User talk:완젬스

Quick Reference
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Policies and guidelines {| width="100%" style="border: solid 2px #A3B1BF; background: #F5FAFF" | Policies and guidelines


 * Policies and guidelines - an Overview
 * List of policies
 * The Five Pillars
 * List of guidelines
 * The Simplified Ruleset
 * How to create policy

Article standards

 * Be bold!
 * Biographies of living persons
 * Citing sources
 * Copyrights
 * Editing
 * External links
 * Image use
 * Using redirects
 * Include only verifiable information
 * Deletion
 * Manual of Style
 * Neutral point of view
 * What Wikipedia is not

Working with others

 * Assume good faith
 * Civility and etiquette
 * Consensus
 * Don't bite the newcomers
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * No personal attacks
 * Resolving disputes
 * Vandalism

|}


 * }

---

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Links and references {| width="100%" style="border: solid 2px #A3B1BF; background: #F5FAFF" | Links and references
 * Editing FAQ: How do I make links?
 * Help:Link
 * Help:Self link
 * Help:Wiki markup

Types of links

 * Category links
 * Citations
 * Dates
 * External links
 * Internal links
 * InterWikimedia links
 * ISBN, PMID and RFC
 * Piped links
 * URLs

Guidance

 * Linking
 * Embedded list
 * Guide to writing better articles
 * Fighting linkspam
 * Template messages/Links

Interwiki links

 * Help:Interwiki linking
 * Help:Interlanguage links
 * List of interwiki redirects
 * Wikimedia sister projects (including how to link to them)
 * Link Surfing
 * Interwiki link problem
 * Interwiki bot
 * commons:Category:CommonsRoot, interlanguage links between Wikimedia projects.

Miscellaneous

 * Basic navigation
 * Canonicalization
 * CamelCase and Wikipedia, history of linking in Wikipedia

Citation

 * How | Why | What is a reliable source?, info on citing sources
 * Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers
 * Public domain resources
 * WikiProject Resource Exchange
 * Example requests for permission
 * Checklinks, external link checker tools

Related Wikipedia articles

 * CamelCase
 * Citation
 * Deep linking
 * Hyperlink
 * Interwiki links
 * Link
 * Link farm
 * Methods of website linking

|}


 * }

---

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" ! Images and media {| width="100%" style="border: solid 2px #A3B1BF; background: #F5FAFF" | Images and media Overview of images

Creation and usage of media files
 * Upload an image to Commons (preferred) or to English Wikipedia.

Find

 * Finding images tutorial
 * Requested pictures
 * Graphic Lab
 * Image copyright tags

Help

 * File description pages
 * How to upload files to Wikipedia
 * Images and other uploaded files
 * Preparing images for upload
 * Visual file markup
 * How to insert and use pictures in Wikipedia articles
 * Use the Extended image syntax to place an image in an article
 * Sound file markup
 * Graphics tutorials
 * How to request images or media for deletion
 * Category:Wikipedia image help
 * Media copyright questions

Policy and guidelines

 * Image use policy
 * Guide to captions
 * Guide to use of logos
 * Guide to use of alternative text for images

Other

 * Featured pictures
 * Featured picture candidates
 * Public domain image resources
 * Requesting copyright permission
 * Example requests for permission
 * Moving images to the Commons
 * Category:Wikipedia images

|}


 * }

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

list of warning templates

creating my talk page
proof i can edit woo hoo! 

American Jobs Act
Please talk about the article on it's talk page, not on my user talk page. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit filter
Thank you for reporting the false positive. The edit can be made now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sole Soul (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Tinychat?
I had asked whether you would agree to a Tinychat on my talk page; please let me know there. I also wondered whether you intend to update your !vote on Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration to match your comments there. I look forward to your reply. Dualus (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Mind keeping a log of your chat
I'm sure I'm not alone in finding Dualus to be an untrustworthy and manipulative individual, and I find it troubling that he now wants to have off-Wiki discussions. Assuming you're going to have a discussion of articles and related happenings on WP, would you mind keeping a log of your chat session and possibly making that available to users interested in seeing it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 11:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad I waited a few days to reply. Since he's blocked now, I think sharing the chat logs would only rub salt into the wound. He gained my friendship and trust, and he invited me to join Second Life which he devotes a fair amount of time to. One of our chats was mostly about innocuous things, and it would seem weird/creepy to share any chat logs. He did get me to change my vote on the 99% declaration AFD however, since we chatted about that a lot, as well as various other OWS issues. 완젬스 (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion debate closure
I note you marked the 99 Percent Declaration deletion debate closed as no consensus. Thank you. Normally administrators close deletion debates. Dualus (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was just trying to add the link to the top of the talk page. I have never closed any deletion debates, I simply put a placeholder where it needs to be (and will change the result to whatever the closing admin decides). There's a huge difference between the two things you're confusing. 완젬스 (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you get my email?
I hope to communicate with you soon. Dualus (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why do you insist in communicating in a way that can't be tracked or verified? What's wrong with Article Talk and User Talk pages? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a specific reason for objecting to this communication, please let me know. Are you trying to document my personal correspondence? Dualus (talk) 18:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I missed you. Dualus (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Collapse|

