User talk:I dream of horses/2018/April

Archives

Removing stale reports at AIV

Regarding this edit, standard practice is to remove after six hours or so, and those had only been up for one hour and 1.5 hours. Please don't remove reports so quickly. I won't restore since the range was blocked and the user wasn't really AIV material, but in general it's probably best to let a sysop do this sort of thing. As it turns out, it's not even required clerking at the moment, as there is a trial run of SQLBot that will automatically remove stale reports. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I'm not sure if there's a consensus for humans removing stale reports; I know there is one for a bot to do it after six hours. Certainly, "standard procedure" doesn't always means "consensus". Six hours seem like a long time; in my experience, if a report isn't visibly being acted upon after an hour, it either isn't going to be acted upon at all or someone will get to it "behind the scenes" (that is, through a range/hard block, etc.).

I'm more experienced than a lot of sysops, so applying the statement "in general it's probably best to let a sysop do this sort of thing" to me doesn't make a lot of sense. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say your actions were against consensus? The bot removal of stale reports is brand new, humans have always been the ones removing long unacted-upon reports. One hour may certainly seem sufficient some times, but there are plenty of times where there aren't as many patrolling sysops and reports can linger. Moreover, a report may be unactionable but leaving it there is helpful if the vandal returns. A longer period hurts nobody and ensures that multiple admin eyes have seen it. Take a look at the talkpage for a nice discussion. The above notwithstanding, I did not intend to impugn your experience, merely to point out that, if a sysop removes a report, it is clear that at least one sysop has opted not to act on it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I never intended to convey that my actions were against consensus. I'm merely saying that there might be a different consensus for the behavior of bots and the behavior of humans (or one for the former but a lack for the latter).

It's pretty clear to me that if multiple sysops acts upon newer reports without acting upon older ones repeatedly, as sometimes happens (and has happened at least once in an hour), that they've decided to not act upon it. Leaving stale reports for an overly-long time gives a false impression of the AIV backlog being larger than it is, which can alter the behavior of editors. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Ortiz Jones, Congressional candidate in TX 23rd district, endorsed by DFA and Emily's List

Hi, and I really like your username. I appreciate your doing an AFD instead of a speedy on the article I just made about Gina Ortiz Jones. I think she is notable under WP:NPOL because she is getting a lot of coverage from independent reliable sources including Time Magazine, Teen Vogue, local Texas papers, HuffPo, plus endorsements from DFA, Emily's List, and more. Anyway, thanks for your non-bitey but knowledgeable feedback. Of course I will discuss this further at the AfD page also.HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: I'm asking the community for many opinions, but I'm sure you realize that. That's what AfD is for.

-- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, that is what it is for! Can you please let me know, in your opinion, if Ortiz Jones wins the runoff in May is she then notable enough to have an article as official Democratic opponent to Hurd (who does already have an article)? HouseOfChange (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She'll meet WP:NPOLITICIAN irrefutably once she is in Congress, and may or may not meet [WP:GNG|our general notability guideline]]s already. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble, could you take another look at the article, which I have expanded using quite a few independent sources that go into great detail about Ortiz Jones's background and opinions, a major criterion for GNG. I particularly enjoyed her uncensored remarks in a HuffPo article[1]. The accounts of her background in ABS-CBN and Ozy (magazine) are inspiring[2][3]. In addition, I have done something wrong on the formatting of a quote but I can't figure out how to fix it and could use some help, if you or one of your talk page watchers know what went wrong there. Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange: Right, I'm sure that will help with the AfD. I'm not going to withdraw the nomination, though. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC) (fixed ping at 23:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doug Ford Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuniorRocketScientist (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniorRocketScientist: Hi. You'd like to say something to me?

-- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) (fixed ping at 21:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Vandalism

I'm so sorry for the mistake I made on the "Freezing Rain" article. I will refrain from making any edits until I make my own account! 71.206.3.92 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt saying that freezing rain is "hot water" is a mistake. Thanks, anyways. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tag

Hello *I dream of horses*! You added orphan tag on the article Andrey Esionov. I've put several links lately. Will it be ok if I remove this tag? Or it should be done by someone else? Finkrek (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Finkrek: Go ahead and remove it yourself.

-- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok) thanks a lot) Finkrek (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful...

You encouraged me to move the discussion from User talk:Canton2332 to your talk page. You wrote: "I reverted because of one paragraph in particular that I found to be deviating from NPOV."

Canton made 5 edits, and you reverted all of them. It seems highly likely that only one of those five edits triggered your POV concern. If that was the case, wouldn't clarity, and open decision-making, have lead you to only revert that single edit?

I don't know Huggle. But you defended your less than informative edit summary by stating that was a Huggle default edit summary.

