User talk:BarbaraMervin

Image use
I removed some images from User:BarbaraMervin because their use there violated Wikipedia policy on non-free content. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk
You user talkpage isn't a place for copies of articles: it's a place for discussion. Since we already have an article on the Kragerø Line, that's the place to work, not on a copy on this page. You also have a sandbox in which to work. While it might be amusing to add Dadaist comments like this one and to fool around on your userpage, we'd really prefer that you consider improving the encyclopedia. Your most recent edit is a good start.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well aren't you just a big ole mom? Do you work for social services? What a great introduction to the wonderful world of Wikipedia: having my user talk page torn down because you found it and didn't like it. Thanks. You'd think that with a page so benign as that one, that I'd get maybe a little more than 12 hours to develop it. You should come into my music studio and delete half-finished tracks I'm working on because they weren't up to the standards of the industry.
 * I'm gonna quote you in my old fashioned way because my learning curve on wikipedia has been curtailed by some over-diligent wiki SS officer:
 * "While it might be amusing to [...] fool around on your userpage, we'd really prefer that you consider improving the encyclopedia" - Really? How come you get to belittle the work I've done on my userpage? That's such a rude and demeaning comment, but I guess you get to say it cause you've got clout, and I'm just the lowly newby who hasn't been hazed by the mob yet. God I really thought that I would get a quiet little moment to figure out a bunch of aspects of wikipedia before I started contributing. Yah, maybe using a Norwegian railway line as a template to deconstruct wasn't the "norm" for learning wiki coding, but it was the way I chose to dive into some new learning. Thanks for shitting on it. My only intention was to make productive changes to wikipedia, but you've only looked at and highlighted my user:page work and decided you know who I am already without further study.
 * You have ignorantly misjudged me, and introduced me to a whole new kind of worm. I will no longer contribute funds to wikipedia because when people like you start having power, you know the empire's day of judgement has been decided. BarbaraMervin (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not promptly leaving you a note about appropriate use of user talkspace: I looked here because of your inexplicable (and still unexplained) edit to Talk:Nigger and saw an article copy here: since you were, as you say, deconstructing the article over on your userpage, I removed the misplaced material so that this page could be used appropriately. It's not an unusual issue and doesn't justify retaliation like this . Your perception that this is all hazing for which you must retaliate is unfortunate and mistaken. Clearly we both have room for improvement.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your apology. I'm sorry I acted emotionally. I will learn the ropes soon. I felt angry that someone has the power to make changes to what I felt was a more personal aspect of Wikipedia. However, I now know this is an incorrect assumption, and is probably based on social media protocols. I responded with the same emotions as if someone had altered my facebook page or something. I'm looking forward to making productive contributions to Wikipedia starting now. My comment on Talk:Nigger was also incorrect protocol, and I'm going to remove it. I felt the argument in question was so asinine that it merited some gibberish, just to round out the bouquet of nonsense. I see now that there is a much more rigorous protocol within wikipedia than I thought. On a side note, can you tell me how you "saw an article copy" on my page? Are there programs that allow users to patrol wikipedia to help them find articles in need of maintenance? Right now I'm just hitting the Random Article button and scanning for mistakes. Thanks BarbaraMervin (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, I'm glad we could de-escalate that. As you can see, Talk:Nigger is a minefield, as is the article, and a lot of the things that get posted there are just nuts. Just wait ;till you see what goes on in the really controversial articles and talkpages. As for spotting your user talk, I saw your odd edit at Talk:Nigger on my watchlist and didn't know what to make of it: non-native speaker, vandal, commentary? and looked at your talkpage to get a better idea. I saw an entire article there, which is generally frowned upon for copyright-related reasons, content fork problems and appropriateness of talkpage use. That's pretty much all: then we misunderstood each other, then we sorted it out.  Welcome to Wikipedia: that's a good summary of this particular sausage factory. Social media customs generally don't apply here, at least not to their full extent. There are a number of tools that let you patrol, the more advanced are granted after some experience. I have to head out to a meeting right now and I'll leave a more detailed discussion of article patrol, watchlists, etc. when I get back.   Acroterion   (talk)   18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Watchlists and patrolling
There are a number of tools for patrolling edits available to users with a little experience and approval from an admin. Huggle and Igloo are the most commonly-used anti-vandal programs out there, which help you look for trouble in the recent changes feed. AutoWikiBrowser helps to automate spelling and formatting fixes.

