitive actions supported by Bishonen or Hijiri88(who I had already given permission to, to remove any and all of my posts), or my other uninvolved (in this case) mentors, or by public consensus.
- Bishonen TL;DR:I'm weird and I apologize when I cause harm. I do things for reasons though. Even if those reasons need lots of work.
- Thank you, you are a very well respected admin, I have have seen the loyalty you inspire in others. Guy gets under my skin to be honest, though I probably also get under theirs (particularly when I fixed that AGF link on their talk page).
- "Even more sensible would have been taking more time in the first place, before clicking 'save'." this is something that I am working on, I have been getting better in that regard if you believe that. It is just difficult to balance respectfulness and pure honesty about my feelings. I would like your take on expression in regards to consensus, I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings. This leads to ignoring peers even when they are being problematic which in turn leads to peers being banned. I don't want to contribute to that cycle, I would much rather speak my mind and if I can help them be aware of how they come across. It is a fine balance though, one I have nowhere near mastered.
- WP:LAWYER is another difficult point, I believe in the fundamentals, I don't mean to do any damage to the encyclopedia. This type of behavior is meant to gain a personal greater understanding of policy not to prove a point. I am not being sarcastic when I make these types of comments. These are legitimate questions, often questions that have been left unanswered by shared public consensus. I am trying very hard to understand this society. I also refrained from making direct comments at my AN/I, which may be worth noting.
- Consensus is a difficult term for me, as it at once is meant to mean the most logical position while also somehow the majority opinion. I find that often these are not one in the same and some modification could be made. In order to do that some disruption is necessary, else you get a particular type of stagnation that leads to cascade failure of power structures. That sort of failure leads to dark ages, I would like to avoid that (though my personal input would never really change anything by myself).
- I find it odd that peers don't often take issue with my questions or arguments in and of themselves, but with my audacity. That is something I don't know how to change, I speak my mind. Should I not speak my mind?
- It did take me longer than it should to change that post, I agree. If you would like to ban me for that, I believe that would be in order and supported by consensus. In addition, I still left the post in a state where I am criticizing my mentor, which is not my place. But, I do not believe in dishonesty, even when the expression of my ideas may harm me. Ideas and views should be proportionally and honestly expressed. No editor is perfect nor should any editor be above reproach. Criticism is how things improve. Stagnation is death to online communities, and to many individuals. Though I understand I come across as abrupt often I am also very patient (despite my impression). I am OK with incremental changes, 2 steps forward 3 steps back. I just want people to know that the average when taken in sum will always be forward (across a large enough time frame). We may not know what the near future holds, I could die tomorrow, I would rather be honest today.
- To be clear I am extremely grateful to my mentors, their guidance has been honestly expressed and done without malice. I am a very difficult student, I understand that, if they are successful in their mission they are in my opinion more than worthy of being admin. if they can handle me they can handle just about anyone. But I will logically criticize those who criticize me, if you can't handle it then you should get out of kitchen as the saying goes. Something about glass houses and those without sin. The vast majority of the peers I encounter want to help the encyclopedia, without fair criticism those same peers will end up in a AN/I and banned over enough time. Criticism is an important part of the consensus possess, even if I was personally out of place and should be punished for my sins.
- Based on the loyalty that others have shone they have for you I would accept your judgement without personal criticism. I would like that you also consult with Hijiri88 on this as they are the injured party, I would also accept any position they currently take, an eye for an eye and all that. They may take up to one pound of flesh. Though I would prefer not to die for my comments, I would accept that fate should the injured party so choose. Though that might be because I have a pretty high confidence that they won't go the pound of flesh route. I do also like life quite a bit and my sub-conscious may take over at that point and defend myself, but I would cooperate to the best of my ability. I know no-one is asking for that amount of cooperation but that is how far I would go to make things right. I might not take back my feelings (my first wording was harsher than I truly feel), but I would go though hell to make things equal.
- I believe in this project and if you feel the project is better off without me than so be it. I am not a one-man army here to change the way things are done, I do however want the participate in consensus, hence my questioning and challenging behavior. I feel like my mind does work differently than most peers', and as such my particular POV is often not seen. It is not necessary for the project though, eventually another like me will add their POV (like mine) as some tiny footnote in history.
