User talk:Gilderien/Archive 19

Regarding the newsletter
Thank you very much.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 00:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the praise, not only because BWV 22 is mentioned ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Brown Willy
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Minotaur-class cruiser (1906)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Mail
I actually never got any e-mail from you; you're sure you sent it to the right address? Wizardman 16:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I sent it via the WP interface on March 23 when I posted the first notification, you may have been too busy with your RfB to notice it? I shall send it again.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Long Churn Cave
Hello! Your submission of Long Churn Cave at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on the page.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter (your query)
I removed the newsletter from my User talk page after I read it because it took up a lot of space, and Project Christianity is not one of main interests. Thanks for including me. I'm OK with receiving it again, but I'll probably remove it again after reading it. My personal preference would be to be sent a link to a newsletter on a separate page, but I know that plenty of others appreciate having these things delivered to their user talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your revert...
May I ask why you did this? I undid Kormin's edit for a valid reason, and provided that reason in my edit summary as well as a further explanation on Kormin's talk page. You reverted that without any explanation, and also violated the rollback policy in the process. Chamal T •C 13:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, as explained in my null edit summary it was a misclick and Materialscientist reverted me before I could do it myself.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just saw that. Please ignore my previous message then. Chamal T •C 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment
Hi. I removed content without reliable sources. You added material without any reliable secondary sources at all. Please seeWP:RS. Please discuss at the article talk page. Thanks. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted your edit because you removed lots of uncontested information that is easily sourced from the website listed in the external links, as well as the fact you broke the format of the references section. Please discuss at the article talk page. Thanks. -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use article talk pages. A phony company website is not a reliable secondary source. Please stop violating WP:RS.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatieBoundary (talk • contribs)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I made one revert. That is not edit-warring. Please read WP:EW as well as WP:BRD. Further, it is not a "phony company website", but the official website and as such under WP:RS, which you keep quoting at me, can be used for uncontroversial information - for example the floor area; no-one is ever going to measure that independently, they will just use the museum's literature and it is uncontroversial.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a museum. It is a phony corporate shell used for fraud. Please stop making up policies. WP:RS must be followed. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you got any evidence for that serious allegation? WP:PRIMARY suggests that use is acceptable with no interpretation - where is the interpretation in that article? I am not making up policies, I do not appreciate being templated for "Edit-Warring" after a single revert, and after several DYKs and GAs I think I would have been told I don't follow WP:RS before now.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 13:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not supposed to have "evidence". You are supposed to follow WP:RS. WP:PRIMARY required "primary sources that have been reliably published". There is no "reliable publication". There is only the self published website, which contradicts signed filings with the SEC. Now a new self-declared "uninvolved" editor has invented an entire lengthy article in a matter of minutes, claiming it is from sources (none of which meets WP:RS). How was it possible for that "uninvolved" editor to have read those sources in minutes, and written a lengthy article like this so quickly? What is your involvement with this securities fraud ring, and why are you so set on an article without a single reliable secondary, or reliable primary, source? KatieBoundary (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are. Are you seriously accusing me of being involved with a securities fraud? Yes, ok, I admit it, I'm employed by the group as a public relations consultant to remove these unsubstantiated accusations from Wikipedia ... actually, there are actually secondary sources on the article, which may or may not meet RS, but what would you require as a RS as to its very existence? Many editors patrol recent changes to protect the encyclopædia from vandalism, and it's not that hard to write an article if you have the sources; I wrote Long Churn Cave from scratch in about 10 minutes, and Solarra already had an article to start from.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you so insistent on having an article, completely in violation of WP:Notability, and without a single reliable source, primary or secondary, especially one written by an anon IP who first blanked the entire talk page pointing all this out? Fraudsters are hard to detect. That is why we have WP:RS, so we do not have to come up with "evidence" or waste time like you are making me do because you and others insist you are above mere WP:RS. If there is a reliable secondary source, it can go in, and if not, it cannot. There should be no more of my time wasted on it. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be encylopaedic, especially in countries where our coverage is limited currently such as the PRC. As I and others have pointed out to you, RS does not justify the removal of almost the whole article (and breaking of the formatting, but anyway) when it is uncontroversial anyway. Saying it is a "shell" or "phony" is drawing incorrect conclusions from the evidence that this group sponsors a fund set up by the museum. Has the museum at any point been involved in fraudulent activities? You keep on claiming to have evidence, but fail to produce it, as well as making accusations of "edit-warring" and "being above policy" and so I think it is more of the case that you are wasting the time of me and other editors.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  15:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should be verifiable with reliable sources.

