Jump to content

User talk:K6ka/Archives/2014/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Top | Talk page (new message) | Userpage | Contributions | User log | Global account | Guestbook
Current time (in UTC): 17:11, 22 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
Current time (in EST): 12:11, 22 November 2024 EST [refresh]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Changing Name

Changing name from Americhem to Aubrey Barto

Yes, I am aware and fine with using that name. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americhem (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi,

I want Emilio de la Morena to have a page but I cannot create one due to conflict of interest and I am having some difficulties with the formatting. Could someone create a page for me? The content is up but it would have to be reviewed so its not bias. Links and citations are already up.

Thanks EmiliodelaMorena (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EmiliodelaMorena. You might want to try the Articles for Creation process. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

I don't know how you got to Pete K's discussion on Talk:Waldorf education, but his comments were in flagrant violation of WP:OUTING. That's why they are being removed. HGilbert (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HGilbert: I stumbled across the discussion while on recent changes patrol. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Deleting My Edits to the JBS Page Until You Respond to My Posts!

Back in March you deleted my edits to the Birch Society page with the same generic “they don’t seem neutral to me” blurb you used this week. At that time I posted a nice, detailed response that you did not respond to. After some weeks of silence on your part, I gave you the unearned benefit of the doubt, edited what already seemed like neutral comments to make absolutely sure they were neutral by any objective standard, and posted them. You quickly deleted my comments again without any attempt at elaborating on the “reason.” I posted another, nice, detailed explanation of my edits (immediately below) and requested that you consider it and respond to me before making any further edits. I waited many weeks for you to respond. When you did not, I re-posted the same basic edit and you immediately deleted it with the same generic “don’t seem neutral to me” nonsense. I have better things to do than figure out how to report you to whoever monitors these types of disagreements (I am not that savvy with the Wiki format for edits and comments), but I will if you dare to delete any more of my edits to the Birch page without first reading my very reasonable, detailed explanation and responding with some sort of justification. I’ll give you a few weeks to respond; if you don't, I will report you before re-posting my edit. Here’s a slightly edited version of my previous message about your two prior deletions:

Hi Katieh, A few weeks ago you deleted two sentences I added to the JBS page and posted a nice note explaining that you didn’t think my edits were neutral. I responded to your edit very quickly, but never got a reply back. Yesterday I re-posted one of the two sentences that you deleted, but it was quickly deleted again. I don't know if it was you again or not. I do not want to be involved in an editing war, but I do expect at least an attempt from whoever deletes what I post to weigh my thoughts and respond to defend their action. Given your mature, friendly attitude in other Wiki discussions page and the fact that I don't see my first reply to you here, I assume I made a mistake and you never saw it because I am just getting familiar with joining the talking/editing discussions and stumbling through the process. (In particular I don't know how to insert footnotes or even insert text near an existing footnote, which makes editing a challenge for me.) Anyway, here's my original response:

Hi Katieh, I'm Brian. I respect your view but would appreciate you considering my response to it and taking the time to reply with more thoughts. There are lots of reasons to criticize the society, but there are lots of lies spread about it as well. I understand why they are considered a political advocacy group and won’t quibble with that edit you made - they definitely want to affect the political process. That said, they do not endorse parties or candidates, they focus on educating people about the Constitution and their interpretation of it and history. I think it would be fair, neutral, and helpful for the public to know that.

I do not understand why you deleted my note that, while they are considered radical right by some, they often agree with liberals and the even more progressive left, is not fair, neutral, and helpful for the public. When most people think of the "radical right" they instinctively think of the religious right and Republican Party. Yet the JBS has been consistently and vehemently critical the GOP on foreign policy and corporate welfare for decades, and their suggestions are to move towards the center, i.e. our Constitution, not the radical right. Would providing a long list of citations make a difference, or do you have another perspective that you can help me to understand?

It is my firm conviction that the mainstream politicians on both halves of the political coin have some strong, tangible differences, but generally agree that they don't want to rock the boat and stem the flow of power and money to DC, where they both feed at the trough. It seems obvious to me that both benefit by keeping average Americans divided and conquered. Like me, the JBS actually respects principled socialist people such as Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich and agrees with them about many problems even though they disagree strongly about how to resolve them. Creating an artificial box called the "radical right" seems to prevent the building of the bridges we need to broker the practical, common sense political compromises that I personally have devoted my life to.

