User talk:Stwalkerster/Archive May 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ACC
Sorry for leaving this here, not on the toolserver issue log but I cannot remember my jira.toolserver password to log in this problem (and I don't currently have access to the email that I registered when I signed up). I just happened to notice that it appears that ACC requests closed with Custom reason don't show up on the "created" or "not created" log for me. Example here. Perhaps this is intentional (perhaps sometimes accounts are created, but closed with a custom reason) but I thought that closing with a custom message was always a "not created" situation. In any case, thanks for listening - and let me know if I should log a trouble ticket which I can do this weekend. 7 08:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you click on "custom close", it is not possible to know whether you created the account or not - you might be creating a custom decline message, or you might be creating a custom create message (e.g. mentioning potential CoI issues). Unless we have two options instead: custom decline & custom create? That'd solve the problem... --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having two custom close buttons would work for me. I had just always assumed that if you didn't hit "created" then all the others were not-created reasons.  If I create a user where I think there is a slight possibility of COI based on the comment or something else I usually leave them a note on WP for that.  Just seems strange to leave these off the user's log all together.   7  22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc  Pull My Chain   Trib's  04:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having "Custom Close or Drop" and "Custom Create" would be a nice addon, then the account creator could be sure the message he/she is sending the end user is consistent with the end result.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Page
Hi Stwalkerster My Name is Aldo JAmes Sibi About a year ago you removed my name from Wikipedia and added it to delitionpedia list...This has created a problem....Last year I built the worlds first Light Sport Diesel aircraft in the world. My Boss put me on Wikipedia as a compliment...You removed it. I understand why...but my name comes up under delitionpedia as nonsense. If you could the info was factual...either reinstate based on several Magazine articles written about the aircrft as well as myself. The N-Number is N211GD.....EAA wrote several Articles as well as several other people. This delition pedia coming up as Nonsense has hurt my reputation in the industry and futer employment opertunities. Thanks for youre consideration in this matter.

Respectfully Yours

Aldo James Sibi Director of Production Indus Aviation

Dallas Texas 75237

Aldo@indusav.com

(False timestamp to try and fool the bot into archiving.) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Smile


, X clamation point  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!  Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(False timestamp to try and fool the bot into archiving.) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

UniverseGlyph01.jpg
UniverseGlyph01.jpg....... I am the source where is the problem?

(False timestamp to try and fool the bot into archiving.) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga
She rocks.... don't hate i'm only 14

(False timestamp to try and fool the bot into archiving.) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

40 seconds to create new account on the ACC
Just thought I'll leave a note. I had unreserved a new account request to allow User:Bsadowski1 to create the account. Subsquently, I noticed that Bsadowski created the account in 40 seconds. I quizzed the user on IRC immediately on whether he'd checked all the links, as I was confused how an account creator could click on 13 check links in 40 seconds (one link every 3 seconds). Although he did confirm that he did check all links before creating the account, I was still wondering whether you'd want to check the incident. Thanks   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  08:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just my 2cents - while 40 seconds seems fast I'll offer two plausible explanations. First, BSadowski1 could have been looking at the details while you had it reserved, and secondly using firefox or chrome tabbed browsing the full review can be done very, very quickly - especially for a clean request.  In those browsers if you zoom on a request and then right click (one by one) each of the links between the IP and Create! inclusive you will get about a dozen or so additional tabs that open up... if you then click on the first one and then CTRL-F4 after you've seen that each is clean (e.g. no blocks, no EF, no SUL, etc...) you can close them all down in a matter of seconds. . . but of course, ACC is not a race.  As a side note, have you informed BSadowski1 about this conversation?  Regards. 08:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I did. I opened some tabs and everything was clean and just fine, and then I hit Create!. And no I wasn't informed of this. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 7, thanks for your message. Yes, that's possible. I would wish you read my message to Bsadowski below.   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  05:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Bsadowski, I am worried you aren't perhaps checking the correct links. It was just not the above case. Here was created by you in 52 seconds.This in 45. 42, 59 14 seconds!. If I'm wrong, my apologies. If by chance you might have missed checking links in the past, I should request you to kindly start checking them properly. If you reply to this message, kindly do leave a tb on my talk. Warm regards.  ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help
Since I am not an administrator, I could not delete the page, and move it. That is the only reason why I copy edited it. I wont do it again. Sami50421 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Mlpearc
I wasn't really concerned with that pirticular request, but when I clicked "List" It showed an account similar to the one I was working, which it should. It made me wonder, if an User name is "Too Similar" the it comes in the interface as "Flagged User Needed" then we know what to look for and so on. But if it doesn't come in flagged that way and when click "List" it shows any user names that are close. I guess I'm wondering whats the difference ? Is there a situation where it won't come in flagged and still be "Too Similar" per "List" ? I hope this covey's my wonder. Mlpearc  pull my chain   Trib's  17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok listen
I am honestly sick and tired of people telling me to "assume good faith" more. I revert what is perceived to be unconstructive edits. That involves scanning many, many pages in a fairly fast rate. So I am subject to making some mistakes and if I may say so, I think I generally do a damn good job. And I have and am willing to accept genuine mistakes when they happen.

