User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 35

Indonesian television
Hey give up now - they dont bother and really are not worthy of any AGF - they never reply, and I could lead you to a number of outright idiot editors who have never responded and who create junk articles - I would personally block em for nuisance editing and total lack of community spirit - but hey - I dont think that is in the policy lists anywhere is it... SatuSuro 14:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry I sound so pessimistic - for a while (felt like a very long time) i was trying to fix Indonesian soccer stubs created by a few non responsive non english speakers - no one would ever block him/them - as there was no apparent misdemenaour apart from creating a mess more productively time wasting than an infant with a spilling nappy along a 50 metre passageway woollen carpet - so I have basically walked away from indonesian articles for a while to keep the sanity, whats left of it.  I would strongly suggest reverting on sight overlinked overbolded non referenced material - no questions etc - then if they repeat or try 3RR - they can be legitimately apprehended - perhaps SatuSuro 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow...just visualizing your infant/nappy analogy...lol. Your frustration is understandable.  Also, taking breaks is definitely a good thing.  Helps the perspective.  If it makes any difference, there would be little help in blocking the IPs.  They will just change addresses and return to make their edits.  That is why I have been protecting the pages instead.  I watch the talk pages in the event there are IP editors that want to make constructive changes.  Also, if you come across an instance where an action or edit of mine appear improper please let me know.  I need all the help I can get.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  15:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

About 3 years ago people from left field suggested adminship - I passed on the suggestion (the zoo stages of rfa have been from chaotic to vitriolic etc and the stress did not interest me) - the Indonesian en project has not had a resident admin ever - as for help - it is beyond any one person - watching this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/IndonesiaSearchResult when it is not broken is one way to keep the stress up - just check the unassessed part there - that is probably the soccer crap in all likelihood :( SatuSuro 15:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As regards adminship, there are several discussions onging that concern themselves with reforming the process and remit. If you are interested in looking into those discussions, I can probably find links for you.  Tide  rolls  17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah it never will reform - all the same behaviours online wherever - have little time to even contemplate it - I dont want it SatuSuro 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I request an article?
How can I request an article?...or ask someone to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolifofo (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears you have met the conditions required to create an article. If you want to ask for for help, you can post to the article's talk page.  If the talk page has limited visibility, you can post help me on the article talk page to attract attention to your concern.  I apologize for posting the warning on your talk page.  I did not realize you were the article's creator.  It is acceptable in certain circumstances for an article's creator to blank their creation; please understand that this is tantamount to requesting that the article be deleted, so be careful.  Let me know if you have any more questions.   Tide  rolls  15:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Request
Good sir, I believe we have an unfortunate understanding. I would greatly appreciate your re-consideration of my edit. If you don't change your opinion, then I would like a reason for your reversion of my changes.

Sincerely, Phlegmatic 123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlegmatic123 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed my reversion and will not be changing my opinion. My reason for reversion was that your edit appeared to be vandalism; at best it was purile commentary.  Either way, it had to go.   Tide  rolls  15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Why
I more or less have left Indonesian editing for a while - - tell me - isnt most of that unencylopediac? SatuSuro 03:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Season-by-season breakdowns do seem a bit much. But, there are references...I did not check them for suitability as I was so happy just to see they were included.  I believe that that type of "article" exists, in the short term, because the deletion process would take time from more important work; or what folks consider more important work.  If an article is not violating BLP or an outright hoax, I know I'm not going to assign addressing its notability a high priority.  I have tasks I think are important...you have your personal area(s) of interest...we all take different approaches to our "work".  The answer lies in attracting more long-term contributors so that, in time, all these side areas are eventually addressed.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  10:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey a very considered response - I couldnt agree more with the sentiment - more long term contributors of good material - they have disappeared in the last two years - so few are left ... cheers SatuSuro 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

B vs D
In a case like that, it's best to delete the page entirely. The guy asserted his copyright over the userpage content, so we'd in fact be doing him a service by deleting it entirely, regardless of what was on it.

