User talk:Dsprc/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dsprc. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thank you for the report to WP:ANI regarding the impersonation account and vandalism on the article. I semi-protected the article so that should put a stop to things. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsprc.

Thanks for patrolling the article 2013–14 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – World Cup 6 – Women's team pursuit. You also tagged it with refimprove and cleanup-reorganize, but didn't leave any comment on the talkpage. Is there anything in particular you're thinking of? I think it's pretty well referenced (for instance) for such a small article – there's a reference for the announcement, there's one for the weekend schedule, there's one for the draw, on finally one for the result.

I agree there could be a little more prose, and I'm planning to add that. Any other suggestions? You can reply here, I've checked the "watch-this-page" tickbox.

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It was just the article relies primarily on the one ISU source and I hoped to entice someone privy to speed-skating to add additional refs should they stumble across it. The style stuff was for the infobox, edit: maybe move it into results. Dsprc (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. You know, as arrangers of the competition(s), the International Skating Union is a perfectly reliable primary source for anything related to the competition, but I'll see if I can find some secondary sources (like newspaper websites) when I add that prose.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In your contributions to Wikipedia, namely your recent repeated editing to The Godfather, you have continued to add links to an article which repeat the same link. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Godfather, you may be blocked from editing. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, This is not vandalism and it certainly is not v3; save me the chevrons. The first edit was a mistaken revert; assume good faith. I'm not adding any links to the actual article, just properly tagging the references Help:Footnotes. If you have any constructive guidance that would be grand but don't shout vandalism or waste my time over four square brackets just because you don't like them (for whatever reason). 「dsprc」 [talk] 10:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, if you could please stop being a bully and going through my edit history just to revert my sparse links like you WP:OWN these articles, that would be great. I don't know why you suddenly decided to single me out or start an WP:EDITWAR with me but I would appreciate it if you stopped. Please discuss your specific objections to my contributions here. Thank you. 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 15:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:OVERLINK. Just take a look at your edit here. Rotten Tomatoes is linked at the beginning of the sentence, thus, there is no need to link it in the reference. You have violated WP:3RR on The Godfather article so it would be a good idea to drop the WP:STICK MarnetteD | Talk 15:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I did and I am not adding excessive links to the main articles as is discussed in those guidelines. I didn't fast link every utterance. The recommendations specifically state that fast links can be sparsely placed in footnotes and image captions if helpful for navigation in those areas, which is all I was doing. 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 16:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Dawnseeker2000. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Earthquakes in 1923, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this; I was working too quickly and realized at the moment that I clicked the button that I'd made a mistake. Dawnseeker2000 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's cool. :) Seemed like a trivial thing to get boilerplated over anyway... Should make that one silent. :) 「dsprc」 ^{[ talk ]} 21:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School - I am reverting your reversion of my edits to prevent an unfairly negative portrayal of the school. The Controversies section itself is overblown and should not be repeated in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Wikipedia is not censored. If content is backed by reliable sources, it remains. You are welcome to reword it in a more neutral tone but, please do not remove or blank content where there is clearly not consensus. Thank you. dsprc ^{[ talk ]} 22:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding repetitive derogatory material to this article is contrary to NPOV. Please revert your edits72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not add this content... And here is not really the place to discuss that anyway. Please post your concerns to the article's talk page so you and the other editors can form a consensus. Content in the article can remain so long as it states factual, verifiable information presented by reliable third parties; even if you do not like or agree with that information. If the media have found the school notable for these events and incidents, I think that is worth noting. I'm sure people from the school have done "good" things; feel free to add those as well. dsprc ^{[ talk ]} 03:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even READ what i was writing? I said I first left a praise on CLUEBOT_NG's page . A PRAISE. You guys should stop trolling and harassing me. what kind of community is this by harassing a newcomer who merely left a praise on someone's praise page? Jaemin1804 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaemin1804, All of your edits are publicly viewable and I certainly read them. Praise they are not. Many are rather offensive. You can compare them yourself by selecting the diff option to the left.

I must ask, if you read what I wrote about policy and guidelines as they pertain to etiquette and behaviour toward fellow editors? As a new user you should. There is also a comprehensive list at the top of my talk page; you may like to review the Policies and guidelines section and those under The community. The other editors and I were not piling on you, nor harassing you; we were attempting to inform you in hopes that you would make constructive edits in the future but, you fail to heed our advice.

On the last note, and as a new user, I would like to direct you toward the Introduction and an interactive tutorial called "The Wikipedia Adventure" (that many editors find helpful, and fun) so that you may familiarize yourself with the basics of Wikipedia. Again, I invite you to read the policy for Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility as well. Please make constructive edits going forward, else you will face potential blocking or banishment. Thank you. dsprc ^[talk] 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"Praise they are not." thats on your opinion that i did not left praise on Cluebot_NG's praise page. I meant it as a praise.

"The other editors and I were not piling on you, nor harassing you;" In my opinion, you guys are.

and im talking about Cluebot_ng not oreothecow or anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaemin1804 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your user name warnings and postings on WP:UAA. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice edit to the infobox. Much appreciated! --Blitzenrupff Blitzenrupff (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dsprc,

I appreciate the emails and adherence to the rules and guidelines. I promise that I am trying to do this the correct and legal way. I have been editing, adding, and correcting the information around the school that I run. Yes, I have added photos from our library to the Commons, and I am in the middle of adding links to much of the data.

I am new to writing code for Wikipedia, so I am having to go back and forth to look at the format when I put things in. I would LOVE any help you could provide to me in order to make our page accurate, clean, and informative. I am happy to send data to you if you can do it faster and more in line with compliance.

Respectfully, I appreciate your emails, truly. I mean no harm, I just want to help clean up this neglected page.

Sincerely, Matt Rush

Head of School Allen Academy, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRushAA (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@DrRushAA: We are going to have a problem with the copyright issue. You have largely copy and pasted this material from your organization's Website. This is not allowed; not unless your legal team wants to license this text under a Creative Commons license. We take copyright very seriously here. You are going to have to write this content yourself, and it must be backed up by reliable third party sources. Even first party materials are fine, so long as they are factual and objective. I am a new user as well and have only been editing here for a short while so, I am not sure how to proceed with this. I will ping a volunteer for assistance however... --dsprc ^[talk] 03:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@dsprc, I guess it is just frustrating to spend hours learning how to do this, posting accurate, verifiable, and non-biased information about my organization, and have it all undone in a click of a button. I would be happy to disclose what my role is at the school in the appropriate places, but every piece of information I either a) cited a weblink to a newspaper article, a television station link, or an appropriate website (including the company's, itself). Please know that I am not frustrated by you or other editors. I appreciate what you do to keep this cite clean, accurate, and legally in-bounds. Similarly, it is frustrating to see other schools like ours have logos, photos, etc., all on their wikipedia site, with no citation at all. My goal was to simply explain our history and update the page to be cleaner, more accurate, and in line with our peers... instead, the information now is less than it was a week ago. I guess I should have left it alone. Please accept my apologies for wasting your time, I promise my intentions were noble and within the legal parameters of Wikipedia. DrRushAADrRushAA (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the frustration DrRushAA, and I too often share the sentiment. However, this is how the editing process works; a lot of stuff gets left on the cutting-room floor. Luckily for us, we don't have to wait around for the Director's Cut, but can immediately start work expanding articles.