- Wow, this has gotten really long. I'm sorry, there is just a lot of data to convey. The TL;DR at the top does summarize it pretty well though. Endercase (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Everything Bishonen said above is good advice. Listen. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- David, you should have given the same advice when I asked you to yesterday. What you did was post a string of attacks on my talk page, which almost certainly made the problem worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I visited this page to see how the subpage issue I mentioned above is going. The section is #Argument from authority/New introduction but that link will not work until the collapsed box under #Anyone is free to post here, I wish even blocked users could is expanded. As a side note, wishing blocked users could post here is inappropriate as it tells the community that core procedures involving disruptive users are invalid. The issue I raised (about a draft in article space) is trivial, but the fact that even after the discussion, Endercase could still not comprehend what WP:Subpages#Allowed uses says (diff mentions "Allowed uses" #8, but that allows subpages under talk). The advice I gave (to copy the content to talk) was valid since no one else had edited it at the time. I don't care about the subpage, but I am concerned about the lack of understanding and the desire to look for snippets that might permit the page (see "please try to read policies for their spirit" from Bishonen above). However, one issue about leaving the subpage is that now that another editor has joined in, the future of the page becomes problematic. A solution would be to move it to User:Endercase/sandbox where anyone can continue editing (lowercase "s" is correct). The beauty of that is that in the future the sandbox can be reused for unrelated purposes and no clean up would be needed. An inferior solution would be to move the page to Talk:Argument from authority/Temp where it could languish when unwanted. Using "Temp" as the name would be better as the page might be used for other temporary purposes in the future (or use "Draft"). Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. Endercase (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. Endercase (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? Seriously? Everyone has been telling you to drop it. Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is terribly ironic as I was just telling them the same thing. I need to write out wp:stick by hand a few hundred times. See y'all when I'm done, after I sleep and stuff. Endercase (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase, are we seriously still talking about this? Seriously? Everyone has been telling you to drop it. Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages. Now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Policy suggests that(the proper location for debate) is everywhere(talk pages) where someone disagrees. In addition, you came here pointing out my mistakes. Errors you had already pointed out. Then when I ask if there is really a problem with the page you back down, and say there is no real problem. Meaning your entire intent here is to try to make me look bad("wikilawyer"), you do not care about the page what-so ever or even about improving my behavior. This does appear to be NOTHERE(civil, hound, that sort of thing), much like you are accusing me of(wikilawyering for the sake of self interest). Something about a pot and a kettle is in order I think. Please don't notify me or my mentors about that page again, either fix it yourself or let it go. Endercase (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'll leave it up to your mentors to explain where proposals to change policy or guideline pages should be debated. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: Why not debate policy, I thought that was how consensus works. Endercase (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned, the issue is not so much the page. The difficulty is that you have again avoided an opportunity to acknowledge what the guidelines say about subpages. More than that, the "My reading of the rules only strongly suggests" comment dodges and weaves around the fact that the guideline is crystal clear—no subpages in article space. Fixing the page later is fine by me, but why the wikilawyering? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I've already given you full permission to move the article, If you think it is a problem then move it. That is my understanding of consensus. My reading of the rules only strongly suggests that is should be moved, primarily, it states, to avoid a permanent residence. The article(temporary sub-page) will be moved whenever someone moves it. There will be no opposition to the move. I have already asked for consensus for a move on the talk page, I will move it after that discussion (and more reading about the process). There is no real problem with the page, unless you think there is, I have read very little about harms to the encyclopedia in such a case. You are the only editor that has expressed strong opinions about the move, as such I invite you, once again, to move it. Endercase (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Endercase, in your long reply, you project a conviction that it's necessarily a virtue to 'speak your mind' and be frank at all times. No, it isn't. I see you constructing a theory that it's a good thing to tell people how they "come across" (to you), otherwise they're not going to improve and will end up at AN/I. But I think it's a flawed theory. "Honesty" is overrated when it comes to telling people what you think of them. I'm not asking you to be dishonest, but there's nothing dishonest about keeping your mouth shut at the right times. Speech is for communication, it's not for expressing your feelings and never mind the cost or the result or the impression it makes on the other person. Telling people they're a dick and so on doesn't communicate or help anybody to improve, it only offends. I understand you find the Wikipedia culture in this regard overly reserved ("I notice that most people here are very reserved and don't often speak their feelings"), and you want to improve that culture. You don't want to adjust to it. Now I agree with what Hijiri says just above: "Go write articles. Stop talking about changing policy and guideline pages," and I would add, stop trying to change the culture, be more open to adjusting to it. The typical somewhat cautious Wikipedia discourse, codified in policies like WP:CIV, is unlikely to change because one person behaves in the opposite way and is devastatingly frank at all times, under the banner of "Should I not speak my mind?" Please instead follow my simple advice above and don't comment on other people at all — go edit articles. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