Signature request
Hello 완젬스! I have a request about your signature, if you would be kind enough to humour me. Would you mind including some English text somewhere in it, so that those of us who don't read hangul have something to call you? It would really help in conversations to not have to copy and paste your name all the time. :) Let me know what you think. Yours —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello 67.77.174.6. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Occupy Wall Street, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

It appears you are central to the subject Occupy Wall Street and have more than a small conflict of interest. You should consider NOT editing on the page as it is becoming more and more apparent that you have an agenda with your edits there to promote the protest, their cause and are actually an involved participant within the NYCGA and the New york movement. I have some amount of respect for you (I doubt that means much) I have always tried to divorce myself from the subject. I do not edit any other Occupy article for one reason sir.....I helped organize an "Occupy" protest in my city. You have made statements on Wikipedia that show you to be directly involved with the NYC movement and your conflict shows on the page in discussions....probably because you are so honest about it. I like that...but it also means this may have to be brought up. I know this sounds aggresive, but my main goal is the encyclopedia and you history shows you have locked onto these subjects in a manner not consistant with Wikipedia guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way this isn't saying you shouldn't edit the article or you can't edit the article, just that you should consider not editing it. That is up to you. It might be a good idea and then again you may be able to use policy and guidelines instead of insider information to make your case on the talk page. That would make it less dis agreeable to me at least. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}}

Essay invitation
I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the [edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay! You may familiarize yourself with essays here: Wikipedia essays.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, I'd love to check it out! :D 완젬스 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi
in Regards to the OWS talk page: I appreciate any efforts to keep order on talk pages, but I was replying directly to Kelly. I've been editing on WP for awhile and I know that the extra indent there is perfectly acceptable structure. Respectfully, -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You did it again. I don't know if that 2nd time was a mistake (perhaps in an attempt to re-position your reply to me accordingly?) but I've already asked you not to do this. Incidentally I don't know why you're defending User:Kelly's aspersions against OWS, she is a notoriously conservative activist-minded editor -- see the Palin article for starters. -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I messed up so bad. I was on telephone and thought I was fixing my mistake from earlier (trying to move the posts around) but I didn't know you were trying to move them back, but I left it as is now. I've also replied on your talk page. 완젬스 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks. no prob. -A98.. 98.92.186.80 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI
This occurred in your absence. Be— —Critical 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And do get a username won't you? Be— —Critical 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice
I am notifying you that I have requested for you to be blocked from editing Occupy Wall Street on grounds of pov pushing and disruptive edits. I put the request here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_article_block_of_.EC.99.84.EC.A0.AC.EC.8A.A4.7C.EC.99.84.EC.A0.AC.EC.8A.A4 --Jacksoncw (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied on your talk page, and I'm sorry for making you think that way about me. I hope we can work towards a favorable outcome, and I never knew how serious this became to you, so I will treat the issue seriously until we both feel the issue of bias is amicably resolved. 완젬스 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC).