You're an admin. If you feel the entire content of a page should be removed, it's appropriate for you to delete the page instead of blanking it. DS (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

cookie
 Thank you for reverting the section blanking in the article Asian American. I can only hope for more positive contributions from you and your fellow administrators on articles under the scope of the WPAA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cookie, RCLC. I'm glad to help out where I'm able.  See ya 'round   Tide  rolls  01:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Hi, Jsayre...apologies. I'll lurk at the bottom of the queue for a bit.  Thanks for the barnstar and the help on recent changes.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  03:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Paul Rieser Show
Yeah... I don't see how my edits were removed. They were true. The show was cancelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.161.163 (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I never claimed your edit was adding false info. Your original version contained the word "ass".  If you're gonna save your changes without previewing them, that kinda thing will happen.  Even if the show was cancelled (you cited no source), past tense is not used for fictiional works.  You'd better take another shot at your edit.  Tide  rolls  04:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers
Always forget to tell - I feel better (safer) when I see your edits at RCP/Watchlist/etc. Your hand is appreciated and noticed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the recognition, Materialscientist. I learned a lot of what I know from you, so you only have yourself to blame :) See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FCC: I don't get it
Tide rolls: Thanks for reverting the rant @FCC. I just don't understand that kind of idiocy. I mean, I understand the rant, but what's the point? Dopes. Anyway, thanks. Thengeveld (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thengeveld. Sometimes the point is to get you and I wondering "why?".  Deny them that and keep up your good work.  That way they fail.  All is well.  Life continues.   Tide  rolls  15:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

British Isles
Caught up on your recent conversations on this topic. I was involved for quite a while in trying to make Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples constructive and sometimes it was. The underlying problem is not so much source-warring as you put it at Mick's talk page, but a lack of willingness to agree basic guidelines on what are acceptable and non-acceptable contexts and ranges for the term. That said, there was _some_ progress. A number of editors, including some now-banned were not always but in general unhelpful to the process as they have tended to want to engage with motives and/or stir rather than be constructive. On the "deletist" side (a simplification) there have also been unhelpfuls but I wouldn't particularly include HighKing (usually accused by the "includists" as the main instigator of deletism) amonst them in that he has shown an interest in rules-based approaches albeit with some of the gaming Mick so brutally describes. We did get near rules in the past but it was disrupted each time by sniping - some have a very definite interest in disruption rather than agreement.

IMHO we need:

(1) A moratorium on delete/include for a sustained period whilst rules get agreed. If no agreement, extend the moratorium. (2) Harsh punishments supported by vigilant admins against any bad-mouthing whatever. (3) Harsh punishments against even minor infringements of the moratorium or anything that smells of gaming it.

As always, this would need one or more determined admins to take an interest!

I would be willing to return to the fray and put some time into the rules-building process but only if the above could be relied upon, otherwise I know from experience it won't work. The alternative is to start challenging one-by-one each and every change from the usual editors. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, James. Many thanks for your synopsis.  I am presently wading through a bucket-load of archived discussions on the situation.  Nothing like a late-comer to the party to glom-up the process, eh? :)  It appears that this debate has produced its share of casualties and I make no claim to any particular stubbornness or special talent that will result in a much needed panacea.  I will, however, make an effort.  I do owe the community this much.   Tide  rolls  17:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - add me to any mental list you have of "willing to be involved". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

 Tide  rolls  19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the current AN/I discussion is not the best suited venue to call for implementation of a moratorium or an RfC. The subject raised by the OP has been addressed.  However, after reading the discussion at Talk:Neil Robertson (snooker player) and looking over the article's revision histoy, I can understand Mick's POV.  Your call for an RfC, while logical, is not likely to produce consensus.  I do not believe there is enough interest to produce the consensus to implement a complete moratorium (the draconian methods needed to enforce a moratorium would repel most folks).  I can only hope the community's sanctions that are already in place and the project's edit warring policy and behavioral guidelines will be sufficient to minimize any negative impact that could result from this dispute.  Should you have any further input on the subject (or on my opinions), let me know.  I do not believe my post closes the door on the subject in any way.  I simply see no process that would move us forward.
 * Not saying Mick's comments never make sense. I also agree with him about that specific article, where you see good examples of gaming and tag-teaming going on. I note that the rubbishing of the BISE page there comes from some of the serial offenders against decent conversational co-operative behaviour though. Attitudes are serially inflamed because within WP the BI issue acts symbolically as a token of nationalistic feeling on both "sides". Hence the request for special levels of admin attention. I don't find it likely that your view that the policies already in place will serve. The community sanction said people must use BISE - but they aren't. Nothing has been done about that. I know we're all volunteers - the sheer persistence of some makes it hard to intervene. But without the admin support for the sanctions, we may as well kiss WP goodbye as on fundamentalist-driven issues like this, it becomes an unregulated battleground. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

jk I'm not racist
I'm not racist at all, I just wanted to see what would happen, lol

P.S. Go vols! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.3.57 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wyatt Earp edit and "user policies"
I respect "neutrality" as you say...but I always assumed that "neutrality" also meant "factual".