Linking to the school itself, and using them as a source is not an issue; it is perfectly OK. You may still include the history information so long as you write it yourself, and do not copy-paste as before. Most of the information was rather neutral and objective so, a simple rewording is fair-game for inclusion. I look forward to and encourage any possible contributions in that regard. I also noticed some news articles about the athletics of the school (specifically Baseball); these or others could be included as well...

The logos are not forbidden either; you must upload them to Wikipedia using a fair-use rationale, not to Commons (I believe media is automatically pushed to Commons depending on what you select during the upload process but, I am not sure as I never upload non-free media).

There is also now more information, not less; some of your contributions have been kept and the article has indeed grown; just compare the most recent edit with the one before your first. Everything in blue on the right are additions and the red on the left are removals. I thank you for these positive contributions.

If you need assistance, please do visit the Teahouse, that is what they're there for, and you will get better advice from them than from I. --dsprc ^[talk] 07:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsprc

You recently added a "multiple issues" banner on the page Founder Group. I will try my best to resolve these issues on the article, but I was just wondering, when will the banner be removed?

Thanks,

Sweetune — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetune (talk • contribs)

Hello @Sweetune: When you or another editor genuinely believes that the issues have been resolved, they can be removed at any time. The primary issue is that there are no sources for any of the claims other than from Founder Group themselves. Each claim needs to be backed up with a citation from a reliable third-party source, such as a newspaper, magazine or trade publication. As it is now, the only references are from the corporation itself; this is undesirable. Please introduce such material to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources for in-depth explanations.Help:Referencing for beginners is also useful. There is a big list of policy and guidelines at the top of this talk page as well.

Please note, the referenced sources may be in another language, such as Mandarin or Cantonese if need be, so long as an English translation is provided as a quotation in the reference. When making changes to the article, if you use the "cite web" template from the editing menu, and then click "show/hide extra fields" button, there is an option named "Quote", you may place the English translation there.

Also be aware, that if you have a professional connection to the company, it is advised to disclose this on your User page or in the Edit summary. If you were paid or employed specifically to edit the Wikipedia entry, you must disclose this as well, because failure to do so is a breach of Policy, and may result in losing your editing privileges, being blocked from editing, or banishment. --dsprc ^[talk] 03:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsprc: I see. Thanks for the information. I am actually interning at the company right now and am helping them with their Wikipedia page. However, I'm not paid or employed specifically to edit the Wikipedia entry. Should I still disclose this in my User page? If so, I can do that.

Sweetune (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweetune, you should absolutely disclose this information on your User page. You should also not edit that article at all. Please see how Larry Sanger handles such a conflict by engaging other editors in discussion on the Talk page but never editing the article directly himself (Sanger is considered rather prominent and controversial). Aside from the previously provided links, you should also read: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and definitely read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. With that said, if third-party sources are not introduced, anyone may remove content in the article at any time for that reason alone. --dsprc ^[talk] 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dsprc: OK, I understand. I edited my User page and I won't edit the page anymore. Thanks for your time. Sweetune (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweetune You can still edit, just be neutral. --dsprc ^[talk] 07:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dsprc,

Thank you for fixing the url in the infobox on the Labrisz Lesbian Association page. Can I ask why you deemed the sources I have used unreliable? The only possible reason I can come up with is that parts of them are only in Hungarian. I tried using as much of their English sources as I could - but being a Hungarian association most of the sources I will find will be in Hungarian. However, since this is their official website I don't think it makes the information unreliable. Any suggestions? Thanks, HungarianAmazon (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Namaste, HungarianAmazon. Thank you for creating this article. References in another language are acceptable; you may include Hungarian references but, as courtesy, and so they may be verified, you should include an English language translation. Please see my comments to Sweetune above. I am not entirely sure if the method I explained to Sweetune is the one that is preferred or correct (you will have to poke around the labyrinth of guidelines for that) but, it gets the job done, and that is all that really matters in the end (Ignore all rules). The sources are unreliable because they are self-published, primary sources. Primary sources should never be relied upon because they often do not maintain a neutral point of view, and they are subject to change at the whims of the organization. All the links I provided in the comments to Sweetune should be useful here, please see them (of equivalent guides on the native Hungarian Wikipedia). If you need additional assistance, it is recommended to visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse where there are a larger group of editors more seasoned than I who can assist. Thank you. --dsprc ^[talk] 09:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

plz dear help me to sort it out this page this page is actually exist and they are best in there business can you help me to edit this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulshankumargautam (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gulshankumargautam: Nope. :) See: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Your company fails that. The article also fails these: Wikipedia:Advertising, and this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is also your own company so... : Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your help. I get a COI and read as much as I could to amend anything might be wrong. This page was last edited in 2010 and things in MY company have change... but not that much. Everything written here is verifiable. JLFdez Embega — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLFdez (talk • contribs)

JLFdez I was on the fence about it myself but, since you removed your affiliation with Embega from your User page right around the time I slapped in on there, I think it may be proper to leave it up now. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You removed the ping, but I was still notified. Anyways, my opinion is that COI still applies. Please be careful in editing the article, though I do not see any edits that are of great concern. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

dsprc. I believe logo size is modified. Thanks again. JLFdez (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at AbleCommerce. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Warrenkychu (talk) 7:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

@Warrenkychu: Don't boilerplate me... Did you actually review any of the edits or summaries or are you just going off the red text you see? I would sure like to know what you perceived as vandalism to that article. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Next time just trout me instead of making wild claims of vandalism. If I did muck something up, it was an accident; I'd never screw it up on purpose. I might not be the brightest bulb in the box but, I ain't dumb. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the warning. I will check more carefully next time as I usually think blankings are in bad faith, as I have seen many vandals blank pages. I'll assume good faith and check MORE carefully next time. Warrenkychu (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsprc, I am sorry to disturb you, but I am new here and actually I was only looking for some information about the St. Lawrence College in Ramsgate, when I saw that you had edited the article earlier. So I thought that obviously you must know the school and for whatever reason I wanted to ask you wether you can recommend it or not. I have to admit that reading the other talks on your talk page was very amusing. Most users seem to complain about you. Well, I know that's none of my business but I still had to mention it. Maybe because I can't help laughing when imagining that you will be upset about this unnecessary comment. I know that's not very nice of me but the truth is that being nice all the time would be quite boring, wouldn't it? So I ask you to ingnore my impertinent behaving and to tell me some things you know about the St. Lawrence College. By the way I'd prefer to read some positive things, if in your opinion there are any. And if not, the human sees what he wants to see anyway. Oh, and I am also sorry for the spelling and grammar errors you will probably find in this text. PS: Sorry, didn't really get the thing with the signature as you can see perhaps. never_whatever Never whatever (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Never whatever: I know nothing about this place. I edit a lot of articles about schools, mostly to revert vandalism by students who think it humorous to insert bogus information or to include insults about their classmates or the faculty. In this case, I reverted another editors changes because they didn't seem right at first glance. I've since completely removed that table altogether as I found no source for it (if you have one, add it back). -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned on AbleCommerce talk page about conflict of interest. Plugables is an independent organization working on development of plugins and customizations for e-commerce shopping cart tools. AbleCommerce is one such tool that we write plugins for. If that is your criteria of determining COI than Plugables also has a conflict of interest with Microsoft because it writes applications that run on their platform.