For the record, if forced to use the artificial, flat, "right vs left" political labels, the JBS is more right wing than left because of gay marriage and abortion, but on the vast majority of issues they stand with me on the high moral and intellectual high ground here in the Constitutional center - I’d prefer to move to the more dynamic and useful political map used here: http://theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php (Disclaimer: the questions seem to be designed to produce a high % of libertarian answers; I’d like to see a much longer list.)

Best, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.166.173 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your response because your talk page wasn't on my watchlist... and even if it was I seldom look at my watchlist anyways. You can ping users by adding {{ping|<username>}} before your comments. This alerts them quickly.
I am somewhat confused by your "back in March you deleted edits to Birch Society"... firstly, that's incorrect wording. Edits can only be deleted by administrators, and I am not one. We revert edits, which is restoring the contents of a previous revision. Your edits are still in the page history, accessible and viewable.
Secondly, I only reverted one of your edits to John Birch Society. Katieh5584 was the one who reverted your edits way back in March. You are barking up the wrong tree, not to mention accusing the wrong user. I reverted your edit yesterday, and both the revert plus the message on your talk page was performed by a semi-automatic program I was using, and I didn't see your message on the talk page.
Thirdly, you were reverted a couple of other times by other editors. Here is one of them, made by DoctorJoeE. DoctorJoeE advised you to see the talk page of the article. On Wikipedia, we advise editors to resolve the issue via consensus first, before they continue to edit.
Fourthly... where are you going to report me? What policy did I violate? What did I do wrong? You can't simply report users just because you disagree with their edits - in that case, try dispute resolution first. Administrative action is at a second-last resort; Arbitration is at an extreme last resort. We don't jump to Supreme Court over accidentally driving over an old lady's foot with a car. I did not give you a response because at the time I wasn't even involved. Put down the pitchfork and torches and calm down before threatening other users. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?

How on Earth is putting a standard location map in the infobox [1] a vandalim?[2] !? --80.7.87.151 (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, might've been a glitch in the diff reporting software I was using. I reverted my edit, seems to be a false positive on ClueBot NG as well. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reg largest cities

how did he made largest cities by area as he neglected many cities which are larger than the last city. if we take visakhapatnam it has area of 681 sq.km— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuva simha 7 (talk • contribs)

Discussion for an article should go on its talk page, not in the article itself. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why did my message got erased? I didnt say anything wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.84.47.47 (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All additions to Wikipedia should be backed up by a citation. Yours lacked a supportive citation, so I removed it. It also seemed to be poorly worded. The phrase "the big human cruelty on the world that is called women" is extremely sexist and doesn't agree with our neutral point of view policy. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Apology About Birch Society Reverts; Explanation; Request

K6ka, thank you for your reply; it explained the situation and now I understand. I apologize for my confusion, and hope you realize my mistake was an honest one. Given that my remarks were addressed to “Katieh” and you are not Katieh, you might have realized that I didn’t even know to whom I was writing. As I clearly explained in my post, editing is a challenge for me because I am just getting familiar with joining the talking/editing discussions and stumbling through the process. When I said I would “report you to whoever monitors these types of disagreements” I had no idea that in the WikiWorld that is the equivalent of involving the Supreme Court – I thought it was like going to the teacher to report a problem with another student so that the teacher could mediate the dispute; now, thanks to your helpful explanation, I know it’s called dispute resolution.

I think consensus is a fine method to filter Wiki entries, but I don’t have much time to learn the ropes and try to get the Birch page improved. If you care about objectivity, I hope you can put my inadvertent indiscretion behind you and invest a few minutes to start a discussion about my simple edit to the JBS page. I can't fathom how my simple, factual edit constituted vandalism in your mind, even to a semi-automatic program. Would you please reconsider it? There is a widespread impression that the Birch Society is “radical right.” When most people think of the "radical right" they instinctively think of the religious right and Republican Party. I can supply you with endless examples of the fact that the JBS has been consistently and vehemently critical the GOP for decades both for doling our billions in corporate welfare and for waging unconstitutional military operations, both overt and covert, all over the world. On both of these issues they align with the progressive left (though they would part with the left on what to do once the troops were home). Did you know this? If it is true, don’t you agree it is worth noting on the Wiki page? (I can supply endless links directly to their website and literature to prove this to you, but you’ll have to email me because I’m done trying to learn how to navigate Wiki for now – [email protected]) 67.189.166.173 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have no interest in the subject of this article and only came across it while on recent changes patrol. In addition to that, I don't contact people via e-mail over the Internet. If you are confused, you might want to take the Introduction to Wikipedia, which will guide you through the basics of editing, and if you have any additional questions, you can ask them at the Teahouse. The best suggestion I can give you is to bring the discussion over to the article's talk page and work it out there. You can use the {{Talkback}} template for involved editors to alert them (instructions on how to use the template is included in the template page; it's labelled "Template documentation"). Consensus is indeed how we here at Wikipedia resolve editing disputes. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hi there K6, AL from Portugal "here",