Incidentally, I did not mean to accuse you of involvement, just of the consequences of not following WP:RS. It appears from your edit history that you do much good work, so apologies. They wanted attention, and it appears they are now getting it, along with our Wikipedia editor scrutiny abilities that they might not have wanted. :) KatieBoundary (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Re "Saying it is a 'shell' or 'phony' is drawing incorrect conclusions" - You are correct.
 * Re - "Has the museum at any point been involved in fraudulent activities?" Their geology claims are false. How can they have photos of geological and fossil specimens that are of world shaking significance, yet none of us in the profession have ever heard of their discoveries?
 * Is it really a museum? Take a Google fly-over and see if you can spot it. It should be simple, given its enormous square footage.
 * What is the address of the supposed museum?
 * Why does the government of China not promote it?
 * I can't find any geology or fossil claims at all, could you direct me to them? The address is 15 Xiaoxi Avenue, Jiuquan, Gansu Province, PRC. I appreciate your concerns about the sourcing of this article but do not believe that it is fraudulent or a hoax.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether you believe it is a fraud or a hoax. All that matters is WP:RS. The impossible images are on the Silk Route site image list. The museum does not exist as a building with square footage cited, if you do a Google Earth fly-over. They completely changed their prior website, taking down all press releases from 2009 and before. There was a circular ownership claim posted by the various affiliates, and a different spelling alias for the principals on each, and with each SEC filing. The geo pics were on the Yasheng Group website, which claimed ownership of the Silk Route Museum, which had its own subpage with the images.  I am not going to continue to fight multiple editors who claim they are exemption from WP:RS anymore. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Noone has claimed they are exempt from RS, that is why I have asked for an editor who speaks Chinese to look for sources which may not be in english. I'm sorry, but I cannot find any claim or images on the website at all, give you give a URL? Also, if the company is fraudulent, do you not think they may have just claimed ownership of a foreign museum to lend them credibility? -- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Being fraudulent is irrelevant. You are ignoring WP:RS. You must find sources before adding content from advertisements, not put in unverifiable content then claim some unreliable Chinese source ''may' exist. How many other articles have you similarly disregarded WP:RS on? KatieBoundary (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For a start, I have not added any content to this article beyond minor copy-edits, and I requested help for a possible Chinese source to see if I could establish notability, especially now it is at AfD. Furthermore, the articles I have written are listed here, feel free to examine them and ask for re-review of or re-assess their quality status. Claiming I might have a habit of breaking policies in my writing is hardly helpful.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "I have not added any content to this article beyond minor copy-edits" - You added a huge amount of content in violation of WP:RS. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a revert, not content adding in any meaningful sense of the word. Would you like to substantiate your claims I am ignoring WP:RS, or retract them?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your reverts of another editor's removal of WP:RS violating content is a violation of WP:RS. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:RS. Where does it say reverting is against it? Or that wholesale deletion of uncontroversial content is approved by the policy?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting an editors removal of improperly sourced content violates WP:RS. 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You've just repeated what you said before, it doesn't make it any more true, could you explain why?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

From WP:V, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I removed content that violated this fundamental policy. You reverted my removal. You thereby violated WP:V. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well firstly that isn't WP:RS, which is the one you keep accusing me of ignoring, and secondly, from the same page, All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.. I have initialised steps to find such a source in Chinese, which may exist, and thus does count as verifiable. Furthermore, not only does removing all that information and replacing with text associating it with a potential fraud massively violate WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE, but also WP:NOR states that A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Where was the interpretation in the article that justified removing it purely because it was based on a primary source. It was published by the museum itself, you cannot get a more reliable source about the basic facts of the museum.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was covered with citation needed tags for months. If you find a reliable Chinese source, then add content from it. But please do not restore unsourced content removed by other editors. KatieBoundary (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And? Firstly that was massive overkill with the CN tags, and also I had never seen the article before in my life, so when I saw there were external links to the official website, I restored it, because it was sourced content, from the official website.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok... apology accepted. :) KatieBoundary (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

edits by User:HaeYoon
Thanks for leaving a friendly message at the page of my student, User talk:HaeYoon. I am sure they appreciate your concern! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

about biased view of a person in the metaheuristic
I wonder why you include a biased view of a not well-known researcher in the metaheuristic page and you also exclude some mentions of metaheurisitics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodaan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry what? Could you clarify?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 15:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It is no big deal.Hoodaan (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)