I am surprised to see your editing behavior. You behave as if you are the god. If you know everything then you should do all the writing yourself. There is no need for volunteer contributions.

Your claims at AbleCommerce are knavish. Totally inconsistent with billions of pages in wikipedia.

I don't intend to point out certain pages but when I look at the pages of other products that we develop plugins and do customizations for they look worse with respect to the content quality criteria you are championing. Magento NopCommerce PrestaShop OsCommerce Shopify IzzoNet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugables (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Abdullah at Plugables:@Plugables: Namaste. First of all: Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Second: Thank you for bringing to my attention additional areas where a COI may be present; please do not edit any of those articles or others like them at all either. You may present any concerns you have with them to the relevant Talk pages and wait around for non-connected contributors to make the edits. As for my own edits: I removed all the bogus unsourced claims and marketing material; all such actions are backed by both community Guidelines and Policy (there is a list at the top of this page; please examine and inform yourself). What's also Policy, are no personal attacks and civility, I also welcome you to read our Policy on etiquette as your scurrilous remarks may be in conflict with them. Please note, just because other articles are in error or violation is no excuse for this one to be. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You've really made a mistake in rolling back my edit to the Quadratic Programming page. All I did was add an entry to a table for the software package OOQP, which is widely used. I did this because an OOQP user pointed out that its absence was inappropriate. I include a link to the download page for OOQP, in exactly the style that several other entries in the table included. Please restore the entry as I entered it. If you insist on no external links (incredible!) then fine, users can find it themselves via google. Thanks Steve Wright — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJGWright (talk • contribs)

@SJGWright: A mistake indeed. I initially removed the URL because it was very similar to your Wikipedia username and at first glance it was perceived as spam-ish. I have since restored your edit, and correctly formatted the citation (instead of a bare URL). Thank you for bringing my oversight to my attention. My apologies, Professor. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your work on Wikipedia. SJGWright (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dsprc - just passing along some advice about reporting problem usernames to WP:UAA. Leaving a {{uw-coi-username}} warning on the user's talk page automatically inserts them into the holding pen (WP:UAAHP), where the admins are obligated to wait and give them a chance to change their username. That can create a long backlog at UAA. If it's an obvious violation (WP:CORPNAME writing promotional content; an offensive or disruptive name; or a misleading name that's violating WP:NOSHARE or WP:IMPERSONATE), then list it at UAA and do nothing else.

I leave {{uw-coi-username}} warning with WP:CORPNAME accounts that have written in the draft namespace. If they have a promotional user page or user sandbox, then those can be nominated for speedy deletion ({{db-spamuser}} or {{db-spamuser-sandbox}}) and the name reported to UAA.

If there's a WP:CORPNAME account with no edit history, the admins won't take action. Leaving a {{uw-username}} warning would be an appropriate action in that case.

Hopefully that clears things up. Keep up the good work. --Drm310 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Drm310: Hey, thanks for this. I didn't know there was a "holding pen". I actually don't want to waste Admins' time (they've enough to deal with already). So, this is most appreciated. I will just add the RSS feed for their contributions to my reader and keep an eye out. Again, thanks for letting me know. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsprc,

Thank you for your message and for deleting the page I created incorrectly.

I can see from your history that you're quite an active deletionist.

With you experience, however, you might be able to help me in a constructive way.

As you may already know, there is more than one person of note with the name "Trevor Grimshaw".

I want to "disambiguate" the names and create a page (the page you deleted) for the academic Trevor Grimshaw and to distinguish this Trevor Grimshaw from the artist Trevor Grimshaw.

I have -- or rather had -- amended the artist page to include "(artist)" as a means of distinguishing the two. However, Wikipedia didn't recognise the distinction and the Trevor Grimshaw (academic) page overwrote the Trevor Grimshaw (artist) page.

How do you think I should proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsiderUCS (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

InsiderUCS, to disambig the pages on top of one that already exists you need to move "PAGE 1" to "PAGE 1 (artist)" etc; this will rename the page. Then you should go back to "Page 1" and remove the redirect to "Page 1 (artist)", you can easily do this by clicking the blue link below the pages title after it redirects you, and now you can add whatever content you want to "Page 1" like links to "Page 2" and "Page 1 (artist)". Just remember to slap a disambig template on the page as well; you can find it by using the search box on my User page. If you overwrote something, you can just go into the page history (or your contribs) and undo the edits. If the edit has been deleted, you may message the Admin and they can undo that as well. Please also note, I can not delete pages, only Users with Admin privileges or higher may do so; I simply tagged it for deletion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

UCSInsider, InsiderUCS, please also note there is a policy against using multiple accounts and doing so may result in loss of editing privileges or being blocked. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dsprc:

I would like you to discuss the changes I made in Middle East Eye. I split the paragraphs because it unfairly paints the executive as Muslim Brotherhood, whereas he is an ex-Al Jazeera employee. These are quite seperate things and should not be conjoined. I know because I am the executive, and an Al Jazeera employee, but not affiliated or a member of MB. But the heading implies I am a part of the organization. It is more reflective of reality to say Middle East Eyes may have ties to Muslim Brotherhood, o and, seperately they may ties to Al Jazeera. It is a very important distinction.

I would appreciate you respecting these edits.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nreldeen (talk • contribs)

Namaste, Nreldeen. No discussion is needed; You are correct. Thank you for catching and correcting my mistake (and the one with the article as well).

With that said, please be mindful to exercise caution should you make substantial edits in the future where you may have a connection with the subject of the article. The edits you made to MEE are non-controversial and simple house-keeping so, they are welcome. There is a nice list at the top of this page, under the Policy section, that you may like to review for further guidance in this regard (in particular Conflict of Interest, and Neutral Point of View). There are a great number of articles that are in need of expansion or clean up... I certainly invite you to be bold in editing those pages. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dsprc, I am on the vestry of St. Philip's and communications is my area of oversight. I am currently managing our Facebook page as well. St. Philip's would like to remove Episcopal from this page. We did not create this page. If we had created the page it would not have had Episcopal in the title. I was not able to change the heading but would like for Episcopal to be removed from that as well as the body. This wikipedia page is driving a "place" page on Facebook. Therefore people who are looking for us on Facebook may be confused by the "Place" page that lists us as St. Philip's Episcopal Church. We did not create this "place" page either. Please let me know what I need to do to get the name of our church corrected. Thanks for your help in this important matter. smccord25---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smccord25 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Namaste, Smccord25. The main reason I reverted the edits is because you just did a lazy text search to replace all mentions of "Episcopal" and broke the images which have this in their filenames.

Please post this to the article's talk page and discuss it with the other editors. Depending on the traffic, engagement, or editor interest in this page it may take a little time before your issues are addressed as we are volunteers doing this in spare time. Additionally, to attract attention to your concerns: on the St. Phillip's talk page, you will see several Wikiprojects that take interest in this article as well, you may wish to post a brief notice and link on their respective talk pages mentioning there is ongoing discussion concerning St. Phillip's. They are better equipped than I to assist you in this regard.