Am I wrong?

Your reply is welcomed and expected.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritatis21 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In most cases neutrality relies on factual support. Regrettably, your edit was a personal observation.  Locate sources (see WP:Reliable sources) that report the position you want to add to the article, cite them properly (see WP:Citation templates) and obtain consensus by discussing your ideas on the article's talk page.  That's the best way to see your content survive.  Regards  Tide  rolls  02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi, I edit biographies of musicians. When I first began doing so, I offered to assist a musician who has fame to attend to his article- adopting him long before I was ready. After two years, (he lived up the street from me!) I only heard from him to help on his biography when he found banners from other editors to ask that I remove them, about his input You are an Admin. look it up if you wish- only when I suggested a discussion ban between us -he complained about my editing, and I sent an angry email. OK, reason I am here is because of User:Empress Ericka. Apparently, she's an A&R rep. for some notable musicians, including Kaki King, whose pics I uploaded a few years ago. I've uploaded over 1,500 photos of musicians to Commons (see my userpage for a tiny gallery and above it a link to all the names). Erika needs guidance and someone to watch her. I really got burned by my good intentions with that musician I knew--I mean, I even swore not to mention his name anywhere in the en.Wikipedia. Erika has multiple times attempted to remove photos from articles with copyrighted images (if they were Creative Commons licensed free images that were as good, no problem.. (I don't WP:OWN), but she's really getting pissed off without any comprehensive assistance and explanations about how this is an encyclopedia and not a promotional website. Please see her talk page and mine. I think it's best an Admin. handle this, but if not possible, I will do it. Please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It will be difficult for me to approach EmpressErika as an admin because I have (admittedly, without much response from that user yet) begun an editorial discussion on Talk:Anita Baker. This is a very low level of involvement for me, but I try to avoid even the appearance of admin abuse.  I'm hoping that a dialog can be established so that I will have an opportunity to point Erika to some relevant guidelines.  I appreciate your efforts...keep up the good work.   Tide  rolls  03:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It's why I picked you as the Admin. I'll look for another-- it isn't the job for me, frankly. I believe photographs are the item that really gets a bee in her bonnet, and have offered to assist her in understanding those rules, but NPOV and other issues do not seem to connect with her for some reason. If you have ideas for another Admin. in the same basic area, please ask their help. This could end badly. It's been coming for some time now. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User:J Milburn is an admin on Commons as well as an admin on en.Wiki. They are very knowledgeable regarding image use.   Tide  rolls  04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I know User:J Milburn! Images aren't my problem. I think I know as much about the requirements for uploading photos to Commons and placing them here as many Admins. in Commons. Just enough of the requirements to use them here. I hunt down the photos I place, teaching via email prospective photographers as to how to convert their work from a copyright to one of the (2 of the 6) Creative Commons licenses we accept here so they can be uploaded to Commons without any issues. What to do with some stubborn editors that do not want to learn what is required here re: WP:COI, WP:NOT, or WP:NPOV, and reliable sources and who behave as if this is the typical online blog or group chat, I'm not sure what to do. It's a far cry from those places where they swear, threaten one another, and try to sway public opinion on that website, but many feel oblivious to it.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

/* Neutrality (NPOV) of "Ferrets as pets" Section */
Greetings,

Per your recommendation i have started a discussion on the Ferret board.

I feel that if no 'guidelines' are appropriate, a historical reference to the diet of ferret ancestors is no more appropriate than it would be for wolves/dogs or Neanderthals/Humans.

In each condition they are 2 completely different sub-species with equally different dietary requirements.

The highly prejudiced reference to meat, beaks and feathers on the current page tends to favor the 'live diet' or 'whole prey' diet philosophy behind ferret rearing, NEITHER of which are used by ANY major breeders of domesticated ferrets.