I am going to suggest to you that you use Huggle carefully. When you use a semi-automated editing tool, the tool owner expects the tool user, you in this case, to use their human judgement to over-ride the tool, when there is a problem with the edit it suggests. I suggest this means you should be more willing to decline Huggle suggestions, like this one.

If Huggle's default edit summary is misleading, don't let Huggle make that edit. If the edit summary is the only thing wrong with the edit, and Huggle lets you capture the actual edit it suggests, then capture the edit to clipboard, open the normal editor on that article, paste in the clipboard, supply an edit summary you think is informative.

If Huggle would only allow you to revert all five edits, and would not let you revert just the edit(s) that actually had a problem, don't use Huggle. Step out of Huggle and revert just the one edit.

Or, alternatively, if that paragraph could have been rewritten to be neutrally worded, with the substitution or excision of just a couple of phrases, you might have considered doing that.

You may not be aware of this, but the wikipedia is in big trouble. The wikipedia was struck by a serious problem, ten years ago. In significant ways, it was much healthier then, even if some standards were lower, because it was continuing to grow, with the addition of many fine new articles, and many fine contributors who specialized in adding editorial content, or keeping the wikipedia's editorial content up to date, were doing that.

But, in 2007, there has been a defection of those contributors who added new content , and kept existing content up to date. While the wikipedia is continuing to grow, at a slower rate than before, existing articles are not being kept up to date.

What happened in 2007? In 2007 certain changes were introduced that changed the balance between anabolism and catabolism. Do you remember anabolism and catabolism from your high school biology class? Anabolic processes are the biological processes through which a biological organism grows, Catabolic processes are the biological processes that get rid of disfunctional elements. Catabolic processes include an organism's immune systems. It is due to catabolic processes that the elderly shrink in stature, and their hair goes white. Individuals with an auto-immune disorder have their catabolic processes going wonky.

For the wikipedia to be healthy the efforts of those who actually add new editorial content, and who keep existing content up to date has to be in balance with those who work to remove cruft, remove vandalism, remove new articles on genuinely non-notable topics.

Well, a lot of work has been done to make the work of quality control volunteers easier.

There is a Monty Python skit, one of my favourites, that starts with a street scene full of people all dress like Superman: striding down the street dressed like Superman; driving cars dressed like Superman; riding bicycles dressed like Superman. I can't remember, maybe there were even children dressed like Superman. It is a world populated solely by Supermen! Then panic! One of the supermen riding a bicycle had his bicycle collapse on him. Other supermen are gathered around, they don't know waht to do. Then we see one superman sneak up to a phone booth, saying "this looks like a job for bicycle-repair-man!" He slips into the phone booth, and then slips into a traditional UK working man's coveralls. He strides over to the crowd surrounding the crippled bicycle, and fixes it, to the awe of the onlooking supermen.

In the skit, in a world of supermen, the ordinary working guy is the individual whose efforts are appreciated. Well, here, on the wikipedia, if quality control volunteers were the limiting factor, and we had all kinds of volunteers adding new content, or keeping existing content up to date, then it would make sense to try to retain every competent quality control volunteer, defer to them, make them feel appreciated, and try to recruit more like them.

But, we are in the opposite situation. It is volunteers who used to enjoy adding content, new content, updated content, that we need more of.

We are all volunteers here. No one is paid. Every good faith contributor works here because they find it personally satisfying. Adding new content is hard work. And when quality control volunteers started to outnumber content creators, started making ill-considered edits, that didn't show fair consideration of the content creators hard work, a lot of those hard-working content creators started to defect. Some quality control volunteers are down-right nasty, have decided their quality control efforts are so important they are no longer obliged to try to be civil. I think this too is a big factor in the mass defection.

Here is what you can do to help.

First, could you please be a lot more careful in your quality control? If we look at the timestamps on the five edits you reverted, we can see how long they worked on those edits. They were almost a brand new contributor, they were drafting content, not merely correcting spelling or grammar. So those five edits took them well over two hours. Well, using Huggle, how long did it take you to revert them? You didn't even have to spend 15 seconds drafting an edit summary. So they may have spent one hundred or two hundred times as long drafting the content as you took reverting it.

I suggest that even if deciding not to use Huggle, so you could revert just the one edit that actually triggered your concern, took you a full minute longer, the time they spent on the edit would still have dwarfed the time they spent drafting those edits. So, why shouldn't Canton's first two hours of contribution have deserved you to have spent a whole extra minute.

Second, if what the wikipedia needs most is more content creating volunteers, not more quality control volunteers, would you consider devoting more of your time to content creation? In this particular case, it may have taken a bit more time, but you could have rewritten whatever passages Canton left which you thought lapsed from NPOV, to where you were satisfied it was neutrally written. Would you please consider this option for all minor lapses from NPOV that trigger your concern?

