User talk:Khukri/archive10

←Archive 9 (401 - 450)

Khukri's talk archive 10 (451 - 500). Please do not modify

Archive 11 (501 - 550)→

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-mos3

Template:Uw-mos3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 07:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

deleting changes from gblindmann on Multi-touch article

Dear Khukri,

I'm new here, please clarify me - What did I do wrong? - Why you deleted my changes? From my point of view: - Terms "MAC OS" and "Windows 7" etc. are "Operation System's". - For term "software" fits better "application ". If it is true, please restore my changes. Thanks in advance Gennadi Gblindmann (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gennadi,

I should have left you a message why I reverted your edit but got sidetracked, so sorry.

The first reason was it was just a list of software you added, one of the guidelines of wikipedia is that we don't just list all pertinent information unless that list in itself has encyclopedic interest. If you wanted to list all of these as multi-touch it would be better to use categories. Secondly and minor was the edit was not done in the same style as other wikipedia articles using HTML coding with tabs which broke the page, though it works isn't necessarily accepted. Any problems just give me a shout and we can work through it. Regards ^Khukri 09:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Khukri,

I agree with you on all of your points!

User user:R. S. Shawhas found some Cyrillic characters in my list too.

I planned on rewriting my changes. After that you can review it once more.

Thanks for your help.

With best regards from Munich

Gennadi Gblindmann (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Khukri,

I rewrite my changes.

Please review it once more.

Thanks for your help.

With best regards from Munich

Gennadi Gblindmann (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hi there. I edited a page on wikipedia which you appear to have "undone". The specific edit I made was authoritative. I have absolute (physical and printed) proof of the accuracy of this. I can take this to any degree of audit and reference checking in the scientific community. Yet I find that you deleted my edits from wikipedia.

I can provide more details on my questions, but before I do that, how or where do I get to know WHY you removed my edits? Is there an explanation somewhere on wikipedia before someone removes another person's edits?

Thanks Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmehta0 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I reverted it for two reason, primarily it wasn't reliably sourced and secondly because your username looks very similar to the name you are inserting in articles. Now this is a common vandalism trait, kids putting their own name in articles, and if it is genuine starts to raise questions on conflict of interest and autobiography. Have a read of the links, and let me know if you require any help or guidance. Regards ^Khukri 06:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I understand. I am not very familiar with the rules of wikipedia edits. I did make the edit but the edits are accurate and truthful. The work that I reference was published as a Master's Thesis at University of Toronto. When it was published, in 1982, there was no (commercial) internet and the thesis has not been digitized by the University. However I have a copy of the thesis, and a video recording of the work from back then, and so does the school. How do I get this proof across to you, and would it be adequate to get this published?

Thanks much for your help!

Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Nimish Mehta Nmehta0 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't replied sooner, similar to the post below, posting information about yourself is seriously frowned upon within Wikipedia, the difference with yourself is that alot of this information is verifiable and can be easily found on the web. If it is valid someone else "hint hint" will eventually include it other than yourself with links to sources that can demonstrate that you developed this system. Regards ^Khukri 08:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Safety of the LHC

Dear Khukri,

I'm puzzled. Earlier I added external links to the wiki page about CERN's Large Hadron Collider. I got a message saying that my content belonged to the wiki page "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider", so I added the links to this page instead. Also, I added some text. However, my text and my links, you deleted. After corresponding with Otto Rössler regarding the safely of the LHC, I wrote the articles I linked to, and I consider them to be a valuable contribution to the debate. Why did you delete them?

I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks.

