User talk:Richwales/Archives/2011-07

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on   major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel  that other important language  Wikipedias should be added, please let  us know. This may however depend on  our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Gee thanks
Your warning was uncalled for. The Georgian alphabet article is heavily vandalized; frequent similar edits are often similarly reverted. In fact, the edits I reverted removed one reference in order to assert a its change of view. My reverts were perfectly valid and not indicative of an edit war. So thanks for the well thought-out warning Rich. It really puts Wikipedia into perspective for me. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I can understand why you feel this way, but I stand by my decision to warn both you and the IP-anon because (IMO) this looks more like the IP's are engaged in tendentious (but arguably good-faith) edit-warring, rather than vandalism.


 * WP:Vandalism says that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."


 * To be sure, WP:EW exempts "reverting obvious vandalism — edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" from 3RR, but the material in question does not seem (to me, and presumably not to many others) to fall into that extreme category, so repeatedly reverting it probably isn't the best approach and could easily backfire.


 * I imagine it's likely you and I may need to "agree to disagree" regarding my view. In any case, I'm not an admin and am not proposing to block you; I was just generating what I felt (and still feel) was a reasonable and well-intentioned warning about potentially hazardous editing behaviour.  As for how to address this issue more effectively, perhaps a posting on the edit warring noticeboard might be in order; I think it seems reasonable to request semi-protection of the page.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've posted on the WP:RFPP noticeboard, requesting semi-protection for the page.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mate I wouldn't care if you were admin, and I wouldn't imagine any sane admin would block over two reverts in this case. Your bad decision was just that. The edits I reverted are the very same as the ones that have been done again, and again with equally little support cited. I'm sure you could tell if you had a look at the history. This isn't edit warring, it's Wikipedia standards and the most basic of policies. I'll let you enjoy the state of that article (these clowns always leave markup in shambles) and you can request protection however you like. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and how you pull good faith out of irrelevant assertions and blanking is just beyond me. Are you sure you looked at what these two have done? JFHJr (㊟)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Richwales's activity since last year's failed RfA
[copied from the talk page of User:Cuchullain — 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)]

Hi. Following up on some earlier conversations we had, I thought you might be interested in knowing that since my failed RfA bid last December, I've been working on improving content (4 GA's and hoping to get one or two of them to FA by year's end), making judicious use of tools to combat disruptive editing (Twinkle and STiki), and I've also recently started participating in AfD discussions. If you have any feedback (especially in the AfD area, where I admit I'm extremely new), I'm very open to hearing it. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work on the GAs. I'm pretty impressed by the AfD responses I've looked at - good judgement, and good policy-based explanations. I think you're definitely making progress on the issues brought up at the RfA.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

close nomination
Hey, can you close the deletion nomination on the article "delusion disorder"? Thanks F.R Durant (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but since I have already participated in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Delusional disorder, it would not be appropriate (under the rules for closure) for me to be the one to do the closing (per WP:NotEarly).  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)