noticed your exchange with a fellow user (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistico#Question), only stumbled upon it by chance since i was not notified to defend/apologize myself in the proper timeframe in any way.

I have done now so (also in their page), but i'm almost certain as to what will happen, not because of Mistico themselves but because it has happened to me umpteen times: messaged removed summarily, without one word of feedback. Yes, i know my summaries are idiotic sometimes, but apologizing for one's shortcomings of character or similar is better than nothing i believe. The fact that i am an undiagnosed/unmedicated bipolar also does not help much, unfortunately.

Attentively --AL (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Always Learning: ...now that was from a long time ago. I almost don't remember it. Anyways, thanks for the information. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beans

Hi k6ka. In my view, your most recent comment at the Twinkle talk page fell afoul of WP:BEANS; there are reasons, established over many years, for non-autoconfirmed users not being permitted to use Twinkle. As the saying goes, "don't give them ideas" – some people are very impressionable. Could I urge you to remove or refactor this comment? — This, that and the other (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: I thought something was wrong... removed. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right- Craig Charles

I went to school with Craig and he was in the year below me. I was born in 1961, so there is no way he can be born in 1964. Get your facts right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NothingButTrouble (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My facts? This isn't even my website. That is an example of original research which we do not accept. All information on Wikipedia must be supported by a citation to a reliable source. The source in the article said it was 1964, and your changes didn't match it.
Don't throw a temper tantrum over this - it's just the way we operate. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose State University Page

How do you find out about edits on pages? Why do you have interest in changing anything pertaining to SJSU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:B000:885:B804:6145:E198:A7C1 (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually run across pages while on recent changes patrol, and I edit to help the article comply with our editing guidelines. My field of interest is not limited to a set of pages, but to Wikipedia as a whole. You can see my contributions page and see the large variety of pages I edit. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Response

Hi!

You recently commented on my page that I removed accurate information on the Sadie Robertson page, however this information is false and I have removed it once again. Information: Sadie runs a YouTube channel entitled The "New Different" with Preachers Daughters star Kolby Koloff; Sadie no longer runs this page due to her busy life style.

Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Editor0517--Editor 0517 (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it certainly would be helpful if you left an edit summary explaining why you remove content, since it helps recent changes patrollers know that you're removing sourced information for a reason (unexplained removal is a very common vandal tactic! bear with us vandal fighters as the job can get stressful at times!) --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Testing protein box bot

Please do not revert my edits for the day on Template EC 1828. I am testing a new version of ProteinBoxBot and work at TSRI in Andrew Su's lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.131.59.112 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the template used on any pages? If it is, use the sandbox instead. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edit to Castle Point Constituency page.

Hi K6 - thanks for your edit. I agree that showing my name Joe Cooke is preferable to showing my Wiki Username (Joepcooke). I was hoping it would show up in blue as a link to my newly created page of that User name (Joepcooke). If you can help achieve this, I'd be grateful. Best wishes - Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joepcooke (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links should typically point to a Wikipedia article, not a user page. That ensures all links point to notable entries only. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, K6ka/Archives/2014/June. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by John from Idegon (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Gennaro Gattuso

No, I think it was constructive because I wanted to make up the entire page again because I feel it portrayed him wrongly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youthteam (talk • contribs) 13:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. You removed a large portion of sourced content without explanation. Also, replacing the intro with "Italian" is seen as unconstructive, since every article needs to start out with a lead. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ResearchGate from PSC1951

Hi,

This us my first Wiki edit so I probably did not have the right tone. All I really wanted to say about ResearchGate is that contributors misrepresent themselves and provide erroneous answers to sincere questions. Just as one must be aware that ResearchGate sends posts to co-authors that appear to be from the co-authors themselves, which is dishonest but they also have no way to control the manner in which people misrepresent themselves. About these dishonest practices, I do not know how to be neutral.