All the best, Stefan Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.4 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article uses reliably sourced information for it's content, and the main criteria for this is the peer review process, which your content doesn't meet. There are a number of guidelines to stop people adding their thoughts to Wikipedia, such as WP:SPS, WP:V most notably WP:REDFLAG, and publishing your own blog on wikipedia also falls into WP:COI. Anyone can create a blog saying X will destroy the world, but without a third party (peer review) verifying those claims, it would be remiss of Wikipedia to include these ideas, as basic scare mongering with no background in science. Otto Rossler is only in the article due to the fact he gained some notability through his efforts in trying to stop the LHC in the media, and certainly isn't due to his knowledge of high energy physics, and has been thrown out of every court in the land. He also never taken his ideas to be reviewed though having repeatedly told to do so, and has been discredited with having flaws in the basic understanding of physics. Currently there is no debate, Otto Rossler, Walter Wagner, Luis Sanchez, Rainer Plaga, all have gained media exposure for their ideas, yet not one has taken their ideas for peer review. To be included in the debate, could I suggest that you submit your paper for peer review, and at that juncture I'm sure the guys in the know at CERN will certainly start taking notice. Regards ^Khukri 08:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Friend Khukri. Thanks for helping to welcome Hansen, who appears to be generally a reasonable fellow and a promising WP editor. Maybe we will learn something from him.... Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi again,

May you please look at here and check it. I am suspicious that this is case of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WP:RFCU is where you should take this. Sorry I can't be of any help. ^Khukri 20:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Tsitsernavank Monastery

Dear Khukri,

Regarding Tsitsernavank Monastery. Some editors are trying to show this monastery inside country that is not officially regocnized by any country. Officially this monastery is situated in Lachin, Azerbaijan. I ask you to take some actions as an administrator, in order to prevent such misleading edits in Wikipedia. Regards, Verman1 (talk)

Hi. You have protected wrong version of this article. I reverted it to initial version. Can you please protect it, so that no more vandalism will be applied in this article? Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Verman1 has been engaging in multiple edit wars on various articles. He does not discuss his edits but demands that other editors do.--Moosh88 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed myself from those discussions, as both sides are incapable of discussing edits and instantly assume bad faith, whilst demanding for third party sources while not providing any. The arguments are being cherry picked to suit each side, and not to find concensus. Take this is WP:AE ^Khukri 07:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gandzasar monastery

Hi Khukri,

Can you please have a look here [1] and see if you can resolve this matter, as I think that current version of the article is obviously one-sided. I am trying to do my best to show good will in order not to begin edit-warring, but many facts in the article are simply unacceptable. Regards, --Verman1 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may, "It is possible that village name Vank came from word Aghvank." The word Vank means monastery at least since the first manuscripts of the seventh century, that's not the village name, it's the name of the monastery (Vank), monasteries gave their names to their villages, that's even known by the lay man. Choose any Grabar (old Armenian) or even modern either Eastern or Western Armenian dictionary and you will have your traduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidovler (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

/hi/ is it acceptable for Verman to never capitilize the first letter of the word Armenian, when he capatilize it for every other language and ethnic group? tks. Vidovler (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If things like capitalisation are going to upset you I would suggest you steer clear of these discussions as it gets far worse than that. ^Khukri 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Khukri,

Could you please comment on the following:

RfC: Is Polukhov's statement worth being kept in the article?

Thanks in advance. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, as I've said previously neither side in these discussion are willing to listen, and they will only read the parts that favour their partisan position and ignore that which supports anything different. I do not have the time to become embroiled right now. Good luck. ^Khukri 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-npa1

Template:Uw-npa1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Egg on my face!

Hi K, In the revision history for Global warming you may have noticed that I admonished you to read the revision history accurately. Passing by it again myself just now I suddenly realized....... I'm the guy that read it wrong. Sorry! Dopey me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all I guessed that was what had happened. They're a tetchy area at the best of times but I keep an eye on them for flyby crusaders from both sides of the arguments, thanks for the apology though, a real rarity these days on Wikipedia. :) Cheers ^Khukri 05:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Of interest?

Posted by User:SunKing2 on Portal:Current events/2011 July 23 *CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produces notable fluctuations in search for Higgs Boson particle. (BBC News) 99.56.122.17 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info. This isn't the first time that they've seen a two sigma event, Atlas had a paper leaked a couple of months ago which created a furore over a 115 GeV Higgs that was in the end nothing. It may warrant inclusion into the LHC article due to notability that the media has picked up on it, but personally I would just leave it for now until the findings were more definitive or it had a higher probability. Cheers ^Khukri 17:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for the Talk:Watts Up With That? comments ...