°°^°°
[edit]Thank you @Endercase!😀😀😃😄
Still finding my way around and the tips were helpful. Thank you. BulbAtop (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: Ok, what the heck is °°^°°? I've seen it before. Is it like your personal symbol? Various searches don't show a thing, which is a little odd. I mean no hits? 0. Don't see that very often anymore. Endercase (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- So it is like your version of a barnstar?? What if I "steal"/copy/meme it? °°^°° Endercase (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- While we are on about it, what is with all the emogjie[sic] here?? Are you really on mobile? Or is that like a custom OS with a touch keyboard or something?? Endercase (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure. Do what you want with it...I don't mind! Just promise me a review, okay? Aaaand yes, I'm 101% mobile, hence the emojies (sick) [sic]. Maybe the °°^°° is, like, extraterrestrial, who knows? Looks cool to me. But I never would havc known that your research could have so much results though. What video? What's it about? Anyways, just feel free to use my sign, okay? And BTW do you know any programming? 😥
- And I pity you for being human. BulbAtop (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. BulbAtop (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. Endercase (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? BulbAtop (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. Endercase (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? BulbAtop (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC
- @BulbAtop: As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. Endercase (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {[email protected]} sounds good enough?😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: like this, looks better in desktop mode.Endercase (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Just what are these "reply formats"? I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so I just had to ask. {[email protected]} sounds good enough?😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: As long as we are genuinely trying to help them I don't think they will permaban us. Though they may attempt to teach us a few manners. For instance you do not follow the typical reply format. This might anger some of them. Endercase (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, I DO feel that way. Wouldn't be long before we're being interminably banned, don't you think? BulbAtop (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC
- @BulbAtop: What I mean is, I would understand if you feel like you can't talk freely here. I don't feel that way myself but, I would understand if you did. Endercase (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I meant BOTH being human and having limited resources. But what what other communications do you refer? BulbAtop (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Assuming you are responding about being human. Well, sure, we could be in a simulation. Everything could be fake, but even if it is, we are still human. Human is whatever other human's identify it as, I have identified you as most probably human. Anyway, I've asked my question about how you knew about the coffee. You may email or use other communications if you wish. Endercase (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about that. BulbAtop (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, automatically switched to turning test mode. You are human. Or at least you have limited resources. Sorry. Be back later. Endercase (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well yeah °°^°°, then I made a weird video where my mind was blown, never really thought about how much search engines leave out of the internet. I mean this even breaks Wikipedia's Search engine. None of the comments even show up. I guess it must be rare. How do you know when someone has used it? °°^°° You say on your page that you can use that like a ping. But it breaks the search engines... do you have a custom internet search? Like what the actually heck? And also I only mentioned coffee one on Wikipedia (I think: other than some IP edits I made when I first got here, maybe), did you read all of my messages? Like if I use this anywhere would you get a ping?? Like a custom social media all in one search? Is that even real? Anyway, I need sleep, still human. Endercase (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- BTW you RESEARCHED IT?? BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, it is indeed a personal symbol. It is used as a header for the appreciation. 😶😶 BulbAtop (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Endercase: Oh okay.....but you didn't answer the question though. BulbAtop (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by that. That is my email. Endercase (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay then good enough.😃 I'll email you. BulbAtop (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
...Guessing I got lost in junk mail lol? BlbAtp (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: I guess it got lost in the interwebs. I have received a few emails that mention Wikipedia but I have responded to all of them. I guess yours was not among them. I searched my junk-mail and it was not their either (unless it had no markings of your current account). I sent you a ping, well see if you get that. Endercase (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Interwebs? BlbAtp (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: IMO: The so called "internet" isn't uniform nor is it "lagfree", interwebs is therfore more accurate. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Oh snap...