You seem to be a smart person, who has a good command of English. I am sure you would do fine as a content creating volunteer. If you already sometimes add content, please add more content.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A similar problem arose a week ago. A newbie friend, @Nudgol: called me in a panic. "All that hard work I did disappeared!" It took a few minutes of soft voice to begin straightening out the confusion and restore calm. Later, my studies resulted in a thread at User talk:Nudgol#Why were all my edits deleted?. It turned out my friend had made many small improvements in a few days, especially in references, but had made too few edit summaries and, in particular had inadvertently deleted the infobox in an unsummarized edit. This was the only error so blatant that I could single it out easily (the topic is one in which my ignorance is perfect). So yes, this is another example of a long series of improvements being reverted due to one bad edit.

My recommendation, however, is very different. I give some credence to the notion, somewhat popular in the past few years, that what's bad about Wikipedia is not so much that it is too small but that it is too poor, with sloppy grammar, phony references, redundancy, promotion in the guise of facts, and other classic quality problems. My friend, having an academic background as I do not, caught on quickly to the notion of improving references in a subject area where that problem is especially rife.

Another doctrine on which I occasionally harp is that Wikipedians start our life cycle on the front lines, as adders of content. When we have inserted everything we know that might be encyclopedic, we either quit or move to the background, to support functions such as vandal surveillance, quality control, and discussion of the actions of other editors. (Me, I often correct geographical coordinates, a background job if there ever was one). So, no, I do not recommend that an experience editor shift emphasis away from using powerful, automated tools to catch the errors of other editors. Rather, I recommend doing it better. Take the time to discover just what went wrong, correct that particular problem, and discuss. This approach presumably will take time away from just running the tool, thus it means fewer corrections per week. However, it avoids the high cost of making incorrect corrections that create confusion in the ignorant and resentment in the experienced. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: I'd actually be a rather poor content contributor, due to difficulties with executive dysfunction I have from my developmental disabilities. I'd have a lot of trouble breaking down the steps needed to properly reference and then expand an article. I'd need IRL help to do so, which is near-impossible to obtain. I've decided my specific diagnosis' are irrelevant to the discussion; they're on my user page, anyways.

What I'm trying to say is, I'll always be "in the background", as Jim.henderson would say, which is fine. I can expect people to put up with that. After all, without "non-content editors" like myself, content editors would have to spend time doing non-content editing instead of, excuse my repetitiveness, content editing. They'd have to clean up vandalism, and correct typing/spelling and grammar mistakes instead of focusing on the big picture like they need to do.

I've recently increased my huggle use, and then decreased it when you and I started having the discussion. I'm sure my error:not-error is still okay, even when errors increase due to increased usage. I'm always open to discussion about any issues that arise from my huggle use. I'm not open to be accused of non-transparency, biting newcomers, etc. when I've helped out newcomers in very transparent, provable ways in the past (responding to questions asked here, with {{helpme}}, and in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC).

And yes, I'll learn from this. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear that. I know it ain't easy, with WP:SOCKs and other pesky charlatans busily sowing confusion. Genuine newbies seldom understand any of the ways to call for help; usually they just see that their work has mysteriously disappeared. They feel bitten, and disappear silently themselves. Best bet, maybe, is to give the warning on their talk page a day or two before the revert. Even that is not very reliable; it requires noticing the orange bar at the top of the window. I have sat next to new editors as they steamed along, completely oblivious to it. Everyone is accustomed to Twitter, Facebook and other sites that do this better. Heck, a quarter century ago, I was operating a PCBoard BBS that did this kind of thing better than MediaWiki does, but we're trying to use encyclopedia software for social networking and it's costing us many potential contributors. Anyway, it's good to know you're thinking carefully about it. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from User:RashleighJ)

Hi I dream of horses, I hope I have done this correctly. I 'really' am new to Talk. Thank you for moving my post to Drafts. I was not sure how to do that myself. Hopefully as I progress with creating drafts my understanding will improve.

Thank you. RashleighJ (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RashleighJ: You seem willing to learn, so there's some level of hope for you here. You are welcome!

I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Spowellschall

Hi - I'm newish to editing Wikipedia pages and just took the time to update our organization's content. I truly don't understand what issue you found with this. I stated company info, cited what our company does and updated our Board members. I also linked information included to various websites or cited sources. If you can do me the favor of giving me some direction, that would be greatly appreciated. I spent about 1.5 hours editing to then have you revert those edits in 2 seconds. Thanks for your help. Spowellschall (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hello Spowelschall, and welcome to Wikipedia. As I'm sure you know, we are an encyclopedia, and as such hope to maintain a neutral point of view. (It's even one of our 5 pillars!) If you don't understand how the content you added is promotional, I will include a small chart below detailing the issues, and will mark in bold the highly promotional bits. (Mostly all of your edit was promotional)