Thanx for the Talk:Watts Up With That? comments ... specifically at Talk:... Why Richard A. Muller ... May 25. 2011 Scientific American. I've added at hat/hab. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all. It's clear that you are knowledgeable about Wikipedia it's ways, practices etc. Though Wikipedia is designed specifically that anyone can edit it, I think with respect to the environmental/climate articles it is advantageous to have an account. Build up a history so to speak as some of my fellow editors/admins forget the basic tenets on civility etc, when dealing with IPs. The general rule of thumb is that IPs have a more POV pushing agenda, come in, offload a handgrenade and then move on. There are a number of editors on either side of the AGW debate that have accounts and can debate in a manner befitting Wikipedia, without letting their personal POV show through (it should be noted, there are also some that can't). There are a number of reasons to have an account, and unfortunately as I said before a lot of editors don't have time for IPs (not saying it's right). Anyway whatever you decide, happy editing. ^Khukri 07:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your thoughtful words. Happy editing. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mossevans.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mossevans.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Health crisis

Taken from talkpage Hi there, I've reverted your the inclusion your new article Health crisis into all the article that you recently added it. There are a number of the issues with the new article that other users have been put on the main page, which I suggest are resolved prior to linking it to well established article. It should also be noted that a lot of the articles you targeted have a very tenuous link to your new article, and the mass addition of your article into the see also could be seen as trying to promote it's notability, via what links here. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. Regards ^Khukri 14:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Estimado Khukri:

Disculpa que te conteste en español, pero mi inglés escrito no es muy fluido. Gracias por tus indicaciones sobre el artículo Health crisis. Estoy siguiendo tus indicaciones, y las de los otros usuarios de Wikipedia. Ya he argumentado en el apartado Discussion porqué creo que Healht crisis no debe incluirse dentro de Epidemic. He ampliado los casos y la bibliografía sobre situaciones concretas de crisis sanitarias. Por desgracia, son muy frecuentes y afectan a la salud de muchas personas en todo el mundo. Mi intención al poner los enlaces ha sido aproximarlo con otros artículos relacionados, no para conseguir notabilidad. Agradecería que para mejorarlo se revisara la sintaxis y la ortografía inglesa del artículo. Por favor, si consideras oportuno algún otro cambio, indícamelo. Un cordial saludo:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Raimondo,

No problems at all, Spanish isn't one of my main languages, either English or French please in future though I understand the basis of your post. I have no intentions of touching the Health Crisis article and I draw no conclusions about notability of the subject itself, though as you noted I would suggest you strengthen that article with reliable sources, English preferably prior to looking to spread the article. Regards ^Khukri 16:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Khukri:

Thank you for your comments. Friendly:Raimundo Pastor (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates for deletion .. re wp:npa

I'm pretty shocked about the number of attacks on the person who made the nominations, especially that the initial comment was a pretty clear ad hominem attack by User:Saravask which went almost totally unoticed. And the number of people who commented but don't appear to have even read the nominators rational, or the red text on Template:Cquote which clearly states not to use for quotes, and the number of editors who (from their comments) haven't even bothered to find out what a pull quote is.

Yes, editors have a right to create new style protocols through consensus, and I think the deleted nomination was misguided. What is really disappointing is that nobody had the balls to say "hey, I was adding the template because it thought it looked good and trying to make the article I was working on look great, I had no idea it was supposed to be only for pull quotes.." - but I'm long in the tooth enough to know that this is the explanation for many of the good faith additions of this template.

The argument that this article (Pull quote) is "confusing and difficult to understand" doesn't hold any water - it's just another example of "not my fault - I can't hear your arguments" mentality where every error is someone elses fault.

