User talk:Csbisbee

June 2014
I apologize, since you removed more than the hidden comment each time, I didn't realize that was what was wrong. I genuinely believed it to be vandalism. I wasn't aware that hidden comments weren't acceptable. Csbisbee (talk) 17:51, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I've removed the warning, but it did clearly say that the hidden comment was the problem. I figured that was what was going on and I was about to make an edit just removing the hidden comment when you did it yourself. For future reference, when an experienced editor reverts you and leaves a message on your talk page, it's not likely vandalism. Meters (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry again. I'm not really familiar with anything except editing pages, so I wasn't aware that you were editor (or where the explanation for your reversion was/is for that matter). Csbisbee (talk) 17:51, June 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

August 2014
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Gateway Regional High School (Massachusetts), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Very few of your edits are minor edits. Please stop tagging them as minor. Meters (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I will. I apologize, I had thought minor edits were simply any edits that didn't involve the addition of large pieces (multiple paragraphs of text). csbisbee 22:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding student's names to the article. This is a privacy issue. I suggest that you read WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines Meters (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I just read it, I'm sorry again. I was just trying to give recognition to the student responsible. I'm also sorry about you're having to police everything I do on that article because of my lack of knowledge on various Wikipedia policies m(_ _)m csbisbee 23:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. I don't mind people who are trying to add real content but are still learning how to do it properly. 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Model United Nations page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620524073 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F620524073%7CModel United Nations%5D%5D Ask for help])

Model United Nations
Hello. I'm just here to inform you that the reverts that you've did on the page might constitute a violation of the WP:3RR rule. Next time, you would want to go to the diff with the best version before the edit (which would be this and press the 'restore this version' button on the top of the page. Thanks.  KJ  Discuss? 12:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me, I wasn't aware of the "restore" function and thought I had to revert the edits manually. Thanks for the heads up! User:csbisbee 14:58 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we're coinciding on a lot of pages that we're editing. What was your intention on List of Model United Nations conferences in creating the two tables? If I were to compare the tables, the former would be better; having a section for the 'website' or 'date' would incline a little to much to be promotional for my taste. I don't particularly disagree with the selections that you've added, but we should agree on a single format instead of having two tables. Also, you might wish to see WP:CIT for citation formatting when you're adding inline citations.  KJ  Discuss? 09:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It does, that's interesting! For the List of Model United Nations conferences I was aiming to expand it, and I wanted to start from scratch so I created a separate table. I didn't eliminate the older table yet because I was planning on converting the entires there all over to the new table. I disliked the original table because I felt that it left out most major conferences and that the Further Information section would have been better placed in a dedicated article. I would note that the existing table already included links to the websites of each conference (in the second column), though I can understand where you're coming from regarding the dates. Perhaps we could list the most recent date(s) instead, so that it would be less promotional but still informative? And I'll check that out, thanks! Csbisbee 14:27, 13 August 2014


 * I think ideally each major conference would have its own dedicated article, and then that article would list the conference website (much as say the Walmart article contains a link to its website]]). Considering your comments about the promotional aspect of the new table, I removed mention of the venues for the conferences, as the information really didn't add anything to the article and was unnecessary. I've also refrained from adding dates or website links with new entries for now. I looked over WP:CIT but I'm not really sure what it is that you're recommending I do differently for citations? It might be obvious and I might just be being stupid though ^^; Csbisbee 14:55, 13 August 2014


 * Well, firstly, for WP:CIT, I was recommending that you actually format the references instead of providing WP:BAREURLS. In any case, the new table looks pretty good, but I'm wondering what the established purpose for the conferences should be. Previously, I imposed the guideline for proving notability, but that could be changed if the purpose of the list is changed to be, for instance, a WP:DAB page.  KJ  Discuss? 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding formatting references, I'm actually not very familiar with how that's done. Regarding what conferences should be included in a list, I'd recommend taking one of two paths, either including (almost) all conferences that can at least one reliable reference (with content that the conference in question did not originate) and which have at least one other school/group in attendance; OR only including conferences that meet at least one of the following criteria: There is evidence that the conference had at least 500 delegates in attendance in its most recent iteration, the conference is held by an Ivy League university (or some other broader specification), the conference was established more than 50 years ago. Csbisbee (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As of late, I've been pursuing the second path, but the first also seems to be viable. Csbisbee (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked your account for what looks like an attempt at sneaky vandalism.©Geni (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How do I find why I'm blocked and how do I fix it? Csbisbee (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you look at the last five article edits you made. In four of them you replaced a correct image with a non-existent one, labeled the edit as minor, and made up a fake edit summary saying that it was a punctuation change or a new ref. You can't even argue that it was an honest mistake (you didn't know they were not valid files) since the previous two edits you made were to put the same non-existent images on your user page, and then remove them. Meters (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to see my last edits? I've been working on Model United Nations and other MUN articles in the past few days, plus Gateway Regional High School earlier, but I've only added pictures to Model United Nations, and I think all of those pictures work? I don't know how you tell though if one is working or not? And I haven't edited my user page since Monday, or maybe Sunday I think?