Please note that we've zero control over what Facebook and its ilk do (I am also entirely unfamiliar with FB and its "Places" as I would never use such a platform). Please also read: Conflict of interest and our frequently asked questions for organizations since you have an official capacity and connection to the subject of this article. Thank you, and Welcome to Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

GideaLab (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Namaste, GideaLab. It is OK; mistakes happen (just look at this page for proof ;-). At the top of this page (under the Policies and Guidelines subsection; bottom left) you will see some entries for Notability and the like; please examine those before you proceed with the review process as there is a backlog of thousands of entries for submission/review and I feel that the current state of the draft revision would not meet the criteria for inclusion. They are pretty lengthy but, the gist is this: if it hasn't been covered in reliable newspapers or trade publications, it ain't notable. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!

I am a new user and I am still not very familiarized with Wikipedia and the way it works. Yesterday I started editing a page called YPARD and after some minutes I got some messages from Wikipedia telling me to improve it due to the following reasons:

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2014)
• This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (August 2014)
• This article has an unclear citation style. (August 2014)
• This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find links tool for suggestions. (August 2014)
• This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2014)

As I am new here, I would like to ask you how could I improve this page as it wash´t my intention at all to make promotion of it and edit it in an unclear way.

Could you please help me out to solve these issues?

--Aoescala (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Namaste Aoescala. Sorry, I if totally missed your comment here. For how Wikipedia works: it is an encyclopaedia; you may be interested in reading the Wikipedia:Introduction or the brief Wikipedia:Tutorial. There is a rather verbose list at the top of my User page here (with varying degrees of complexity) which may be of interest later on; I do not suggest plowing through all of that immediately however - simply read at your leisure (but please do read eventually:-). For the most up-to-date and complete list, see: WP:LOP.

Now, for the issue templates at the top of the page, each one contains links to Guidelines which are of concern to the editor who placed them there (in this case, that would be I); you may review those links to better understand the issues with the article, and that should lead you in the direction of improving it. I will explain my concerns but, you should still (eventually) become familiar with policy and guidelines.

• connected contributor: I suspect you are User YPARD and may have some sort of connection to the subject of the article (YPARD).
• advert: it has some weasel words, particularly the "objectives" section may not be written with a neutral tone. "Working in partnership to empower", "YPARD will ensure" and so forth. the article must neutrally and objectively cover the subject. As of now, it smells of an advocacy piece.
• citation style: was resolved and I've since replaced it with WP:RELIABLE because so much is single sourced to the subject of the article. (see: additional citations below)
• orphan: was resolved; no other articles linked to it, but now some do - this makes discovery of articles easier and encourages editing.
• additional citations: what it says. we need additional citations from verifiable, reliable, third party sources. If there are no reliable third parties (news papers, journals, trade publications, books, television, documentaries, etc etc, then the subject is not notable, and another editor (including myself) may nominate the article for deletion, at which point a discussion will ensue, and editors will have to prove that the article meets the notability guidelines for inclusion.

I am new here as well, by the way (since March). :-)

Aside from the stuff above: to help improve the article, we need to tone it down, and summarize what other people say about the subject. If you need anything else, don't shy away from asking for help; I'll do my best to assist. :) You also be interested in the Wikipedia:Teahouse, they do a fine job of helping over there. :) -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Namaste!

Thank you so so much for your advices. Today I decided to delete the information in order to write it better and then copy it back again but now I´ve called "vandalism"! Is there a way to solve this? I didn´t have the intention to delete YPARD account, really.

Regarding the username YPARD, I created it in the beginning cause I though that the username had to be connected with the page´s name, none for any other reason. Then, I have modified the weasel words you mentioned in your previous message, do you think it´s ok now?

Could you please help me out with these issues?

Thank you much still! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoescala (talk • contribs)

@Aoescala:

Namaste :-)

ClueBot NG reverted your edits because page blanking is vandalism. :) I have moved the article into Draft space so you and others may work on it (It now lives at Draft:YPARD; update your bookmarks ;-). Even though you renamed the sections, the content in them still has the problems I noted before. What we need is stuff like this Huffington Post article about YPARD, this piece in SPORE (from CTA) or other third-party sources - and to convert that into a Wikipedia article. We should only use YPARD provided content as a source for very limited circumstances and not rely upon it for most information. I could maybe help later but I'm terribly jet lagged now.

Again, what is most needed right now are third-party sources to assert notabilty; everything else is secondary at the moment. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Good morning! :)

Got it. I will work on that and let you know as soon as I update the article with third party sources. Thank you so so much for your useful help and nice sleep.

–– — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoescala (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear dsprc

The Wikipedia page about me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Burbules) has been hacked by someone named "Mack Attack." Material has been added that is untrue and inflammatory.

I logged in and reversed the changes, taking the page back to what it was before - about my research and scholarship.

You just reverted and put back in that material, I really do not want it there, and will pull down my page if it continues to be abused by people like Mack Attack.

Please help! Nick Burbules Unattack (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Unattack:

First: Please educate yourself on what actually constitutes hacking.[0][1][2] You should use caution when throwing such words around. I personally find the pejorative usage rather offensive and take exception with it. In this case, such usage is childish and silly at best.

Second: I've removed the stuff about the Union because it is poorly sourced. You will have to start a discussion with other editors on the article's talk page about the Salaita stuff to have it trimmed down to an acceptable level; it definitely fails WP:WEIGHT and mayhaps should not be included at all, but I've not the inclination to trudge through it and trim myself at the moment. If after you present your concerns on the article's talk page, and there is no response for some time, you should post to the BLP Noticeboard for greater visibilty and resolution.

Third: You do not own this article, it is not "yours", it belongs to everyone. You do not dictate to us what we put into the articles here. Wikipedia is not censored, it contains both positive and negative information - articles are "warts and all" - whether you like it or not. The only way the page is going anywhere is if it meets our criteria for deletion. If the page is frequently abused, it will be semi-protected in accordance with our policies.

Finally: When editing this particular article or any other which you have some connection, please exercise great caution; for substantial edits to such articles, make your requests on the talk page as well, as you may have a conflict of interest.

Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• [0] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
• [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/what-is-a-hacker/9468
• [2] http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/hacker-vs-cracker/

--

Unattack (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Of course you are right that it is not my page, and that was a poor choice of words. Sorry.

But it is about me, and I am being attacked right now by a number of people about my stance on unions and on the Salaita case. I can deal with that, but I do not want to see the page about me in Wikipedia become the site of more character assassination. It may not be "hacking" but it is malicious and I would not think you want it there either.

I greatly appreciate you taking part of it down. As for the Salaita part, I hope you will consider removing it too. It seems that you agree that it is inappropriate. Of course I am willing to do the work myself to remove it, if you will allow me to do it.

I mainly wrote to you to explain that "Unattack" wasn't just some stranger messing with this page, but me.

Nick Burbules

@Unattack: I do not assume that the contributor's inclusion of the content is "malicious" as I've no reason to (mayhaps misguided however, as it seems very POV). My chief objection to this content is that it is simply too large, verbose and too much attention is given to it in context of the rest of the article, and should be trimmed down; it warrants a blurb or two at most, if even that.