- I actually never thought about that. I'm so stupid.😞😞
- But wow, we really need to talk more. BlbAtp (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop:Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. BlbAtp (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop: Guess that depends on how you define culture. We really should switch to email. I don't want to banned for this (some editors would love to try). Endercase (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- But don't you think it would be different, seeing that we're from two separate cultures? Just asking. BlbAtp (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BulbAtop:Not sure if trolling... AGF-> Stupidity has nothing to do with it IMO, our culture has adopted a uniform sounding word for a very patchwork technology. This is likely a psyop (marketing), to give the appearance of stability. I used a weird word, you questioned it. Questioning thing isn't stupid IMO. Endercase (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. But just lemme sort a few things out first, good?
BlbAtp (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I just read through this section, and I want to say a few things (in order in which the things they are in response to appear):
- Check out Deep web.
- I am a programmer, if anyone has questions or needs help. I also enjoy programming, so feel free to ask for favors (small favors, mind. Don't ask me to create a new OS for you.)
- Check out Holographic principle. Yes, the in-depth physics are just as the layman's explanation presents them. For that matter, check out Many worlds hypothesis and remember how you used to wish your favorite works of fiction were real when you were a kid...
- If anyone proposes a block against one or two users for having a good faith discussion on one of those user's talk page, I will be the first to excoriate them for their inability to mind their own fucking business. You guys are free to use email, but it kind of breaks my heart to think there are editors afraid to discuss anything having to do with WP on WP, unless doing so would cause a disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: I know a bit about the dark and deep webs, some of it is very cool (such as P2P sites and chats) and some of it is much less cool. But I never realized there were small pieces of code that literally broke search engines, I thought you had to try a bit to not be indexed.
- Be careful about the whole offering minor programming favors, next thing you know I'll be asking you to help analyze reams of weather data to determine why global warming projections appear to drastically decrease biomass growth. Or something even worse.
- troll face* What about dielectricity though? (see Eric Dollard, try to suspend disbelief for a bit XD). Also functionality trumps exactness, if something is functionally real it is effectively real (until it is nolonger functionally real).
- BulpAtop was warned about wp:social a little while ago by the recent RfA subject, not to mention my run-ins with my AN/I submitter. I have received a few emails from 3rd party WikiDenisons warning me to keep my head down, saying I've upset a few vengeful members, and that the emailer would like me to stick around. Endercase (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Programmatically analyzing weather data is actually something I offered to do, recently. (Tidal data, to be specific). But yeah, you ask me to write 6000 lines of Fortran and I'll agree, then send you a malware that replaces every file with randomly culled beastiality/scat porn and re-associates file extensions and icons to make sure you don't notice until it's too late. Because I'm an evil lil shit sometimes.
- If someone emailed you to let you know that you've pissed some people off, then honestly my response would be "Thank you, captain obvious!" and to christen you as a real Wikipedian because we've all pissed people off. Anyone who actively sets out to get you is more likely to discover the aerodynamic properties of fibrous cellulose projectiles. That being said, if someone were socializing to the exclusion of actually editing, a vengeful party might be able to get the admins to give them a stern warning.
- I've actually heard of Dollard before (I spent a lot of time arguing with cranks back in the day) and I think I've actually called him a shit-for-brains in a mailgroup at some point (to his cyber-face, that is). Or maybe it was a forum somewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Dollard is crank in some respects but some of his books make mathematical sense and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods. But it is difficult sometimes to separate the BS from the actual science. Mostly just don't listen to his views on evolution at all (maybe he is a troll?). Right now, I think there may be some worth in his books anyway.
- It is mildly difficult to find someone that knows Fortran these days. A lot of models use it though. Endercase (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
and explain certain aspects of electricity in a manner that tends to describe some of the measured effects better than current leading methods
From what I've read, I'd have to disagree (admittedly, he's not my favorite crank so I haven't read all that much), and I suspect any decent physicist would, too. His writings might be much easier to conceptualize, but that doesn't mean they hold up to any scrutiny.- I know a few people who know Fortran. I'm not one of them, to be fair. I've use it a little bit, but I'd need a reference work to do anything useful with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- Endercase I know Fortran! Good old "Do" loops. Some of the worst variable names ever! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree
[edit]I wrote this before noticing your comment immediately above "I don't think the question is if it is Canvassing or not. I think it should be "Was it inappropriate canvassing?" ". Of course, I agree.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: I'm not sure if I am allowed to express my opinions on this (or any) policy any longer. My views and expressions are, I've been told, disruptive. I have been topic banned (apparently) from talking about a large aspect of canvassing policy. Endercase (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with your other views, but I think you are spot on with this observation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Well, thank you. You may may want to review my comments Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CANVASS that I made prior to the administrative action. Endercase (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested in...