 * I'm not really sure what's going on? Csbisbee (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to wp:AGF and explain things to you, but then I saw the following userbox on your userpage. I'm sure I don't have to explain WP:DFTT to you. Meters (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The box with the bunny is meant to mean I stay quiet because I prefer to hear people's opinions without their being first influenced by mine. Honestly, I copied most everything on my user page from someone else's and then started removing and changing things (like adding my interests and reducing the number of boxes). I've spent hours on adding a lot of text with references to Model United Nations and Gateway Regional High School and I feel like I'm being persecuted now, still not knowing the details of why?Csbisbee (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You replaced a number of state symbols of Massachusetts ‎ with ones which you had edited to feature an image of Pikachu while using false edit summaries to hide the fact.©Geni (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When did I do that? I've really only edited WikiProject Korea articles and Model UN articles lately. I'm pretty sure the last article I edited was List of Model United Nations conferences. I'm not trying to cause problems here, I recognize you have other things to concern yourself with, it's just that I don't believe I made the edits I'm being accused of making, and it certainly isn't as if I have a history of doing much besides making real contributions to articles.Csbisbee (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * here and since you uploaded the files to commons you knew exactly what they were.©Geni (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to start by saying thank you for agreeing to show me just what it is I'm accused of doing. Now I at least know what you're referring to – it's the red links right? I still don't believe that I was responsible for that. What I mean is, I recognize now that this shows my account (csbisbee) was used to to change the picture names, but I maintain I (as in me the person) didn't do it; I'm not even convinced I was online at the time. And I hate to keep bringing this up, but if you look at the edits to Model United Nations and other articles, really all I've done is spent a lot of time (in the short time since I started using Wikipedia) adding to articles. In the case of the GRHS article, a lot of that work was with User:Meters help. I understand completely that Wikipedia doesn't want to have pictures that don't work, I just feel like I'm being treated with hostility when I'm simply for trying to clear my name and get back to expanding the List of MUN conferences article. I hope that you know by my earnestness that I really do want to return to contributing and repaying the favor I owe to Wikipedia.Csbisbee (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any hostility. There are two ways this can go.
 * 1) You didn't make the edits because your account is compromised. In that case your account is unlikely to ever be unblocked, since you would first have to prove that you are the rightful owner and have sole control of the account (see WP:SECURE).
 * 2) You admit that you made the edits in question and ask to be unblocked. It seems unlikely that this will be successful since that means you also admit that you repeated behavior that led to previous warnings, and that you were less than honest earlier in this thread when you claim you didn't make the latest edits. I assumed good faith and removed my earlier warning for what seemed to be sneaky edits when you claimed newby mistakes. I was a bit doubtful that a new user would know how to use comments, but I gave you a chance. Now you're blocked for more sneaky edits. It doesn't bode well for an unblock request. Meters (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I feel alienated because I feel like I'm being unfairly accused. I really am adamant about the fact that I did not make the edits, I was being entirely honest and I haven't said anywhere that I did make the edits (I'm not sure, but it seems like that's what you think I was saying above). And also, I really can't see why you would think my earlier edits were bad. I recognize I'm not familiar with Wikipedia policy (I've only ever read/skimmed the links people have posted here). I'm sorry but Wikipedia's policies are not short or simple and that's probably part of the reason why many people don't contribute. I know how to do comments because I have a HTML for Dummies book (I'm not afraid to admit it) which I've read the beginning of (I can't also make paragraphs and line breaks). At the time, I wasn't aware of talk pages and didn't know comments weren't allowed in articles. I just want to say too that I listened to all of the pointers you gave me (once I figured out who you were) and fixed things, and didn't resist when you fixed my mistakes (again, once I figured out you weren't just messing with the article – I'm sorry but I still don't know how to tell when someone is an administrator). If I was trying to cause problems, I just wouldn't have gone through the trouble of creating an account, expanding articles, or even having this long (all day) conversation. The only reason I haven't given up on Wikipedia is because of the debt I owe.Csbisbee (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can request an unblock by following WP:GAB but since you are sticking with the compromised account story you should just start with WP:COMPROMISED. Meters (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. That is what I was referring to though when I was talking about perceived hostility, when you say 'since I'm sticking with the account story.' But I do appreciate the help nonetheless and bear no ill will. I know you're just trying to do the right thing here.Csbisbee (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Its all bullshit anyway, as seen on Reddit, this user knows full well what they're doing. BostonUrbEx (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And no unblock request. No surprise there. Meters (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Best Delegate for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Best Delegate is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Best Delegate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm  (talk)  15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)