You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before you proceed with removing that content from the article and I will advise against such actions. You really need to address your concerns at the article's talk page, not here. (also: the standard wikipedia convention is to sign your name (~~~~) at the bottom of your comments, as it makes it easier to distinguish comments which immediately succeed your own) -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Unattack (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you dsprc

I appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me, and I understand the conflict of interest issues.

When someone's tag is "Mack Attack," you might think they have an agenda in editing someone's page.

I will limit my contributions and use the talk page in the future.

I hope you understand that it is hard to see people posting untrue and unfair things about you.

Nick Burbules

Thanks for the info regarding the posters. Thx again :D Ssven2 (talk)

@Ssven2: Please go through Special:Contributions/Ssven2 and amend the licenses for the images you have uploaded. Please note that you must also provide the source of the image (which should not also be an infringing source). -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The source for Velaiyilla Pattathari poster is from a leading Tamil Daily, Ananda Vikatan. How to provide the source? Ssven2 (talk)

@Ssven2: I don't know exactly what is the proper format... maybe just kind of mimic the layout and form of File:The Dark Knight (2008 film).jpg. There is also a list of templates for fair-use/non-free content here: Category:Non-free use rationale templates that you could use, which is probably a better solution. If that isn't suitable, you should be able to ask here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions (should also see Wikipedia:Copyrights for detailed explanations about general usage). -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a somehow recent editor in Wikipedia and so far I had never encountered editing wars. I would love advice on how to handle it in the Sensory Processing Disorder page specially. I have added a vote and my comments to the talk page regarding possible COI over the correct terminology, but felt it has been disregarded. I wish to avoid the page edited to the point where is marked as COI since I recently requested to be reviewed again by the Medicine Project. Is there anything I can do aside of what I have done so far? Thanks Chibs007 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chibs007: I am new as well; wandered over here from Wikimedia Commons. :)

For SPD: This is quite a web slowly being spun here... The reason I stumbled into it, is because ASI2020 Vision (who is likely now editing as ElDelRey1) butchered the Anna Jean Ayres article, and because they very clearly have a COI of their own. I think a good move is to let WikiProject Medicine collectively weigh in and to seek resolution that way. Solicit feedback from them on their WikiProject talk page. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution which contains information on resolving disputes with input from outside parties should it be required... The Art of War may be helpful as well.. ;-) -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jajaja, thanks. I like your idea on asking for help from WikiProject Medicine. Like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, I did try to follow the steps but stopped after a, well, long answer from the user. Sincerely, I didn't feel like engaging in a dispute in what so far had been such a nice page work :) Thanks. Chibs007 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I think it is a great idea to have a 3rd party review the dispute.

In response to the above comment by dsprc, ASI2020 Vision is not the same user as ElDelRey1. ASI2020 Vision was not aware of the edits made to the sensory processing disorder page until being tagged in this post.

I also feel that the use of the word "butcher" in regards to edits made to the Anna Jean Ayres page is both innapropriate and inaccurate. I have recently reviewed Wikipedia:Good Faith and the principles of wikipedia etiquette wikipedia:etiquette and have attempted to emulate and follow these standards, including open conversations regarding edits made and acknowledging other users edits in good faith as both useful and valid. I also hope to work together to ensure the most accurate information that represents all points of view. I would assume that other users are following these same principles.

I am dedicated to offering a balanced and unbiased view of sensory integration theory and practice that includes current, valid information published by reliable sources Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources. I feel that as a new editor I have much to learn in regards to the technical aspects of posting and editing pages. I hope to continue to improve my technical skills with the help of wikipedia:teahouse and other online wiki help tools. My focus on the portrayal of accurate and current information has been of greatest importance to me whereas formatting and technical aspects have been secondary. I attempted to use solely published text books and peer review journal articles while gatherong my information.

Additionally my user name is not a promotion of any specific organization or cause but instead was made with the idea to more thoroughly and accurately represent a theory and framework for practice that is used currently by a community of health professionals. Whether this theory is referred to as sensory processing or sensory integration is a discussion that appears to be needed.

I hope to continue constructive discussions and collaborative efforts to ensure the accuracy of the pages in question. Thanks for your comments.

ASI2020 Vision (talk) 2 september 2014

@ASI2020 Vision: Nowhere is it stated the edits were done in bad faith; it was assumed you had no idea the edits did not conform to conventions. I do not fault you for this and it is perfectly fine because everyone was new to Wikipedia at some point, and we're all constantly learning in life. I noticed "ElDelRey1" cleaned some of Ayres up, which is most welcome.

There is a boilerplate template on your talk page about the username; please review it once more. It represents a group, this edit to your user page shows that. I thought you heeded this advice and were now editing as ElDelRey1 but, you state that isn't the case. I am not buying this claim: IMHO, the edits of the accounts are too similar. Please know you may only use a single account for editing (with a few exceptions). However, I could open an SPI and request an Administrator perform a CheckUser and that would clear up any ambiguity on the matter. I would hope it turned up in your favour.

You very clearly have a conflict of interest in any event and all the relevant guidelines still apply.

I've no position on the "debate", and my interest in neurosciences are limited to the teachings of people like Jeff Hawkins and their application to machine intelligence. I stumbled into this and don't care one way or the other so long as you all sort it out. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I will be removing the {{blp unsourced}} tag you placed on this biography [1], as it appears to contain references. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Decker: Yup. Guess I added the wrong tag and was gonna stick it with {{blp sources}} or {{Unreliable sources}} instead or something. Thanks. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the ping.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 23:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi what's up, could you please block "Wearypoet" from editing ever, he is removing and ruining R. Kelly's page, also put a "semi-protected" lock on R. Kelly's page, cause to many people are trolling that page, I would really appreciate that, thanks in advance. - Sushuki12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushuki12 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not an Administrator. Anyway, I nominated your content fork for deletion as it is not the proper method to handle content disputes. See: Talk:R. Kelly -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey how are you Please state why you have declared my editing as non-constructive and undo it. Please email me at mufaddal.hamdard@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mufaddal.hamdard (talk • contribs) 05:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mufaddal.hamdard: Because is was non-constructive (see: diff. The "also known" is poor English, the ALL CAPS violate the Manual of Style (see: WP:ALLCAPS), and the inclusion of "MUFADDAL UPLIFTMENTS" may indicate you have a Confilct of Interest as your username also contains "mufaddal". -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you constantly reverse my edits? can you please stop trolling. Thank you. -- Wearypoet (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)WearypoetWearypoet (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wearypoet: WP:DE, WP:EW, WP:EP, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:POINT

also: m:What is a troll? -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DSPRC. Thanks for the input on the copyright information -- I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. I am curious because almost all the information posted on the page already is attributed to other web pages or news articles, all of which is copyrighted information. Thanks again for your guidance! Grimmmmmm (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Grimmmmmm: There is a difference between attribution or sourcing of statements and wholesale plagiarism or copyright violation. I see on Talk:Harris Corporation it indicates the text has now been donated (thanks to you, no doubt); this is all and well, but it leads to three additional concerns:

• 1: That you are very likely an employee of Harris. see: your talk page, and Wikimedia:Terms of Use (section 4:"Refraining from Certain Activities").
• 2: That you may possibly be a sock-puppet of Jim Burke, one of his cronies or an underling.
• 3: Even though the text was donated, we've content policies which must still be followed; specifically, ones pertaining to neutrality.