What I am unwilling to accept is complete and utter nonsense (for lack of a better word). Do you honestly believe you are doing Wikipedia a favor by telling me to "Assume good faith" more by reverting an edit where example1,2 occurred three times in a row? I can only see the diff link. I don't know if the new user is a troll or genuinely experimenting. And honestly, for an edit like that- it shouldn't make a difference, really it shouldn't. Assume good faith is one of those policies are completely misused beyond their intent- it's almost disgusting. There is preview for a button at the bottom for a reason. I used it when I was new, I don't see why other people shouldn't either.

So instead of pissing me off with "Assume good faith" more, (when I skip many bad edits by the way) why don't you help the new user by explaining WHY I gave THEM the warning. UGH. 40,000 edits and i still get this shit. incredible. — Tommy  2010 21:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that explanation be "Sorry but our vandal patroller was too busy trying to do lots of edits"? If you have recieved the same "Maybe you should slow down and try to assume a little bit more good faith" from a number of different editors, it might be time to step back and see if maybe they are seeing something in your editing pattern that you might want to address? Active Banana (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That account was no doubt trolling, look at its contributions. Almost all of its edits were vandalism. Sorry, but they were. I don't know why you keep pushing this. — Tommy  2010 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The "troll edits" comment were about a different new editor whose first contributions were indeed nearly all disruptive or completely uninformed about Wikipedia policy and goals. Perhaps the user had decided to reform -  - but the distribution of wikicookies to editors s/he had previously harranged on their user pages was labeled as "trolling". Active Banana (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ECx2) Assuming good faith is not nonsense! If people such as yourself actually did assume good faith, then newcomers to Wikipedia wouldn't be scared off quite so often. The user in the example here actually came to the IRC help chat wanting to know the contact details to file a complaint with the foundation on the grounds that folk were nasty to him, "deleting" (reverting) his contributions. I took a look into it, and saw your name pop up (amongst a couple of others). In case you hadn't noticed, it's the newcomers who potentially become active editors. That's how we build the encyclopedia. Without new editors, and old ones retiring for various reasons, the project will become stale. How does that help Wikipedia? It doesn't.
 * And no, you don't only see the diff, you can also easily see the other contributions of the editor in question from Huggle. Anyway, what does a few extra seconds matter, if you can get zero mistakes instead of a few. You can't count on people using the preview button anyway - there are no restrictions saying you have to use it.
 * I'm sick and tired of seeing newcomers - the future editors of Wikipedia - being scared away by incivility, biteyness, rude behaviour (point: I'm not saying you're guilty of these, this is a general statement). I tried to explain why they were given the warning, but ultimately, I shouldn't have had to explain another editor's actions.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing these troll edits. All I see is a new user struggling to get to grips with syntax, the editing interface, and wikipedia policy. I also see other editors biting said new user.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, completely put words in my mouth. The policy is not nonsense, but the way people push it so much is like you are on my talk page. OK, so they may be testing. Not my fault if I revert, as it is blatantly unconstructive. . . — Tommy  2010 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't give cookies to accounts like This!! —Tommy 2010 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) I have no problem with removing the unconstructive bits, but in the edit you reverted, they were trying to add an image, constructively. You aren't limited to rolling back/reverting the whole edit or not at all, you can actually use the "edit this page" link and remove the unconstructive bits yourself.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. But the manner which you spoke to me on my talk page really pissed me off, I hope you know. Give a heads up, but maybe someone with a good history, those are the people wikipedians should, actually, assume good faith with. And that account is a troll. Only trolls give cookies to a user who just warned them at a level 4 warning. —Tommy 2010 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stwalkerster. I hope you don't mind a comment from me as an uninvolved observer. I don't think the issue here was so much your giving Tommy2010 a heads-up, but the actual words you used - they did come across as rather aggressive and patronising. Yes, we can try to minimise mistakes, but we'll never get them down to zero - we will all make them, no matter how much we'd like not to. I've made them myself, and I'm never upset if someone politely makes suggestions to me, but I wouldn't be too happy to get the kind of schoolmasterish telling-off that Tommy2010 got. Anyway, I'm only offering my thoughts because you have wikitrout boxes and messages on your User page, and I hope you'll take my comments in that light. Best regards -- Boing!   said Zebedee  22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere in this discussion about that editor (I think on my talk page), if giving a cookie converts a disruptive editor to one who is desirous of making ammends and contributing positively; a cookie is better than a block. It may not always work, and I may get my fingers bitten, but a block can always be handed out later and my wikifingers will grow back. Active Banana (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC about 9000x hence the below was written before reading some of the above)

@Tommy2010

Ok listen as a section title, followed by I am honestly sick and tired of people telling me to "assume good faith" more - wonderful irony. Perhaps if you listened to the people complaining about you not assuming good faith, they'd stop complaining about it.

I'm very grateful for your work reverting vandalism, but please don't forget, we're here to write an encyclopaedia; when you spend lots of time in huggle, it is easy to lose sight of that.

Wikipedia needs new users. We cannot expect them to understand all the complex policies, guidelines, rules. The way they are treated initially is absolutely critical, and that is why we have the policy.

Re. I don't know if the new user is a troll or genuinely experimenting - absolutely, you don't - and that is precisely why we have to AGF. Yes, 90%+ of the time, they will be trolls - but the % remaining are what helps the project move forwards. If those precious few seeds of new editors are not treated with tender loving care, Wikipedia will die.

Please, have some tea, and refresh your knowledge of reverting.

Stwalkerster is also trying to improve Wikipedia, and is not trying to piss you off. When you removed their comment here, it was because you were not assuming good faith again, this time on the part of Stwalkerster. Their intention in mentioning this matter to you was to make Wikipedia a little bit better - just asking you to be a little more thoughtful when reverting contributions from new users.

Thanks for your time.  Chzz  ►  22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind another neutral editor trying to make the peace.


 * I, personally:


 * Often avoid reverting very new edits like example1,2 and don't warn a user for it because they are likely just trying to figure things out. Chasing away a new user who had an accident is the supreme no-no on Wikipedia as it could cost the project a thousand productive hours. I err on the side of caution and let it pass.


 * Am always super, super, super insanely polite. Being impolite sours the experience of currently productive editors and can chase them away. Also, building an encyclopedia means less time on long threads like this.


 * Now, please, please, swap, not a picture of cookies to make up, but something better: Might I suggest a picture of some kittens, or fine jewelry, a Faberge Egg, or something else really expensive.


 * Sorry to butt in. I apologize if I am out of line. Please keep up the good work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Stwalkerster, (cooled down) sorry, I was really annoyed by that comment yesterday. It makes me feel like there's a power trip to being a sysop. I understand the future editors of Wikipedia are important, but that doesn't mean they get a free pass for test edits, that's all. A level 1 warning AGF- I used it completely within reason, and well within WP:IAR to improving the encyclopedia. Chzz, I saw your RfA. I don't think you're the person to give me a lecture on who to AGF with. Anna- Thanks, that was, actually, helpful. I may be back in a few days or so. —<b style="color:black;">Tommy</b> 2010 15:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also sorry to butt in, but I do not agree with the sentiment that new users should be attacked for making mistakes (no matter how polite we make them, the fact that they are auto-generated templates can always hurt). Reverting the edits is usually okay (though it need not be done in a hurry, as I think it's good to give the user at least a few minutes to fix it themselves), but warning them unnecessarily is quite another thing. I realise that reverting vandalism is valuable, but scaring away new users is very harmful to Wikipedia. I suggest: (1) reverting only if clear vandalism (not test edits), or when it has been a few minutes, and (2) after reverting, warning the user only when very very sure that it was intentional vandalism. Shreevatsa (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)