At some point editors need to find out just how unacceptable their behaviour actually is in real life - the original comment by User:67.101.5.104 is essentially vile, sarcastic and cowardly. quote: " the editing community would be better off if Gadget850 spent time improving the short and reference-free article on pull quotes, so that editors and readers alike could be enlightened by his proscriptive understanding of the topic." That's a personal attack - essentially a taunt using sarcasm. Any real person can see that/

If you can propose a way of demonstrating to these people that impolite behaviour (on the internet) is just as bad as doing it in real life (without sinking to their level) - I'd would like to hear it. I'm sick of having to read the disfunctional crap people spout (more often than not in !vote opportunities). I don't want to insult people, but I don't want to be exposed to people acting like total asshats either.. (Sorry for the rant) Imgaril (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Imgaril, Thank you for your measured reply. I fully appreciate your frustration when dealing with editors who do not have the same values as yourself. But as you say resorting to their level will never win and I apologies if you think I singled you out, I only scan read the discussions and yours stood out from the mire so to speak for the wording of your response. I fully agree that the subject needs to be discussed in greater detail and if you look at my response I specifically mentioned that if editors value it's inclusion on purely aesthetic value then that is something that should be discussed and is in my opinion not a reason that cannot be discussed. I just felt that TFD is not the correct place for it and the should be discussed in detail at possibly MOS, and certainly the documentation should be re-written to clearly describe each templates correct usage. No problems for the rant I've had far worse and less eloquent. Regards ^Khukri 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.Imgaril (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Khukri. You have new messages at Waldir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Khukri. You have new messages at Visuall's talk page.
Message added : Hi Cheers, both File:CNGS layout.jpg and File:OPERA_experiment.png are in OTRS pending. Thanks, Visuall (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion of Rober Haddeciyan

Hello there,

I noticed that you removed my speedy tag for Rober Haddeciyan as seven minutes between creation the tagging was insufficient. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this -- are you saying that seven minutes is too long a time for it to be eligible for speedy deletion? If so, could you please direct me to the WP article that states this rule? I did look over WP:SPEEDY, but did not find mention of such a rule. Also, if this is the case, what is the "time limit", as it were? Thanks. – Richard BB 22:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no such rule, but an editor trying to find their way round Wikipedia should be given the benefit of the doubt whilst trying to create an article that may eventually meet our guidelines and an editor of a newspaper might hold some promise of notability. I'm not saying it will, but if it's clear that the article isn't a spam/attack or promotional piece then my personal opinion is give it a bit of time before deleting it as there's no reward in deterring potential editors. Where it's not blatant what is the harm in waiting a few days with a prod? Please do not take my refusal as a critique of your assessment, every editor has a different set of values and that doesn't devalue your efforts. I hope this answers your question. Regards ^Khukri 22:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the clarification, and thank you for your message to my talk page. I, of course, do not take any offence to your decision, and appreciate the feedback. Happy editing! – Richard BB 22:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Location of CNGS

While the ejection point from the SPS protons is below the BA4 building on the French side (46°14′55″N 06°04′08″E), this map shows the target chamber where we get the pions & kaons and the decay tunnel all located at the Swiss side. I think it is fair to say that the CNGS facility, like much of CERN, straddles the Franco-Swiss border.  --Lambiam 15:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, I only think of it from the access point of view, but you are right. ^Khukri 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Template testing

Hi Khukri,

I wanted to let you know that Steven Walling and I have been running some A/B tests on user warning templates used by Huggle, to determine whether changing the content of their message has an effect on the recipient (read about it in more detail here and here). We've done two rounds of testing with the level 1 vandalism warning and are getting ready to move on to all level 1 Huggle warnings. Our redesigned draft templates are here:

1. {{uw-test1-rand}}
2. {{uw-delete1-rand}}
3. {{uw-npov1-rand}}
4. {{uw-unsor1-rand}}
5. {{uw-error1-rand}}
6. {{uw-blank1-rand}}
7. {{uw-spam1-rand}}
8. {{uw-bio1-rand}}
9. {{uw-attack1-rand}}