As this tends to lead readers to the horrible act of throwing live animals in to be killed, i believe it should be immediately addressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZG0MouxemM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffmuffin (talk • contribs) 01:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the article's talk page.  Tide  rolls  01:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!
—This lousy T-shirt (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, This lousy T-shirt (I could not come up with a acronym or diminutive, apologies). I'm sure you're capable of maintaining your user page, but I never know when folks are logged on.  Of course, you're welcome.  Thanks for letting me know I wasn't butting in unnecessarily.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  19:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

University Work of Wikipedia
Hello Wikipedian, My name is Jonathan Medeiros, I’m a graduate student and I’m doing a university work about Wikipedia. My work is about mass production of information in peer, and I'm using Wikipedia as an object of study. We developed a field research and wonder if you could answer. 1)     Please list below in order of priority what else motivates you to contribute to Wikipedia.

prestige in the community

Contribution in the Science

Recreation

Self-realization

Social Valuation

Keep interconnectivity with other collaborators

Strengthening staff - (The amount that the contributor gains acceptance or approvalof other members, strengthen social status in the community)

Awards Archives (Ex: Barnstar)

Increase the prestige of the world to Wikipedia

Sense that all can share the benefits generated

Other: _____________________________

2)     List 1 to 5, where 1 is highest and 5 is lowest of important that you consider the following values for Wikipedia. In the end, please explain what you consider most  important.

a) AUTONOMY

b) INDEPENDENCE

c) LIBERATION

d) CREATIVITY

e) PRODUCTIVITY

f) INDUSTRY

g) BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM

h) SOCIABILITY

I) CAMARADERIE/FRIENDSHIP

L) COOPERATION

k) CIVIC VIRTUE

Below is an explanation of each item:

AUTONOMY Collaborators are free to act according to the targets set for them. They can feel free.

INDEPENDENCE Collaborators will have independence and freedom of spirit.

LIBERATION Collaborators have the freedom to work as and when they want, they can decide by themselves.

CREATIVITY Collaborators has more freedom to explore creativity, because he does not have to follow orders that they are imposed.

PRODUCTIVITY Collaborators are always pursuing excellence in their contributions.

INDUSTRY The mass production of information opens new doors to creativity and the creation of productive practices, when compared to the industrially organized market.

BENEVOLENCE, CHARITY, GENEROSITY, ALTRUISM Collaborator does not want financial rewards, he assists in helping the communitythinking, the only reward is the reputation that he get with the collaborations they do.

SOCIABILITY Make contributions with an open heart, thinking of the common good, which is for the community as a whole.

CAMARADERIE / FRIENDSHIP, Collaborator help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

COOPERATION Collaborators help themselves to build something of value to everyone.

CIVIC VIRTUE Collaborators are arranged volunteers with common goals and promote cooperation between them.

Thank you very much for your attention, Can you send me a email with this answers please? my email address is jhoumedeiros@gmail.com. Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.243.219 (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jonathan. I can appreciate your motive(s), but as a general practice I do not participate in commenting on this project off-wiki.  Até depois  Tide  rolls  19:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Vandalism
Please Join the project WikiProject Vandalism.The computer rocks! (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You may want to check out Counter-Vandalism Unit.  Tide  rolls  05:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dakota Gasification
It's true though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MakenaWhite (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A debatable topic to be sure. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for debate.  Let me know if you would be interested in a more detailed explanation.   Tide  rolls  05:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unlock RTM-articles (Malaysia)
The only vandal is 125.162 IP. (Indonesia) Please rangeblock the IP address and unlock the article. He is former Albert20009.--125.25.161.192 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's our freaky overlinking vandal that shows up once every few weeks or so isn't it? The reason you locked down Purple Storm (film), if I'm not mistaken.  IP is right that it's always the 125.162 range - he hits a few articles I watch everytime he shows up.  Millahnna (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will look into the feasibilty of a rangeblock.  Even if the collateral damage is acceptable, I think that this approach will not be successful in the long run.  The individual or individuals responsible have returned to continue their disruption after a three month protection.  This tells me that they are dedicated to their task and will return after the rangeblock expires.  Since extended blocks for IPs is not an acceptable alternative, it's my belief that we will eventually be forced to return to article protection.  I will post the result of my inquiry here.  Thanks for your input, Millahnna, and thanks 125.25.161.192 for your polite message.   Tide  rolls  23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found an admin to execute a rangeblock and will begin un-protecting the articles I can identify. If I miss some please let me know.  I would hope that any content added will be notable and sourced.  I will, of course, protect the articles if the disruption recommences.  Tide  rolls  23:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Amy Dhillon
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the articles about Amy Dhillon are real and I got them from various magazines and from her directly. (I think you are a awesome wikipedian and I am inspired by your commitment,be sure to leave a message!) I have seen Amy before and she was with Blake Lively. Boardingschoollover (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Baordingschoollover


 * Your best bet: check WP:Notability and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Once you've absorbed the basics there you can check out WP:Citation templates.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  00:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC