Bathis
{{helpme}} Are there some good free external editors for use with Wikipedia?
I see the option to launch an edit to another applications, but don't know what applications use Wiki markup.
- OpenOffice writer 2.3 or later will export to MediaWiki markup, but I don't know how to set it up. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Email ...
edit... you sent me one, or so the wiki software tells me. I'm afraid that email doesn't work for me any longer, but feel free to message me on my talk page, or indeed here. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Second thoughts. Dont bother. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
edit There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I searched the link on the noticeboard but could not find my name. Am I allowed to participate in the discussion? If so, please identify more precisely where it is taking place. --Bathis (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Bathis, the section is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#spam_emails Yes, you're welcome to participate. —valereee (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)- Hey, Bathis! I've blocked you to for 24 hours to prevent you from sending any more of these emails before you see this. Those are considered spam, and continuing to send them could get you blocked indefinitely. Please ping me here to let me know when you see this, otherwise I'll have to extend the block. —valereee (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, Bathis! Thanks for the message on my talk. Do you understand that the emails are not okay to continue? —valereee (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)- See Special:Permalink/989947097#spam emails for relevant AN discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:valereee. I see the opportunity to discuss the legitimacy of my emailing editors has been abruptly terminated and closed on the admin noticeboard. I also notice that no one identified a published policy, that has consensus, forbidding editors for emailing other editors to ask for their opinions on how to create better resources of information on the internet. Notably, Beyond My Ken accused me of sending "unwanted advertising." He missed the obvious fact that if there is no product for sale, it is not advertising. At worst, it is a request for participation in a features research survey to identify what people want in a new product or service. There is nothing currently available for sale. Just a query regarding what people would prefer regarding an alternative way of recording, indexing and rating human knowledge...an issue of interest to lots of editors. As noted over 15% of the editors contacted decided they wanted to participate and completed the survey. (The count went up to 9 out of 50 contacted). So here it appears that my email rights have been revoked based on the unilateral decision of about 3 or 4 editors who participated in the conversation on the noticeboard, even though at least twice as many who received the emails did not consider it spam and replied. I'd be glad to share the survey results with you. Though a very small sample, it shows a fair amount of interest. Finally, I have yet to see a link to a policy (much less one supported by the majority of Wikipedia editors) that forbids emailing other editors to ask for feedback on how encyclopedic information and various viewpoints might be better organized indexed and managed on the Internet. I'm feeling railroaded by the opinion of a very few editors despite the fact that at least as many editors, probably more, have recognized my outreach as a good faith effort to gather feedback and opinions regarding a legitimate idea for improving the collection and organization of knowledge available on the internet. -- Bathis (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I have yet to see a link to a policy...
then you clearly didn't read the discussion because I pinged you in a comment containing them. We're not your lab rats (see the policy WP:NOTLAB), and you've shown no interest in improving this encyclopedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and if your goals here are anything other than helping building Wikipedia then you will remain blocked. — Wug·a·po·des 06:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)- I have read NOTLAB. Several points come to mind. First, NOTLAB is not a policy page, nor does it discuss guidelines for blocking email access to editors who volunteer their email addresses for contact. Second, it actually acknowledges that there is legitimate research that can be done, but emphasizes that it should not be "disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles." There is no accusation that my emails have negatively affected articles. I presume from the handful of people who complained that the allegation is that my using the email platform is "disruptive to the community." However, I repeat my undisputed point that over 1 in 6 editors I emailed chose to participate in my research project, which indicates they did not find it disruptive. Third, NOTLAB states at the end that "Some editors explicitly request to not be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt-out of research." I have and would remain respectful of that admonishment. And it is worth noting that admonishment also makes implicitly clear that some editors may wish to participate in research and experiments. As noted, a significant proportion of editors invited to participate have freely chosen to do so. You can see the results of their responses which are displayed after completing the survey. Fourth, I have noted the recommendation to discuss research projects at the Village pump. I will do so. Finally, I will note that the Wikimedia Foundation Mission statement is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." The project I have described advances that goal. It simply proposes a different structure for collecting and disseminating the body of all human knowledge freely to anyone with an internet connection. --Bathis (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- First, if you are not aware, I am a Wikipedia administrator, so you should consider that I know what our policies are. If you go to WP:NOTLAB and scroll up, you'll see a big banner that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." If you don't believe me, go to WP:NOT, where you'll see that same banner, and then scroll down to find the relevant section in the TOC. Second, your stats--which are completely unverifiable--mean that 5 in 6 editors did not respond to you. Over 80% of editors you contacted did not want to engage with your unsolicited email, so I don't think it shows what you think it does. It is not surprising that you don't think your behavior was disruptive, that obliviousness is the whole reason you're blocked. Consider that on a noticeboard for administrators, 4 administrators supported blocking you, and a couple more who chimed in saw no reason to oppose blocking you. Every administrator was elected by the community for our judgement, and not a single one who has looked at this thinks you were behaving appropriately. You should consider the possibility that you are wrong rather than everyone else. Third, you can review our blocking policy. The section at WP:OPTIONS explains when and how administrators may disable email access:
In instances when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion and enable this option