As the creator of a substantial number of the current default user warnings back in 2006, I thought you might be interested in this project and have some useful feedback for us. I'd also love to talk to you about those original templates – how did you design them? Were you using anything as a model or aiming for any specific effect? Looking at their revision history, it's surprising how little the content of most of them has changed in the past 5 years. I'd be really interested to know what you think about that. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, shoot me an email, or ping me on IRC (my contact info is on my user page). Thanks, and looking forward to hearing from you! --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maryana,

Firstly thanks for looking me up, in someways I've slipped back into obscurity on Wikipedia trying to help (or hinder) where I can, but nothing has ever come close to the work I put into the User Warnings system and with the exception of a couple of article it's something I'm certainly proud of and consider somewhat of a legacy. I have to say damn is it that long ago, I've just had a look back through some of the templates, and talk pages and forgotten how much free time I had back then :) It's very kind of you to say I was the creator of a large part of the UW templates, but I think what I did was took the existing system and tried to harmonise it. I think I brought some organisational and project management skills that just got it off the ground, but there were a number of stand up editors who also did alot of work.

At the time there were some leery icons, shocking wording with a lot of particularly aggressive and un-AGF type templates; and I remember when I was doing vandalism patrols quite a few of the templates seemed to miss the target and pages looked downright bloody ugly with all the different wordings templates message etc. Just having looked here it seems I started getting ideas around 12th October 2006 to start harmonising them, and shortly after created this page with a view to standardising firstly the levels, there were 4 levels of one warning, 6 of another, 2 of another type and then I started to think screw it why not the whole system. It seemed to be a project where people wanted to improve things but no-one was willing to blink first. Anyway long and short it bumbled along for about 2 months, working on the overview page trying to garner support and then early January 2007, with a core of about 6 of us, it just suddenly took off. Alot of discussions took place on and off wikipedia about what the aim was, direction we would take, style etc. There was certainly opposition, which when you look back at it now seems ridiculous, the lengths we went to so editors could switch the icons off on the templates was ridiculous. The end goal was we wanted a clean, precise but courteous system to warn editors. You have to remember there was far more opposition to boilerplate templates back then, so we were very conscious that we didn't want editors hiding behind the templates, we had to assuage the fears of the more conservative editors but still give everyone an effective tool at their disposal, hence all of the abilities to configure and personalise the templates. Anyway the rest is as they say is history, it rapidly took of and within a year or so I stepped out of templates altogether as it didn't need my input. It's reasssuring to know that we did it right the first time, by the fact that the templates have changed so little in the last ~5 years. Nowadays editors don't give it a second thought. Wanna know what I get a kick out of, our templates are the basis for templates now being used around the world i.e. ar:قالب:Uw-delete1

Regarding the new Huggle system I'd be certainly interested to see your repeat offender rates depending on which template was applied, and I'm always up for innovative approaches to old problems. If I can be of any help please don't hesitate to ask, I think the idea is great so long as the message isn't diluted trying to find varying approaches to issue warnings. We already had that problem with the old system and once fragmentation starts it's a pain to hold together. I think it's grand though one minor critique and this is purely personal mind, looking at the wording, I'm not sure as "I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Steven Walling." isn't a tad too patronising, I think they'll have sussed out you're an established editor by the fact you slapped a template on their page :) Templates do tend to have an air of faux authority, which was one of the things we were concerned about at the beginning and new editors seeing these official looking templates appearing on their page would get scared off the project. Hope that gives you some insight and if you need anything more just ask. Regards ^Khukri 21:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! And thanks for giving me a little more background on the story of en.wiki user warnings – it's an important chapter in Wikipedia history!