Personally, I don't use any of them: I have a watchlist that varies between 2000 and 3000 articles, and recent changes show up there. Most are articles that I've written or been heavily involved in, but a subset of about 500 are articles that have been consistent trouble spots in the past or are likely to be in the present.

I'm actually an advocate of clicking the recent changes button and seeing what you can find: in prime editing times you can find a problem in every 100 or so recent changes. It used to be much worse, but the anti-vandal bots and edit filters are much more effective than they were six or seven years ago. Using Recent Changes helps you to learn patterns: large decreases in article size usually indicates blanking, large increases might indicate inappropriate additions. Recent changes patrol has a lot of advice on how to check effectively without biting the newbies or annoying the regulars. Certain edit summaries can be a red flag: 90% of "changed a few words" edit summaries are vandalism. The edit filter often adds tags that can flag problems for human review.

WP:TWINKLE is a set of editing tools, available by default in your editing preferences menu ("gadgets", I think) that gives access to welcome templates, user warnings, article tags and so forth so you don't have to hand-compose everything, and it allows you to judiciously revert problems. As with every semi-automated tool, care is required, and some new editors get carried away: take it slow and carefully, since even experienced editors can sometimes see a problem where none exists.

If you're looking for ways to do general improvements, there's not an organized way, apart from AWB, to find misspellings and bad formatting. Most people pick an area of interest and look through articles in those areas: it's about the only sane way to contend with 4.1 million articles.

It takes a few thousand edits to get a good feel for the place, and some time spent on content creation of improvement also helps. If you find yourself stuck or confused, let me know and I'll try to help.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for all your help! I appreciate every one of the above paragraphs, and your offer to help. I would really like to learn more about making disambiguation pages. Are they automatically generated, or authored by users? I love collecting data and organising it, and I've always loved the disambiguation feature on wikipedia. Any thoughts? Cheers, BarbaraMervin (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no automated disambiguation process: pretty much every disambig page was created by an editor who linked to something and then discovered that the target wasn't the thing they meant to link to, then they looked for all of the ambiguities, sorted them, made a disambiguation page and maybe renamed a few of them. I find it a distracting nuisance that takes time from writing, but that's just me. If you like doing that, dive on in. It's not technically difficult, it just requires an enthusiasm for organization. See WP:DISAMBIG. You'll want to learn a little about naming conventions - WP:TITLE will start you off - and about redirects - see WP:REDIRECT for how and when to do that. WP:MOVE is relevant too: never do copy/paste moves because it disconnects the content from its attribution history, which the CC-by-SA copyleft requires.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thank you, thank you! I'm very embarrassed now when I think back to how our dialogue began. I had no idea what working on wikipedia meant, and I so shamefully over reacted. Thanks for being such a great help. Happy Holidays! BarbaraMervin (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad to help, don't worry about how we got started - the episodic text-based interface lends itself to escalating shouting matches, and it can be hard to climb down. Your willingness to step back is a good sign that you can thrive here and deal with conflict (and it was a useful reminder to me not to jump to conclusions and to take more time to explain my actions) and it's plain that you can express yourself when needed. The experience can come in handy later on when you run across an argument - and you inevitably will. It can be a demanding environment, and there are an astonishing number of rules, guidelines and suggestions, not to mention editors bent on adding rumors, fiction, opinion, nonsense, nationalist arguments, bigotry, politics, quackery ... Happy editing, and happy new year!  Acroterion   (talk)   21:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

 * Added using Twinkle.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

November 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry and deliberate spreading of hoaxes. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. SpinningSpark 14:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)