So it is unquestionably within our remit--and left to our individual discretion--to block you from sending unsolicited emails to our users. Given that you've done it 50 times already and still see no problem, I believe it is indeed justified.Finally, all of the other stuff aside, you will remain blocked if you do not plan to contribute to this encyclopedia. If you want to build another project, go build it. If you want to pitch your idea to the WMF, got to Meta Wiki. But unless you can identify articles here, on this website, at this domain, that you will improve once unblocked, you will remain blocked per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#"Not here to build an encyclopedia". If you still believe you were blocked in error, or if you plan to abide by our policies and contribute positively and directly to Wikipedia, you can submit an unblock request following the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Otherwise I have no plans to spend more time explaining this block to you. — Wug·a·po·des 08:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- First, if you are not aware, I am a Wikipedia administrator, so you should consider that I know what our policies are. If you go to WP:NOTLAB and scroll up, you'll see a big banner that says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." If you don't believe me, go to WP:NOT, where you'll see that same banner, and then scroll down to find the relevant section in the TOC. Second, your stats--which are completely unverifiable--mean that 5 in 6 editors did not respond to you. Over 80% of editors you contacted did not want to engage with your unsolicited email, so I don't think it shows what you think it does. It is not surprising that you don't think your behavior was disruptive, that obliviousness is the whole reason you're blocked. Consider that on a noticeboard for administrators, 4 administrators supported blocking you, and a couple more who chimed in saw no reason to oppose blocking you. Every administrator was elected by the community for our judgement, and not a single one who has looked at this thinks you were behaving appropriately. You should consider the possibility that you are wrong rather than everyone else. Third, you can review our blocking policy. The section at WP:OPTIONS explains when and how administrators may disable email access:
- I have read NOTLAB. Several points come to mind. First, NOTLAB is not a policy page, nor does it discuss guidelines for blocking email access to editors who volunteer their email addresses for contact. Second, it actually acknowledges that there is legitimate research that can be done, but emphasizes that it should not be "disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles." There is no accusation that my emails have negatively affected articles. I presume from the handful of people who complained that the allegation is that my using the email platform is "disruptive to the community." However, I repeat my undisputed point that over 1 in 6 editors I emailed chose to participate in my research project, which indicates they did not find it disruptive. Third, NOTLAB states at the end that "Some editors explicitly request to not be subjects in research and experiments. Please respect the wish of editors to opt-out of research." I have and would remain respectful of that admonishment. And it is worth noting that admonishment also makes implicitly clear that some editors may wish to participate in research and experiments. As noted, a significant proportion of editors invited to participate have freely chosen to do so. You can see the results of their responses which are displayed after completing the survey. Fourth, I have noted the recommendation to discuss research projects at the Village pump. I will do so. Finally, I will note that the Wikimedia Foundation Mission statement is to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." The project I have described advances that goal. It simply proposes a different structure for collecting and disseminating the body of all human knowledge freely to anyone with an internet connection. --Bathis (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Bathis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Willing to refrain from emailing others I would like to be unblocked so I can edit pages. As noted in the discussion at the Administrator noticeboard (archive 327, item 10), my emails were intended as a good faith effort to gather feedback and opinions on an alternative method of gathering and organizing knowledge for free access by anyone researching any topic. I will abide by the determination of those involved in that discussion that I should not email anyone about this. Similarly, I will not contact people through their talk pages about it. Following the recommendation of NotLab, if and when I wish to seek input again, I will do so through the Village Pump. If you don't trust me, please go ahead and leave the block on my email access. But I believe it is a bit draconian to block all editing functions. -- Bathis (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say what you won't do, but you don't say what you will do if unblocked. Please describe the contributions you wish to make to building this encyclopedia of human knowledge. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bathis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have contributed to articles in the past and would like to continue to do so. I'd also like to contribute more than in the past in order to improve my reputation. I've agreed not to email others. That is all that —valereee asked of me when issuing the 24 hour block. When initially asked, my only hesitation was to request an opportunity to discuss how I believed my emails were within the allowed bounds, a discussion which I tried to engage in on the noticeboard. Very little actual discussion was allowed. I was summarily told I was wrong and the 24 ban on email was suddenly escalated to a complete ban on email and editing functions, again without discussion with me. In response, I not only agreed not to do any further emailing, I've even agreed to allow a permanent ban on my emailing functions. In my view, I always have acted in good faith. I have made good faith contributions to articles in the past and would like to do so in the future. It feels like I'm being permanently banned from all participation in Wikipedia articles for the very thin offense of "daring" to try to explain and justify why my emails seeking editor feedback were sent in good faith. (Indeed, the fact that 10 of 50 editors emailed appreciated the effort and offered constructive feedback, continues to be ignored.) What more can I do? I have contributed to articles in the past and would like to do so now and in the future to improve my standing. I've agreed to not email other editors about anything. I've agreed to a permanent ban on my emailing function. I preemptively agreed not to use editor talk pages to discuss my alternative wiki editing policies. I'm simply asking for my right to edit pages to be restored, which is certainly fair and appropriate given the fact that there are no allegations of policy violations in regard to my page edits. Since —valereee is the one who first raised a concern, shouldn't —valereee participate in the discussion of how long this block should be in place and on the conditions of its removal? --Bathis (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per Valereee below - I have changed your restriction to email-only. SQLQuery me! 16:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objection to an unblock, with ability to email removed, to allow this user to prove they are here to improve the encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)