You and the other editors (are any of them still active?) did a tremendous job on the standardization of user warnings, which was incredibly important in 2006-7, when that huge influx of new users entered the project. Unfortunately, as you may have heard, Wikipedia is no longer pulling in those record numbers of new contributors; in fact, all the projects across the board are either leveling off or in decline. What we're aiming for with this template testing project is to get a data-driven glimpse into whether templates are part of what's driving new users away, and how we might change them to be more effective at bringing in good-faith editors and keeping out bad-faith vandals and spammers. I want to make sure it doesn't seem like we're denigrating your work by trying to change it :) I just think it's important to keep re-calibrating the tools we use on Wikipedia to fit the continually evolving nature of the project.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback on our templates! With the "I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Steven Walling" bit, we were aiming to do the same thing you were interested in doing back in 2006: de-officialize the warning process and make sure that newbies know it's not Wikipedia^tm (some scary corporate structure like Facebook, for all they know) that's reverting them, but a human editor just like themselves. From the anecdotal evidence (feedback gathered from newbies in various surveys, as well as comments left by new users on article and user talk), we've seen over and over again that most newcomers have no idea that Wikipedia is a community of volunteers who actively monitor all the pages on the site. To them, it all feels very impersonal and intimidating. Maybe there is a better way to phrase that, though, without sounding patronizing...

If you have any more suggestions, please don't hesitate to leave them here, on my talk page, or on the talk pages of the templates. And I'll definitely keep you posted on our progress and findings. I know it wasn't just you who created the uw warning system all by yourself, but it's still very neat to get advice from a founding member of the system :) --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the main guy with respect to the parsered statements was User:Gracenotes. There was then the core of standup editors User:Kralizec!, User:Kubigula, User:Lucasbfr & User:Satori Son, I nominated all of them for adminship all passing without a single opposition vote between the four of them, showing how much of an asset to the project they were. A number of editors who invested alot of time rarely edit now. The main ones were User:Martinp23 who I think was about 15 at the time, User:Renesis, User:Misza13 & User:Quarl. Though I'd like to claim it, the idea of the uw- prefix came from Quarl here with so little fuss it was just adopted almost instantly. There was then User:Pathoschild who was at the time the only admin involved and our voice of authority when we needed clarification. He did a lot of leg work and had tried to do a harmonisation project previously. Please do not think you are denigrating any of my, and speaking for the editors I mentioned above, work. We did it as a community project and speaking for myself glad it made a difference and glad we have left our stamp on Wikipedia. Everything evolves or it dies out.

Regarding the wording of the templates, we eventually agreed that the large part of these templates are issued to people who already knew how Wikipedia works, and have or are editing in a mendacious manner. We all felt strongly about AGF and not biting the newbs hence the the level 1 templates even though they said welcome to Wikipedia were just a gentle reminder of how to edit.

If I was to do it all again, I would suggest that a better approach would be to differentiate between IPs and registered editors and those new registered editors, who commit an infringement that would warrant a template, would in fact get a glorified welcome template, but the welcome template would be worded to reflect the infringement with they had done, with a link to the relevant guidelines and policies and maybe a précis explaining how Wikipedia worked, putting an onus on the person who was willing to leave the template to try and mentor the new users.

Lets not beat around the bush, a lot of these templates are issued by kids on the eternal war of dark and light whose latest incarnation is vandal fighting, vandal war, vandal patrol or whatever secret security club they have invented this month to allow them to believe they are on a crusade. This does more damage than it does good. Like rollback functions I think warnings should now only be issued by those who have been deemed responsible enough, and to be deemed responsible enough they would need to have an apprenticeship time where could only issue good faith warning or the glorified welcome message I already mentioned and then try to guide the new editor. Once they showed they had the temperament for that then could they step up to the level 3 & 4. I'm still a fan of templated messages, but I think they are too open to abuse, being dished out in content disputes and I think this could be an intrinsic reason why there is a decline of editing. There are too many editors who own their articles, who stamp on good faith edits and this is what is driving editors away. We are being punished by our own success in effect. Also editors on power trips where maybe their day to day lives don't give them this level of responsibility can now bully and wikilawyer new editors into submission, and the templates give them the tools and a carte blanche means of doing so. Sorry to ramble but I fully understand the concern you at WMF must be having with this problem.

Anyway I thinks it's rather coincidental that you left this message on my talk page as it's five years to the day where I had my first ideas about over hauling the user warning templates, though it was the 20th October 2006 here when I first mentioned my idea to a winder audience, but if you can see this deleted page here this is where I really started and then brought it to WP:UW where it really took off. Interesting history I dunno, but a good trip down memory lane.