I do not resent having the post removed although I do repectfully disagree with the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSC1951 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue needs to be reported on by a different source - see WP:RELIABLESOURCE for what might be appropriate. In addition, your changes appear to include original research and possibly speculation, which Wikipedia prohibits. Do find a source that supports your statement. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014

The character formatting menu

Did you know?

The character formatting menu, or "Style text" menu lets you set bold, italic, and other text styles. "Clear formatting" removes all text styles and removes links to other pages.

Do you think that clear formatting should remove links? Are there changes you would like to see for this menu? Share your opinion at MediaWiki.org.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

The VisualEditor team is mostly working to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

  • They have moved the "Keyboard shortcuts" link out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Within dialog boxes, buttons are now more accessible (via the Tab key) from the keyboard.
  • You can now see the target of the link when you click on it, without having to open the inspector.
  • The team also expanded TemplateData: You can now add a parameter type "date" for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format, and "boolean" for values which are true or false. Also, templates that redirect to other templates (like {{citeweb}} → {{cite web}}) now get the TemplateData of their target (bug 50964). You can test TemplateData by editing mw:Template:Sandbox/doc.
  • Category: and File: pages now display their contents correctly after saving an edit (bug 65349, bug 64239)
  • They have also improved reference editing: You should no longer be able to add empty citations with VisualEditor (bug 64715), as with references. When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to replace it with another reference instead.
  • It is now possible to edit inline images with VisualEditor. Remember that inline images cannot display captions, so existing captions get removed. Many other bugs related to images were also fixed.
  • You can now add and edit {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and __DISAMBIG__ in the "Page options" menu, rounding out the full set of page options currently planned.
  • The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler.

Looking ahead

The VisualEditor team has posted a draft of their goals for the next fiscal year. You can read them and suggest changes on MediaWiki.org.

The team posts details about planned work on VisualEditor's roadmap. You will soon be able to drag-and-drop text as well as images. If you drag an image to a new place, it won't let you place it in the middle of a paragraph. All dialog boxes and windows will be simplified based on user testing and feedback. The VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for citations. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments and adding rows and columns to tables.

Supporting your wiki

Please read VisualEditor/Citation tool for information on configuring the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". This menu will not appear unless it has been configured on your wiki.

If you speak a language other than English, we need your help with translating the user guide. The guide is out of date or incomplete for many languages, and what's on your wiki may not be the most recent translation. Please contact me if you need help getting started with translation work on MediaWiki.org.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 21:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas and Pacific Islands) or on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 9:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East, Asia).

To change your subscription to this newsletter, please see the subscription pages on Meta or the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some untitled message

SUYASH IS A FREAKING CRIMINAL! Don't trust this guy, or his accomplice K6ka! I accuse these criminals of being mildly obsessed launching squirrels into orbit via plywood catapults. Such a crime in unforgivable and these crooks should by punished by being mislead into thinking that they are going to a hot awesome rave party, but in actuality are being lead to a Justin Beiber fan club party filled with copious amounts of partially brain dead humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.227.111 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about. All additions on Wikipedia must be sourced and cannot involve original research or speculation. Also, don't attack other people. Wikipedia is not a battleground and we are here to report on information, not to get people arrested. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Edition of Cempaka Cheras School page

Hello K6ka, We personally think that reverting our edit on the page was wrong. Some of it may have been vandalism but the rest of the information was true. The specific things that were true were about the staff of Cempaka. Tradition has gone out the window ever since big bucks were involved in the school fees and the fact that you care about this wiki page leads me into believing that you are either a student or aber of staff at Cempaka Cheras. If you are, you should know that what we wrote was true. If you never found out about the things that go on in Cempaka I don't think you're qualified to be supervising this page. Thanks ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokes4fun (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, read our policy on original research. All additions to a Wikipedia article must be sourced by reliable sources. Your changes were not sourced at all, nor were they written in a neutral point of view. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


A source has not even been listed by you, doesn't that mean your information on the school cannot be proven to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokes4fun (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jokes4fun: There was one source provided - the school website. This edit was pretty evident that it was unconstructive, and it really had no sources compared to the information already in the article. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K6ka/Archives/2014/June&oldid=1067698997"