The donated text is still largely unacceptable and would need to be significantly reworked for inclusion in the article; at best the donation allows for expanded quotation which, in my view, is inappropriate for this particular article. As for my concerns about of being employed by Harris: I really don't care, so long as you disclose it and remain neutral w/o attempting to whitewash content or turn the article into a one-sided advertisement.

If you really want to improve the article, there are a bunch of unsourced statements which lack citations, find a reliable third-party (which is not Harris Corp. itself) to back up those claims. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DSPRC. I am a Harris employee and understand you are not a fan, but I respect your right to have and express your opinion. Your guidance was helpful with regard to posting only factual and neutral content on the page, and you will see I have followed those parameters very carefully in the information I have added. I respect the open forum that Wikipedia is and absolutely agree it is not a place for marketing, advertising or "whitewashing," as you put it. Thanks again Grimmmmmm (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)GRIMMMMMM

@Grimmmmmm: My opinions of the organization are irrelevant.

I am glad we wish to adhere to Policy this go 'round. I've reverted your edits as they seem overly promotional. I believe we need expansion among these categories, although I'm just not convinced the copy paste of single sourced PR material is the proper way to achieve this goal. We need to flush this out with feedback from multiple editors. The content is now in dispute, and the preferred channel to discuss this matter is the articles' talk page to increase visibility and attract addtional parties to the discussion (in theory anyway). You may draft contributions in your personal sandbox for review, discussion, improvement etc.

Again, please carefully read over WP:ORGFAQ. Also: are you Jim Burke? (BTW, dsprc isn't an acronym so you don't have to ALL CAPS but, w/e) Thanks and Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey dsprc. Just added an item to the talk page. Not sure what your issue was in updating the listing of company rank from 2009 until this year. I feel like given our collegial engagement here you wouldn't simply revert any edit I do simply because I do it! Look forward to hearing from others on the content. I did not cut and paste website material -- made that mistake once, won't do it again! And I worked hard to make sure the information was neutral in tone. If you have any suggestions on the specific content I would appreciate it. Thanks, and hope you are having a great week. Grimmmmmm (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read my comment on DaltonHird's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed that you put a banner on Peter Zummo's page re neutrality. How can we go about checking the article and ascertaining the neutrality. It's heavily sourced, no original research or commentary, the sources check out. What else should we do to move to the next level? Thanks!Swoodard2 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to start a battle? I'm not here for it. You contribute nothing of value to that page and it's obvious you're vandalizing his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearypoet (talk • contribs) 05:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page [2]. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words of welcome. I am wanting to get as much help as I can with editing Wikipedia as I am still vaguely new to it despite using it for just about everything. If I wanted to link social media pages on my page is that allowable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needs2learnmore (talk • contribs)

Hiya, Needs2learnmore. You may include a wide variety of content on your User page (within reason); such space is given much greater leeway than other portions of the encyclopaedia. Please see WP:USERPAGE for the in-depth guidelines for User pages. A quick primer is available at Wikipedia:How to use your user space. You are free to link to your social media but you should consider the potential implications of using a real name or linking to off-wiki personally identifiable information, as it may open one up to unneeded WP:Harassment or wikistalking.

If you want to experiment you may do so in your personal sandbox. Aside from that, if you need other assistance or have any questions at all, you're more than welcome to ask me and I'll try my best to help. If I don't know, I'll try to point you toward a resource which can. There are a handful of such resources at the top of this talk page and my User page. I look forward to your contributions. Welcome to Wikipedia. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

stop deleting the poster — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moulnk00 (talk • contribs)

Unattack (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Nick, if you take issue w/ this content, propose changes on talk page so we may reach consensus.

Hello Dsprc,

I would be happy to work with you about the multiple issues you have and I have about this page (missing citations, etc). I am not trying to control everything that is on the page, but I would like to see inaccuracies corrected.

However, the last round of changes did not come from me. The other person included in this entry does not want her name mentioned.

@Unattack: Fair enough. I thought mayhaps you changed names (As the saying goes: Don't assume, because it makes an ass out of u and me ). My apologies to the both of you. What specifically is inaccurate (tersely, please)? Do you or Sumatracorn have a proposal for wording? (you can dump the changes to User:Dsprc/sandbox or your own sandboxes at Special:MyPage/sandbox and we can work on the text collaboratively) Toll did co-pen the piece, and they are in the byline; I'm not seeing a rationale for not including it but I am open to any suggestions.

Aside from that, could you provide me with a source for editorship of Educational Theory? I've a source for directorship of Ubiquitous Learning thanks to Internet Archive[3]; is this still the case?. A couple sources for international speaking engagements is desirable as well; something like an announcement or schedule from host maybe? University of Utah is tagged {{Citation needed}}, anything there is helpful too. Also: Is there anything else that should be included which is not currently? Thanks, and Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unattack (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have entered a slightly revised text in my sandbox, and added some missing citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Unattack/sandbox

I am no longer the editor of Educational Theory (after more than 20 years). I have corrected the text om this.

If you want a link to that journal, it is:

http://education.illinois.edu/educational-theory/

Dear dsprc,

How are you doing? Hope this message finds you well! I wanted to let you know that YPARD page has been edited following the suggestions you provided with 3 months ago. Could you please check it and let me know if the draft would be ready to be published? Here you have the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:YPARD

Thank you much in advance!

Best,

Aoescala (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Namaste, aoescala. I am enjoying the Christmas holidays (and birthday of Isaac Newton); I hope all is well for you this time of year. :-)

Thank you for continuing to improve the draft for inclusion. The number of references have improved but the authors of those pieces still seem to be connected with the subject; there may be some issues with the quality of those sources (see: WP:RS). However, you may place the {{AFC submission}} template on the draft and this will add it into the queue for review by other editors whom specialize or take interest in the review process. They will offer additional advice or changes to be made if they feel it does not meet inclusion criteria, or go ahead and move/publish if it does. You may resubmit the article again as you wish if it does not meet the criteria at this time.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again dsprc,

Glad you're enjoying your Christmas holidays, the same as me. I have checked the quality of the sources and most of them are third party sources pages as it is requested on WP:RS. Therefore, I will follow your advice and submit the current draft for the review of other editors.

Happy New Year!

Aoescala (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)aoescala

Hi. I noticed that you made an edit that I don't understand. Can you explain - I may be missing the obvious?

• 641075958 Table: Removed # of members from 4chan (why leave this blank for this one site?)- reversed
• 641075958 Table: Added "StackOverflow" back to list (StackOverflow is an answer board/not forum - even says so in its Wiki article - also the reference provided is a 404 error page) - marked dead link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_forums Thanks 192.136.235.164 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I responded on your page here. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I see your point. These are judgment calls - could go either way. I'll yield. Appreciate the timely response. 192.136.235.164 (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Spent a significant amount of time reformatting the table to add standard conventions like right hand justified numbers and reordering the columns in a more conventional order. I also rationalized the international table using similar headings. Both are fully functional. If we want to improve on this - great. What are you suggesting, specifially?
192.136.235.164 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The link can certainly go. I'll take another pass at the formatting. 192.136.235.164 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There are other tables with left aligned text and right aligned numbers. 192.136.235.164 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Coding of table consistent with Psychology/Popular pages and vertically formatted for more reliable future insertions as suggested. Explaining the reversal of a significant effort on the talk page would be helpful. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Popular_pages
192.136.235.164 (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Namaste. You do see the difference in the visual layout of their table compared to the one we are discussing, correct? Theirs is rather visually complex, but lacks the extraneous markup of the other, and also extremely easy to edit. You would be wise to examine the example you've provided... The per cell formatting you continue to introduce is still very complex from a markup standpoint.