I hope some of this helps and you're welcome to use me as a sounding board for ideas, though looking through your work I believe you are far more expert on the needs of the project than myself, though hope it helps. Regards ^Khukri 09:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is incredibly helpful, thank you! And that's so funny that it's five years to the day – I suppose I should congratulate you on the anniversary :) --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

uw project stagnation

Hi Khukri.You've seen my latest comments. I'm working hard (from the community side) with the WMF to develop improved new user reception and page patrolling. I think it may be time to revitalise the project and perhaps send a newsletter to the project members, and perhaps to some of the more prolific participants from here. I used to participate quite rgularly but due to rather a lot of lacklustre comments (some bordering on hostile), I also tended to pay less attention to the project. I'm more than willing to help out on this, and feel that my own RL experience in cross-cultural work could eventually be useful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atomises

You might be interested in taking a look at the above SPI case, as your name has been mentioned. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

S'ok I know it's me :) To be honest I had enough and decided to just create an account to edit articles and avoid the bullshit wiki lawyering that is prevalent everywhere, and would have carried on if I hadn't been so stupid when I got annoyed about the misuse of the full PP. Just in my defence and I know it doesn't matter much now, I have never edited from IP/Khukri/Atomises in conflict of either account. Though the account was undeclared it doesn't fall foul of WP:ILLEGIT with maybe the exception of WP:SCRUTINY but as the account was being used in good faith and not to benefit my main account I do not consider it so. Atomises was a new account just to start writing new articles I know it may get killed as a sock but no harm done.

Why I'm done... unfortunately though her interest above were good Maryana's post above acted as a catalyst to review my role and what I actually do here, and to be honest it's sweet feck all. I consider I did a lot of good along time ago now I baby sit a load of articles trying to stop POV and had put myself into a nanny role. A discussion on WT:UW made me realise that I don't do anything here and with everyone being an expert for even the most minor changes it can be a conflict to do the most minor modifications to any article. So I decided to create an account to write about what I do know about, particle accelerators, where very few editors can stick their nose in and minimise as I mentioned above the bikeshed issue. We have a whole class of editor that stalk from talk page to talk page giving their input on everything from climate change to renaissance art popping up on RFCs or ArbComms when it's bugger all to do with them and not actually contributing. The screw up with the Atomises account would have shown up in CU that I was Khukri, so it forced my hand so to speak to evaluate my role and change my wiki hiatus to leaving as there's no way I could continue in good faith.

It's no wonder numbers of new editors are falling, we, and looking through my deletions I'm most probably just as guilty in the past, hound all new editors and don't nurture them and develop their interest. I created an article Low Energy Ion Ring and within 5 minutes of my first save, someone came and slapped a notability and unreferenced tag on the article. No message to me as the article creator, No how can we help, No what are you doing, just a flyby template and the editor was on to his next article. Two official looking templates threatening deletion or content removal within 5 minutes of the arrival of a new editor, of course new editors are going to think "Why the buggery should I bother, rude bastards"

Some of you may read this and instantly get defensive but all I ask if any admins or experienced users read this, please evaluate your role and do you guide new editors and try to develop the project or just consider yourself an awesome wiki-lawer and know the nuance of everyone one of our multitudinous guidelines. Why are you here? I found out it was for the wrong reasons I hope you don't find the same. 178.250.210.5 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw this on ANI. If it's any consolation to you, the editor who tagged Atomises' article has actually improved his habits! He had tagged my first article for speedy A7 deletion even though it did have a reference. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of Uw-npov3

A discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia_Is_Getting_Worse_As_It_Gets_Better called my attention to [2], which suggests that user warning templates are driving away new contributors. I've added some other criticisms at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-npov3. Sorry, but I've never liked the way that newbies get hammered with these nasty bot comments, and I think it might just be time that people are ready to take a stand against them. Wnt (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)