[edit]Seeing this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere/Archive
I'm posting here for two reasons: first, I feel you may feel vindicated as you were predicting socking while everyone else was ignoring it, and I was disagreeing with you. Second, it's a great example of the disruption socking can cause. An article was subject to a counterfactual POV shift for a year, editors were chased away from the project and projects like our formal mediation were subject to gaming and disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: What was the evidence that caused you to request a checkuser? They should have engaged in discussion, this would have been avoided. That POV was nothing more than a troll stance IMO. I have significant difficulty believing they believed their own arguments. I think they were testing the limits of Wikipedia's society. I also do not believe that is all of their accounts. Their disagreement with the fundamental methods by which Wikipedia determines the reliability of knowledge and their camping at what I consider a key page suggest that all of those accounts are masked. None of the accounts I see at the check user have anywhere enough edits given how quickly they respond to changes, the puppet master behind those account is not done IMO. This, I think, is a game for them. They may try to "get you back" if they are that sort, be careful. Endercase (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Be careful about those spaces as the first char of a line. It messes up your formatting.
- It was a number of things, mostly between FL or Atlanta and Shroom. Shroom's way of talking was so stiffly formal, yet it fell away when they got flustered. Shroom also tried the exact same tactic FL had tried before (asking at RSN whether scientists were RSes for claims about logical fallacies, while obfuscating the fact that philosopher disagreed). There was also your suspicion: given your attitude towards socking, I felt like suspicion on your part was something to take seriously. So I did the scatter chart which I linked at the SPI, but only showing FL and Shroom. I noticed there was no overlap: they were never editing at the same time. So when Perf showed up after the block and jumped right back in, but FL didn't, I realized that there were only ever two of them active at the same time, so I threw the others in the chart. I didn't really expect the result I got (I thought Perf and Logician might be the same, and I thought FL and Shroom might be the same, but I didn't expect them all the be the same person). And while I'm confident the CU got all of the current accounts, I would not be the least bit surprised if they immediately made more accounts, and have a sock or two already active again. But as long as they don't disrupt the article again, I don't really care. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. Endercase (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What browser are you using?I skipped over the Chrome part... Try Firefox for a while. It's what I use, and I have very very few complaints. Supposedly, Edge is even a pretty decent browser.- Regarding the socks, actually, they've displayed a very trivial (if expansive) knowledge of policy: they don't really understand most of it (I can show you one example of the sock really screwing up a thoroughly-documented, not-difficult-to-understand process). Look at Shrooms report of me at ANI for an example of them completely misconstruing how the community tends to respond to such things for another example. Yeah, they know their alphabet soup of policy pages, but they didn't really understand any of them. Hell, they were ideologically opposed to our most fundamental policy, lol. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants: Yeah, I am having some issues with the editor (keeps putting my cursor at the beginning when I hit shift+most other keys). I filed a bug report, it is a known issue in chrome. I might switch to notepad++. I understand that feeling but the significant lack in edit count given their knowledge of policy and other behavior suggest that these accounts are not all of them. I mean just look at their noticeboard activity, very non-standard for a "new" user. All together they have far less edits than I do. Endercase (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Tahir Yahya, which you proposed for deletion. I added a source. The subject's definitely notable and sources exist; the article needs work. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! – Elisson • T • C • 13:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: In my opinion (since you are active) you should add sources as well as merge with the tagged article, or move it back to your userspace until you have time to work on it. I have also left multiple tags. Endercase (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please, it is in no way reasonable to move an article that has existed in mainspace for 12 years to userspace just because it lacks references. Especially an article that exists in 7 languages, with text that has not been challenged for 12 years, and contains facts that are easily verifiable with a Google search.
- If I didn't have to contest improper PRODs with the little time I spend on Wikipedia these days, I could perhaps have had time to actually source the article. I also don't like being told how to spend my time here. Please don't waste my, or others, time with PRODs on articles that are clearly not material for PROD. – Elisson • T • C • 19:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how. Endercase (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Bear in mind that any claims within this article may be challenged, and removed, and may not be restored without a citation, per WP:CHALLENGE. As a deletionist, I am putting this article on my list of things to do. Unsourced claims will be removed, and it will be incumbent on the editor who restores that material to provide a source. Scr★pIronIV 21:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Actually no that's definitely not standard practice. In fact since the Idrottsföreningen Kamraterna article seems to have had quite a few editors and has a long enough history that probably at least some of them are entitled to copyright, it would be quite inappropriate to delete the article and make a copy in user space. Instead if it's to be WP:Userfied, the article should be moved to user space with the redirect from main space deleted. Nominally it's also possible to delete the original article but preserve the lists of editors, but that is almost never done as there's almost never a good reason. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Userfication. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term. Additionally, the user with IMO wp: own problems recently IMO violated wp:civil in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user @ScrapIronIV: a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However, that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO. We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place. Endercase (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\
- @Nil Einne:*note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. Endercase (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Individual challenges need to be addressed individually, not have a single reference applied to the entire article. As for my user name, it has a very specific historical significance. What is distasteful about it? Even if you find it distasteful, what does that have to do with my contributions here? Regardless, I have removed the unsourced content from the article, and will continue to do so until appropriate inline citations have been provided. Scr★pIronIV 01:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understood your comment as it was worded. You specifically said "The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled". There's no way that this can be understood to meaning anything other than delete the article than make copy on user space. Moving an article from article space to user space is not 'open a copy'. It is moving. It doesn't matter whether it was deleted and undeleted or moved straight away it's still moving it. As I said time and time again, it is the way userfication is carried out. Not via "copy"ing to user space. If you meant to say moving, please take greater care with how you word your comments in the future. Please remember while there's nothing wrong with having imperfect English, you need to make sure your comments are not so poorly phrased so as to seriously mislead other editors. Since you were advising another editor, such a comment could have easily done so (were it not for the fact I think the editor you were advising probably understands userfication better than you). As for the IP, if you want to reply to my comment, you're welcome to do so, probably on the IP's talk page. I don't really care. I'm much more concerned that you understand how userficiation is carried out and you understand the importance of clarity when advising other editors. In particular, that you do not advice other editors to do something that is completely unacceptable whatever the reason you worded your comment in that way, Nil Einne (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't really understand what you mean by "The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard". If you think it is acceptable to simple mention other editors in the edit summary when created a copy then please I beg you again to either read what I've said or read the links I provided or ask for help from someone else. It is not a proper way to carry out userficiation. As I've always said, this should nearly always be carried out by moving. Almost never by copying, regardless of what you say in the edit summary. The entire edit history should be preserved as far as possible. The only cases where you use the edit summary is to refer to another article you've copied the content from which is still extant. Ideally you should also add the appropriate tags to the talk page to ensure that the article you copied from can be found and is not deleted. If the article you copied the content from is deleted, and I mean actually deleted with the edit history lost not turned into a redirect which is sometimes loosely referred to as being deleted, but isn't; then there is a problem that needs to be fixed ASAP. This would nearly always be by undeleting the article, rather than by copy the editor contributor list somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne:*note some comments were removed to prevent a pointless argument* I think we are on the same page you may have misunderstood my message. The editors would have been cited in the Edit summary as is standard. If you would like to talk about a comment I left on an IP editor's talk page we may of course do so. Endercase (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: First of all I'm a bit confused about how you got here; in this conversation that is. I trust I don't need to ask for a checkuser. Second of all I'm well aware of necessary and policy based attribution requirements. The recent modifications to the article have helped quite a bit. It does not matter how many "authors" an old, uncited and unencyclopedic article has; if it is outside the guidelines the article gets deleted. If someone wants to fix it they can ask an user with the necessary tools to help userfy it after deletion or petition to bring back into standards without a deletion during discussion. That is standard practice. If you would like to disagree with me, I suggest that you spend some more time in AfD; if you want to know standard practice for articles that do not meet minimum requirements anyway. It is worth noting that nothing actually gets deleted, that is a misnomer, hidden would be a more correct term. Additionally, the user with IMO wp: own problems recently IMO violated wp:civil in their edit summary at the article in question. Calling user @ScrapIronIV: a distasteful name and apparently failing to assume good faith or practice proper communication protocol. Of course what to do about that, if anything, is ScrapIronIV's choice. Though I was thinking about leaving a warning. As far as the article goes I won't personally pursue the deletion of anything that several users are actively working on as is now the case with this article. That is one reason why I prefer PROD deletion as it is far easier to stop by any active editors. However, that article was and still is not in state where anyone could honestly claim it was encyclopedic IMO. We are all just working to make Wikipedia as more useful and respected place. Endercase (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)\
- I will not waste my time with this nonsense. I suggest you do something productive rather than something destructive, like this mess. – Elisson • T • C • 21:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Johan Elisson: 1)There is no such thing as an "improper prod", except in cases where an article has been previously prodded. 2)The article as it currently stands is unencyclopedic (no sources), that in and of itself is grounds for deletion. 3)The standard procedure is to delete the article and open a copy in your userspace until such a time as it is ready to be reinstalled. I can do that for you if you don't know how. Endercase (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I agree with the vast majority of what you say above. However, per the terms of licensing agreement listing the names of the previous editors in the edit summary or even arguably the talk page is "acceptable" even if it is a very poor practice. I agree that standard procedure needs to change as you have eloquently pointed out maintaining the true edit history is preferred by several orders of magnitude. In order to help insure that happens though several policies need to be changed and current deletion policy needs to be reviewed. Endercase (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Protocol Labs
[edit]
{{Quote box|quote=
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.
|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on Protocol Labs , requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion , by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
* It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Please read the guidelines on spam and [[wikipedia:FAQ/Business| Wikipedia:FAQ/Business ]] for more information. * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc. ), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion .) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable .
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 "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 {{Querylink |Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Protocol+Labs|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request [[wikipedia:RFUD| here ]]. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @El cid, el campeador: The entire text is "Protocol Labs is the creator of the InterPlanetary File System, and Filecoin." How is that advertising? It is covered by Techcrunch and Forbes and is thereby noteable. Endercase (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @El cid, el campeador: No big deal. Well, we'll see how the AfD turns out. I don't oppose consensus. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Endercase (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- I just became a new page reviewer last night, so there is a sort of curation side-bar that I am starting to use. If I'm being totally honest I feel a lot of pressure not to screw up on the reviewing and I guess under that pressure I kind of did screw up! I'm not normally like this haha. Sorry for the drama, and if there is ever a Wiki-favor you need just let me know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The article ALMANAC (software model) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
no evidence of notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- @DGG: You are the Authority on notability so I'm sure you are right. However, you may want to consider the vast number of published whitepapers in reputable journals that have used this software and that talk about it. What is published in 'news" isn't the same as what is published in peer reviewed scientific journals as I'm sure you know. I do agree that the article needs improvement but I'm not sure deletion is the way to go. However, considering that you are far more of a regular than I am your judgement I do respect. I will not oppose your actions in this case. Endercase (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
To do list in Skepticism:
[edit]
|
Wikiproject:Skepticism |
- Open tasks:
Remove pseudoscience from the articles needing immediate attention.
Turn our Good Articles into Feature Articles.- Monitor the Fringe theories noticeboard.
- Improve our top-importance articles and high-importance articles.
- Improve:
- Subliminal stimuli - Includes some pseudoscience but no mention of such for WP:PSCI
- Illusion - Currently listed at article for improvement (WP:TAFI)
- Objections to evolution - From Good Article to Feature Article
- Correlation does not imply causation - Improve
- Allopathic medicine - Improve or merge (has been considered POV fork)
- Second sight - Has been proposed as mostly Celtic/Gaelic context of extrasensory perception but suggestions to merge in it have also been made. Recently called to attention via WP:FTN.
- Chris Kilham - BLP: Promotional tone and unbalanced pseudomedical claims
- Dosha - Needs mostly rewriting
- Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health - WP:PSCI
- Items inactive for too long can be removed
I reverted your change, where you said People with "genetic disorders" are human too. -- Changed "Humans have x" to "The vast majority of humans have x" following wp:cycl. The list is a list of species, not of individuals. Homo Sapiens, as a species, has 46 chromosomes. This is like saying that "Zebras have stripes", which is correct for a species, and not invalidated by an example of an individual which doesn't. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I disagree with this, a range would be more scientifically accurate. Endercase (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ALL species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports"). Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? Endercase (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- There is no standard deviation or distribution; other than gametes, human nuclei have 46 chromosomes - all other cases are reproductive errors. Please read Aneuploidy. Anything other than 46 in a human is abnormal, or to use the term you found sensitive, a defect. There are cases of monosomy or trisomy which are survivable, but these are generally not reproductively viable. See the table at the end of the Aneuploidy. At this point, I'm done on this discussion. If you still insist of pursuing this, you'll have to pursue one of the mediation strategies - WP:3O or something like that. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: I agree that the disclaimer solution that you propose is not viable when applied to the entire system. Including the standard deviation and some information about the distribution could be a solution but would also be a large task. However, knowingly making categorically false statements particularly about humanity is not good for the encyclopedia IMO. Maybe just a disclaimer in the LEDE should be added? Endercase (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- If you insist on changing "has 46 chromosomes" to add disclaimers, you'll have to add disclaimers to every reference to chromosome number for every species, everywhere. ALL species have defective reproductions where anomalies crop up. At that point, might as well delete the list, because the page will be buried in disclaimers. As for objecting to the term "defect", that's the term biologists use for reproduction errors (although I've also seen "sports"). Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Tarl N.: How is it not useful for an encyclopedia to recognize that edge cases exist and that the "Truth" isn't the only way of looking at things? I changed an authoritative and incorrect statement: "Humans have 46 chromosomes." to a less authoritative but more correct statement "The vast majority of humans have 46 chromosomes." Calling those that exist outside the center of the distribution curve "defective" (because they don't fit your worldview?) is also a bit out there. Endercase (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- It's a description of a species. You can clutter up a description with all the possible defective variations to the point where the description is meaningless. E.g., "Zebras are striped, except when they're not." That's not useful for an encyclopedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
[edit].jpg)
.jpg)
Hello Endercase: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
,_cropped.jpg)
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Happy New Year, Endercase!
[edit]
Endercase,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Multiple failed attempts to log into my account that were not me
[edit]I've been getting the occasional email about how there was a failed attempt to log into my account. Today received an email claiming there had been multiple attempts that have failed recently. This notification is just in case I do lose control of my account temporarily. I have taken the proper measures with my password, but you never really know. Please email me at [email protected] in case there is a problem. I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately. Endercase (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
How you doing?
[edit]I haven't seen you popping up on my watchlist in a while. I've also looked through your contribs, and I have to say that I like what I see. So really, this is just me saying "Hi" and wishing you the best. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- {{yo|MjolnirPants]] Doing great, way less Wikipedia lots more IRL work. But, I pop in every once and a while. I wanted to thank you again, you and the others (along with wikipedia policy of course) really taught me a number of valuable lessons. Please let me know if I can help out anywhere in particular. It is great to see you here on the talk pages again. Been thinking about trying my luck writing an article about the chinese issue going on with the Uighurs, a mostly Muslim ethnic minority. [A citation here], think it is good idea? ( there is some information Uyghurs#Modern_era but I think a separate article would be appropriate. Endercase (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think you might have hit on something that needs expanded coverage, yeah. Best advice I could offer you on that is to start a draft, work on it till it gets to a readable state, then avoid the draft for a few weeks, come back, and see if it still looks good. Also, post a link here when you do. I might pop in and help out a bit.
- And I'll certainly keep you in mind if I need an extra pair of eyes at anything. I know you'll bring some valuable insight. Take care. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources
[edit]Other editors at Talk:PragerU have given you good advice regarding the reliability of WorldNetDaily and Breitbart. You would be wise to follow it. As you know these sources have been discussed and rejected at RSN many times, and continuing to push for their inclusion is disruptive. As for Preston Business Review, a quick scan of their homepage reveals that the site is nothing more than a collection of stories copied from other sources and attributed to Caroline Biscotti. The story in question was in fact copied from WND. Did you examine the source before advocating for its reliability? I hope you consider this and stop the disruption before it becomes necessary to pursue sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Dlthewave: The current open discussions at RSN in which both of us have expressed an opinion [1] [2] is extremely relevant to to final actions that should be taken on the PragerU article. Simply contributing to consensus and expressing an opinion you disagree with is not "disruptive", as you put it, but a fundamental part of what makes Wikipedia work. However, if you so wish you can of course start up a discussion in the admin noticeboard for review of my conduct. It is also worth noting that I have not "pushed for the inclusion" of any specific source particularly not Preston Business Review. Having already said that if it was to be used at all it would require additional citations for verification and that it is not generally a reliable source. I have simply disagreed with the method of removing it and the other "disagreeable" sources in question, specifically reverting an edit, that you admit, added at least one reliable source. As I have said in the PragerU talk page it would have been more appropriate to simply remove the "offending" sources separately, an action which I would have not even disagreed with and likely would have even done by myself. Endercase (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Request
[edit]Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The article STORJ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
STORJ – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Balkywrest (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)