What I am suggesting is this on the left and not that on the right:

Now do you understand the difference? Please review the markup and tell me which one you objectively believe is easier to edit, and which one formats itself better. While I do understand your frustration (I've simplified many tables with 100s of rows only to have it reverted multiple times before consensus was reached), the amount of time or effort spent editing is of zero consequence to me, as it is of your own doing. I'm attempting to lessen complexity so the barrier to entry is low that even unexperienced editors using mobile devices can contribute. I'm not entirely sure what you are doing, other than adding needless markup. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dsprc, the table was a mess and completely out of order when I started this. In the real world (and Wiki tables I have seen), if a table is ranked by post volume that would be the second column not the fourth. Numerical columns where the number of digits vary significantly are right hand justified (not left hand or centered).

Going back (reverting) is not constructive - let's go forward.

To answer your question, the difference I see is an easier to read and easier to edit table consistent with Wikipedia convention (as you suggested, thanks) and addressing the valid issues you have raised (e.g. narrow mobile home screen).

I worked with you. I appreciate the time you have invested in this and for giving me your pointers.

---

This vertical coding (new) is better suited for a mobile phone and follows Wikipedia conventions.

OLD:

|[Gaia Online]||[Anime]||2,241,077,648||1,000,000+ (daily)^[1]||27,554,643||[phpBB]|| 2003
|-
|[Nairaland||General]| | | | | |1,229,600||[Python_(programming_language)|Python]|| 2005
|-

---

NEW:

| style='text-align: left;'| [Gaia Online]
| style='text-align: right;'| 2,269,470,714
| style='text-align: right;'| 27,887,616
| style='text-align: center;'| Anime
| 2003
|-
| style='text-align: left;'| [4chan]
| style='text-align: right;'| 1,012,728,059
| <-- Empty cell -->
| style='text-align: center;'| General
| 2003
|-

---

This table layout (new) is clearly easier to read and follows Wikipedia conventions - there are many tables like it - notably the one I mentioned earlier.

OLD:

Name	Main interest	Threads	Posts	Members	Software	Launch year
Gaia Online	Anime	2,241,077,648	1,000,000+ (daily)[1]	27,554,643	phpBB	2003
Nairaland	General			1,229,600	Python	2005
Digital Spy	Television and Media	1,907,950	71,007,689	550,113	vBulletin	1999
4chan	General		1,703,871,320		Modified Futaba	2003
Something Awful	General	3,253,923	154,906,301	187,908	vBulletin	1999

NEW:

Name	Posts	Members	Category	Launch year
Gaia Online	2,269,470,714	27,887,616	Anime	2003
4chan	1,012,728,059		General	2003
Something Awful	154,906,301	187,908	General	1999
BodyBuilding.com	119,581,705	9,628,903	Fitness/general
PbNation	77,348,047	678,646	Paintball	2001

By longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles like Triskelion. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahunt, you didn't have to write a long screed. I know. Notice GNU was only reinserted for Linux distros that bill themselves as GNU, to match upstream descriptors or where usage of GNU is appropriate. You made mistakes, and those were fixed; most other edits were left intact. Triquel _is_ GNU/Linux. The fact that you haphazardly removed GNU from Triquel GNU/Linux on GNU variants and altered the title of an upstream ref[4][5] is rather telling...

Don't assume.^[a] There is also something to be said about blindly following consensus off a cliff, à la lemmings. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply here. So it looks like we have a disagreement. You say that I have inappropriately removed the term "GNU/Linux" from the articles which you have reverted and I contend that you are editing against consensus, such as MOS:LINUX in inserting the term into articles. As noted, it is permissible to use the term when it is the name of a distro, in a quote or cited work title, but not in other uses, as per the very longstanding consensus on this issue noted above. This consensus has come about and been upheld over the years primarily because FSF supporters have tried in the past to use Wikipedia to push their agenda, in the same way that commercial companies try to use Wikipedia to do their marketing. Hence the community's solid consensus against this form of POV-pushing.

As far as our disagreement goes we can simply refer to the differences and see if I inappropriately removed the term "GNU/Linux" from quotes, ref titles etc or if you are editing against the MOS or both. So let's examine the evidence, starting with the one diff you cited above:

• my edit - you are quite right, I made a mistake and altered the title of a cited reference "title= Richard Stallman talks about GNU’s 25th anniversary, Google Chrome, sharing non-free software, preinstalled GNU/Linux on PC, NDA, OLPC XO", so you were quite right to revert that. However you also reverted edits to [[GNU/Linux distributions]], [[Debian GNU/Linux]]. You will note that these are both redirects to Linux distribution, Debian and thus are gratuitous and unnecessary insertions of the term "GNU/Linux" here against MOS:LINUX.
• This diff shows you adding back in "[[dyne:bolic]] GNU/Linux". The article is dyne:bolic, so this is a gratuitous and unnecessary insertion of the term "GNU/Linux" here against MOS:LINUX.
• In this diff you reverted to "[[Trisquel]] is an example of a [[GNU/Linux distribution]]". You can note that GNU/Linux distribution redirects to Linux distribution. This is a very good example of precisely editing against MOS:LINUX and a gratuitous and unnecessary insertion of the term "GNU/Linux".
• In this diff you reverted to "logo for the [[GNU]]/[[Linux distribution]] [[Trisquel]]". You can note that GNU/Linux distribution redirects to Linux distribution, although you added a specific link to GNU in this case. This is also a very good example of precisely editing against MOS:LINUX and a gratuitous and unnecessary insertion of the term "GNU/Linux".
• And finally this diff you reverted to "and [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] activist." and "founder of the GNU/Linux distribution..." Again this are clear examples of editing against MOS:LINUX and gratuitous and unnecessary insertions of the term "GNU/Linux".

It seems clear from the above diffs, and from your user page template proclamation here, that you seem to be here on Wikipedia to further the views of the FSF and its campaign to insert the term "GNU/Linux", so I think you need to review WP:COI and to recluse yourself from editing in the area where you seem to have a conflict of interest. There are lots of other articles on Wikipedia that need improving without getting into conflicts of interest like this. - Ahunt (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahunt, There were a dozen or so other edits where your removal of GNU was appropriate, accurate and where we are both in agreement; I left those alone. The other revisions were already explained and you seem not to understand the differentiation. Allow me spell it out for you with a verbose screed (which you seem to enjoy):

• Debian GNU/Linux is the proper name for the version of the Debian Project's operating system which utilizes the Linux kernel.
• dyne:bolic GNU/Linux is the proper name of this Linux distro.
• Trisquel GNU/Linux is the proper name of the Trisquel Linux distro.
• Lakshman's Linux distro's proper name contains GNU/Linux. (this page should actually be deleted)
• Removal of GNU for entries on the GNU variants page, when they are in fact GNU/Linux distros as opposed to Linux distros, and their own proper names contain GNU, is a great example of your ineptness.
• Removal of GNU from a ref's title when it is upstream further illustrates the above point.