Original	Your Revision
"facilitates the transfer of foreclosed and abandoned properties from financial institutions nationwide to local housing organizations to promote property reuse and neighborhood stability"	"works to restore vacant and abandoned properties to productive use and protect neighborhoods from blight. NCST's programs facilitate the rehabilitation of vacant but structurally sound homes, enable safe, targeted demolition when necessary, and support creative and productive re-use of vacant land"
"The Trust's goal is to help local community development organizations, land banks, and other mission-focused nonprofit or municipal organizations acquire, manage, rehabilitate..."	"NCST offers a unique blend of policy expertise and on-the-ground experience working with local partners that include community development organizations, land banks, and other mission-focused nonprofit or municipal organizations that acquire, manage, rehabilitate..."
"Since its pilot, the Stabilization Trust has expanded its program to 115 NSP-funded local buyers representing more than 250 localities across 38 states."	"Since its launch, NCST has expanded its programs and now partners with more than 600 local buyers across the U.S. and has conveyed more than $1.5 billion in real estate back to the community through local housing providers."
The Stabilization Trust helps state and local programs acquire foreclosed and abandoned properties from financial institutions through its REO Property Acquisition Program by:	"NCST supports neighborhoods and fights blight through these key activities:"

The examples above are just the ones that stood out the most. Both lists that you created were incredibly promotional in content, and did not maintain a encyclopedic tone; I.e. you used the word "we" and "our" to refer to the NCST. Remember, if you're being paid to edit (working for the company counts), you must disclose this. See WP:COIDISCLOSE for more information. Furthermore, the article in it's current state, without your edit, is promotional as well. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to this message below. Thanks, _{Vermont | reply here} 23:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

Wishing I dream of horses a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from 75.82.213.48

Did you really just try and 'thought-police' the article I was editing? lol not quite sure what were are doing, but you work pretty fast for a subject you have absolutely no knowledge in... Are instant reverts of IPs typical here on Wikipedia? Please exercise more caution in the future, or perhaps find something else to do? Please better explain the revert you made, I really want to hear this :) 75.82.213.48 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

75.82.213.48 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, since your edits removed content and replaced it with unreferenced and shorter versions of it, I'd say that this user's revert to your changes seem fine to me... especially when you just explain them as "removing troll bs" - what do you even mean when you say that? Maybe instead of telling this user to find something better to do, you might instead start by explaining your edits and why they're necessary as well... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, you cannot possibly be any more predictable. This is all too hilarious. Everything written about Wikipedia, literally everything on encyclopedia dramatica is actually true!! Also, Aeon Flux is the most superior anime. Much better than the filth created by people in the UK and then outsourced to Japan. Come to think of it, I honestly don't believe the Japanese even have the capability to produce their own content. Let me make something very clear to you, I can give you the entertainment you seek, though, it will entirely be at your expense. You really have no clue :) 75.82.213.48 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the content in question here. If it's indeed untrue and needed removal, then I'll happily concede and get the hell out of your way so you can continue fixing things. I just want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to review and discuss this, and that we make the right decisions here and with benefiting the project as our top-most priority :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the content as it was seems questionable in places... I'll just follow up with the fact that you need to provide references with the content you're changing (especially this kind) - you cannot "be lazy" (as you said in one of your edit summaries) and skip that part... if your future edits to the article all include references to reliable sources verifying that what you're changing is in fact correct, I'll stay out of your way and you won't hear a peep from me. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Hi, Hi thanks for the heads-up about leaving explanations. I will elaborate there, but intend to stick by those changes.Profarch (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message from David The Dank

Hello. I require you assistance with something. Back in 2012, you had a correspondence with the user Havabighed. I am trying to find out either A)Who he/she is or B) how to contact them. They made a statement about a book, and I want to ask them for more information because they claim to know the author personally. I do not know if they really do, but I loved the book, and I figured it's worth a shot. Thank you. David The Dank (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC) David The Dank[reply]

@David The Dank: They haven't edited in over a year and a half, so I wouldn't know how to contact them. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you happen to know how/where I can find their account information (like how you found out that they haven't edited in over a year)? David The Dank (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)David The Dank[reply]

@David The Dank: I dream of horses used Havabighed's contributions page.

That user does not have their account connected to an email address, so there is no further means of contacting them.

Also, you should read WP:OUTING. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: I doubt David The Dank meant to violate any policies. I'm guessing you assumed this as well, but I just wanted to be clear. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I figured they just didn't know that we can't/don't say who editors are (unless an editor says who they are first). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

Moved award here

@Doc James: So, you're telling me that I managed to revert enough vandalism in medical articles that I got in the top 250. Interesting trivia, I suppose. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. You made over 250 edits to medical articles in 2017 :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sci-Hub

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sci-Hub. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]