 * We can continue this on my talk page.--Jacksoncw (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After posting below, I decided to check other threads here. Others may be interested to know about the uneventful Admin notice referred to above which has been archived at . Seems like nothing came of it, officially. Cheers. -A98 98.92.185.15 (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like Jacksoncw shouldn't be editing the OWS article
..because of his personal views like this one, from his talk page in the aforementioned continuation: "I am against you and your bias in the article because I see the Occupy movements as a disordered gaggle of idiots, protesting nationwide to have their “demands” met, yet with no idea of how to run their own pathetic encampments, let alone a nation. They are anarchists begging for more government freebies, they are anti-capitalists with no ability to explain how a viable economy would work if their ideas were to be put into practice, and they are so-called radicals that just want to uphold the statist quo. The Occupy movement, a personification of the left’s incomprehensible ideology, is non-coincidentally a mess; their camps are miniature black holes of Kolkata reeking of the very Marxist ideology they have scraped off the trash-heap of history. These filthy tent villages are poignant microcosms, portals into the future, if you will, of what the country would look like as a whole if the left got its way. If you want to be aggressively bias in this article, I will play your game. - Jacksoncw 11/20/2011" -reposted by A98.. 98.92.185.15 (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User?
Do you know how I get to be a user with editing rights on here? Be— —Critical  03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of it, but I'll check it out for you in a day or two. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Doesn't OWS have a wiki set up somewhere? I was just interested in it.  If that's not it, I'd like to find it. Thanks (:  Be— —Critical  20:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The best place is facebook because that's where all the important power-brokers are. Why would you want to be part of a wiki for OWS if the facebook people ignore it? I heard about the Macy's bomb story the day before it happened, as well as get play-by-play stuff right when it's in the planning stages just from the facebook walls. It's all simple & organic, couldn't be easier to participate or follow along. 완젬스 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Guess wikis are just a thing of the past.   Be— —Critical  15:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! Not at all, it's just the main guys with any power & influence use facebook because their lazy and have a monopoly sorta. These last two months, I have learned that OWS is far from "leaderless" and it's becoming all about in-fighting, bickering, and blame games. I think that happens on facebook because facebook is not a wiki. Imagine if the movement truly was leaderless and used a wiki format? I think that would be awesome, but it's just not what happened. The people on facebook with the power to delete posts are so hypocritical and deleted some of my positive feedback for the movement, which would get you banned here on Wikipedia, lol. 완젬스 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How the heck do they justify using a big corporation like facebook to network the occupy movement? Seriously people.  Anyway, don't be too upset they're fighting, all movements need spokespeople.   Be— —Critical  02:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, that's the funny thing. I asked them about this and they said because it's the most efficient way to keep "control" over the protesters down on the ground, because you can keep tabs on them, make sure they're promoting OWS on facebook enough, and also because of the network effect because basically 100% of people have facebook, and if we tried to base our platform on something other than facebook, half would be too lazy to switch or would forget their passwords or whatever. Basically you can blame it all on laziness! 완젬스 (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ROTFL, well I'm glad your not an RS, I can see the headlines... It does show that all human endeavor has basic necessities, among them both creativity/energy and discipline, externally and internally.  Forget the necessity of that balance on penalty of failure.  It's too bad, there should be an open source software specifically designed for protest movements.  There are open source forum softwares which could be adapted.   Be— —Critical  02:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora (social network) Be— —Critical  04:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Get a real username, ya bum!
If I got a username, I would spend too much of my life here. I used to be a Wikipedian, but now I like to "vanish" every time I walk away from an article, that way I sneak away from wiki-drama in case it tries to follow me, lol. It's so much more peaceful, and less stress, when you're just a "new guy" again. I would never go back to the status quo, there's honestly no reason for it. Plus, I think you should give up your account and become an anon like me ;-) Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! I like it :-) 완젬스 (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OWS criticism section dispute resolution
I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute. Be— —Critical 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS Consensus
See here for a discussion,  here for dispute resolution ,  here for a discussion again ,  here for NPOV notice board. And read here for a different topic discussed on OWS where the consensus felt one way but the article went another way.Racingstripes (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration in the process when the process is ignored. I don't blame you for your lack of faith when it appears your efforts were in vain. The difference this time is that I'm trying to build consensus organically by sending out a trial balloon. 완젬스 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NDAA 2012 link request
Here you go:. Please take time to improve the article whenever you are free to do so and have the inclination. All best, -Darouet (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you got one of the DRn notices from Becritical
Dude is nothing like what he was three months ago. He used to be able to actually explain his reasoning, now....it's all instant DRN if he doesn't get his way and he seems to really not understand the difference between an essay like we were writing and a real policy and guide line. Even after a mediator explained it to him at the DRN he still just keeps parroting his words about it over and over like it will suddenly become a policy if he just keeps repeating it. I guess his name is really what he's about. I thought it was just a cute name....but no...he does have an agenda it seems.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Crime/Security Concerns/Security
I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy
The video Be— —Critical  18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, I never knew old people could be passionate. Can you imagine what he must have been like in his twenties? 완젬스 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL.  Be— —Critical  21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear 67.77.174.6: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar and the nice message. Viriditas (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Horrendus judgement call
Poor choice of words. Have a look at the edit summary. It's nails it good. - The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And since "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You now have that obligation. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Trust me, that doesn't work. BeCriticial is extremely tenacious and will escalate the issue to WP:DRN if he doesn't get consensus the first go-round. I've edit-sparred with him before and lost (but am not bound to the outcome of WP:Mediation, so he has no legitimacy if he "wins" at that battleground). You have to be eloquent, cogent, and fast turnaround in replying to all edits. 완젬스 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

ows
horrible smear job I now have added WaPo to my ignore list! X(

Shouldn't be a big deal
There are studies OWS cited, we just need to find them. The ball's in their court now. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it ended up being a big deal, but I figured out how to use two of the sources while staying clear of synth.

''A CBO report released in October, 2011, the Economist and Washington Post said, confirmed the validity of the meme. The Post also said the slogan was formulated using earlier studies reaching conclusions similar to the CBO's report.''

A barnstar for you!

 * I endorse this barnstar award, it gave me a chuckle too.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OWS barnstar
I made one last week. It's in discussion to be listed on the project barnstar listing page. produces:

--Amadscientist (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article.
I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)