You will also note that on the DB page a compromise was made independent of your edits and that was acceptable.

I do not know how to better explain this to you.

Separate from and superseding MOS, is Policy. Policy dictates that we not be unquestioning drones and that we instead ignore all rules. I fully intend to continue improving the Project where I can, regardless of others inability to use discretion, rational thinking, or to exercise objectivity.

It is important to stay focused on content and not contributors but... If you are going to accuse me of POV pushing or WP:CRY COI, you better damn well have better evidence than a joke template. You seem not to have paid very much attention to the templates either (not a surprise), as Slackware template very clearly does not contain GNU (because it is not; it is Linux). For the record, I really don't give a shit what FSF thinks. I will most certainly not be recusing myself from editing this particular topic area or any others but, since you have the audacity to assert a COI, you are encouraged to drag everyone to the bureaucratic clusterfuck that is WP:COIN, request I be banned and waste everyones limited time... Like we are wasting now... over something so trivial. Imagine if we were to put this effort into actually improving the Project instead of a pissing match.

Before you write another screed, goto WP:3. Failing that, pick something else from my userpage or goto COIN. I'm done; won't waste anymore time on this. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop undoing my edits? The article states that the Right Sector is not paramilitary wing or organization. Could you please provide me with at least one reference that explicitly states that this organization is paramilitary. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev, Not really; and now I have a wall of text to dredge through to check your work. The article states that because YOU have just now written this wording into it. If you want some sources: [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Namaste! -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[12][13] (NYT)[14][15][16][17][18]-- dsprc ^[talk]

I was just reading this. Although you may believe that consensus is wrong so is editing against it. If you think it wrong then the course of action is to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing. Editing against consensus is both disruptive and frustrating. Frustrating because others keep changing what you enter. The disruption part will eventually lead to your being blocked. I would also point out that what Ahunt wrote is not a screed nor is it long and frankly his comments were a lot more civil than yours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, that is not what I said, nor is that the position I hold at all. I will reiterate (as everyone seems to enjoy being broken records): Only a very small number of proper names were changed, per broad community consensus as detailed at that MOS; every other of the dozen or so edits Ahunt made in that regard was left completely intact, as they'er absolutely, 100% correct. There was an agreeable compromise here on the DB disambig, which met all conditions of MOS, and then Ahunt again removed this, in contravention to consensus and the very MOS they (and you) parrot. So, do tell, which edit is against the spirit of compromise, consensus? I've no problem with others doing regex replacements but, some finesse is required as to not haphazardly stomp on other entries. It is pretty clear all Ahunt did was to search for the term, and then blindly replace every entry on pages containing it, whether that was warranted or not (eg in refs).

Ahunt asserted that I was an FSF shill, with an agenda, and only here to disrupt the Project by pushing a particular political view. The evidence was a template(!) referencing a well known joke[19](!). This baseless assertion would be extremely offensive were it not so laughable (and inept). This is made more ironic and humourous given they've an International Penguin Conspiracy template on their page. I take exception with the idea that calling someone a POV pushing political shill is civil. That is probably one of the biggest insults given the structure of the Project. If there is a COI, we can goto COIN - otherwise, pound sand. And, Wikipedia's bureaucracy is a waste of time; also a clusterfuck. True, I could have been more tactful in my response instead of being casual and frank but, I've zero interest in bullshit.. The same can not be said for the rest of Wikipedia.^[a][b] Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear in Mind, that his name is not include in the world's best-selling artists of all time list, since his certification sales are too weak to support the 100m-claim.

Do not put that prestigious list in R. Kelly biography, only persons who have their name written in the list could use that list as achievement in their own wiki biography.

As editor we must try our best to make the information in Wikipedia always reliable.

I just try to show the real R. Kelly claim sales (80 million) and encourage the media to follow it. thanks Politsi (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Politsi, This was a mistake, thank you for catching them. I've reverted back to your edits. When all my client-side user-scripts finally got loaded, they bumped the twinkle stuff around a few rows and I accidently center-clicked the wrong ones. Really sorry about that! Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Politsi could you explain why you changed this to a Soundcloud link though? [20] -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of scandalization. If you scandalize me you may be blocked from editing. 03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC) From, Gruce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.60.114.129 (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I only warned this address because of this edit; someone else reverted it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never done anything to 'vandalize" the page of Rose BRyne. I'm simply cleaning it up, and making edits that are apporpate. We don't need sources on films that are already released, and there was a need to correct the inclusion of "X-Men: Apocolypse".. I wasn't being a vandal, or doing anything wrong. No need to repremand me for cleaning up the page. Npamusic (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Relax a little Npamusic. :) It was just a boilerplate template message (sorry for templating you, btw). I saw unexplained removal of refs but you're fine. I restored your edit [21]. Sorry about that. Please try to use an edit summary next time. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that you are restoring edits by a serial sockpuppeteer in your recent reverts. That is not a good idea, no matter how appropriate the original edit by the sock may have been. Nymf (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Namaste, Nymf. I don't care who the editor is; whether they be a sock, an Admin, koavf, Jimbo or Sanger. The content was fine. Isn't that what we are supposed to focus on here; content, not editors? Why is it not a good idea? -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In short, a block applies to all editing (good or bad), and the default course of action should be to revert all edits as to not encourage the user to keep socking. WP:BMB and WP:BANREVERT explains the reasoning much better than I can. Nymf (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

дозвіл родича (небожа) голови редакційного комітету Михайла Крижанівського — Григорія (Нестора) Крижанівського. (permit relative (nephew) Drafting Committee Chairman Michael Kryzhanivskyi - Gregory (Nestor) Kryzhanivskyi) Google transl.--Бучач-Львів (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Бучач-Львів: OK. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Mail was basically the same as this edit on Stalwart111's Talk page. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just out of curiosity, why did you add a COI tag to this article? --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Namaste, Randykitty. The two editors (sans bots) immediately preceding that tag may be closely affiliated with the nascent Transhumanist Party and its founder, Zoltan Istvan. These are closely related to IEET, the author-base, publications and community present there. There has recently been some NPOV issues regarding the matter revolving around a previous AfD here (further discussion at newly formed Draft article) and dealing with the party. Basically everything for IEET between here is written by them and needs to be vetted. There is also discussion on the user page linked below the mail notice above us. Aside from above mentioned, they've made significant edits to Transhumanist politics and other topics within this subject area where they may have close connections. Waters has used their own publications for "Space Party" as references before as shown here (disclosed only after tagged COI for possible political connections), and edits heavily in a number of related articles. Most usually have topics of interest they focus upon, but given the possible political connections and advocacy, it may warrant additional scrutiny and vetting. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Many people edit on subjects they are interested in and that sometimes means that they get very passionate about it. That does not yet mean a COI, even if their edits may perhaps not adhere exactly to NPOV. Anyway, I'm not too familiar with the background here, so I won't challenge the tag, but I don't think you'll be able to defend it if somebody else challenges it. --Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed they do. Is fine by me if someone wishes to challenge it; I won't reciprocate. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)