User talk:Gadfium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archived talk pages
2004 Mar-Dec
2005 Jan-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-Aug Sep Oct-Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar-May Jun-Jul Aug-Sep Oct-Dec
2011 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2012 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2013 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2014 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2015 Jan-Mar current

Please add items to the bottom of this page. I will normally reply on this page to any conversation started here.

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png You Just won a Cheeseburgr Bettifm (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bettifm[edit]

Besides following this user around correcting/reverting many of his edits, what do you think should be done about him? The only way I'm aware of him is I deleted his second RfA and left a post on his Talk page (no response). At best, he seems to be suffering from a severe case of incompetence, but I can see you know more about him than I do.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You've already linked to Wikipedia:Competence is required. See also Wikipedia:Competence is acquired. He does need to improve the standard of his edits, but he is editing in good faith.-gadfium 05:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Earlier today, I commented on an instance where Bettifm's enthusiasm is obviously getting ahead of his current competence. Schwede66 06:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you have a suggestion for an appropriate action for Bettifm's overall edit pattern? I've tried to give him advice, but it's not working. He is currently "on holiday", so I suggest no action is appropriate until he returns.-gadfium 06:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly, I have less patience with editors like Bettifm than some. Given that you have tried to give advice and he continues not to heed it and continues to make poor contributions to the encyclopedia, we have to ask ourselves if there's any point in continuing? ("is the editor amenable to suggestion, to changing the way the do things and to resolving difficulties"). Editing in good faith isn't all that's required. One can be disruptive while still editing in good faith. Bettifm doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes. I'm assuming he's young based on his userboxes, although teenager covers a wide span of years, and we have some very good, young editors at Wikipedia. If someone wants to take the trouble to help him, I suggest mentoring where he is given concrete goals he must meet if he is to continue as an editor. In other words, try to help him but more forcefully and with consequences if he is unable or unwilling to learn.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've gone through the ten newest pages that he has created to get a feeling for this:

More to come... Schwede66 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're going to a great deal of trouble, for which you should be commended. What with you and Gadfium, I'm going to bow out and leave it in your (collective) capable hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Four out of ten isn't a fantastic record by any description. Ok, I've then looked at the last 90 contributions, but only the last edit to individual pages, and excluding those listed above. I count 22 reverted edits (not including one self-revert, but including two by me, and including one cut-and-paste move for an article with an active move request) and 9 useful edits. Plus adding climate data to Hokitika, which is of concern given that it's not referenced to a particular page on the NIWA website and the editor's past trouble with climate data as shown on his talk page (I myself don't know where to find the data on the NIWA website so can't check this). Most of the reverts are related to a poor understanding of grammar and spelling. At this point in time, my impression is that the work created for other editors by Bettifm outweighs the usefulness of his good contributions. This balance should change very quickly and if it doesn't, he should be asked to retire from editing Wikipedia. As an immediate measure, he should be asked to stop introducing spelling and grammar fixes, because he gets 95% of those wrong. Schwede66 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If he starts editing again, I'll make such a request of him (and draw this discussion to his attention). If he ignores that, you or I can take it to ANI.-gadfium 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Bettifm indeed shows abundant good faith and enthusiasm, but the quality of his contributions is unfortunately dire. His written English varies from error-ridden to unintelligible and he adds little to no verifiable, notable content. In a short time his talk page has gathered a swathe of contacts from other editors and bots, to which he does not seem to have reacted - save to offer tokens of WikiLove. His new articles may be related to his entry into the WikiCup, for which 'articles created' is a point-scoring metric. I toast your patience and the help you have given the young lad, remote as the prospects may seem of raising his game appreciably. Regards Guffydrawers (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting on Bettifm's talk page, Gadfium. Unfortunately, the advice to "not create any further articles except through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process" is not being heeded: Westside and One News at Midday were both created yesterday in mainspace (one of them with a notability tag placed by Bettifm himself!). Gentle prodding doesn't work; it's time to impose another ban as an attempt to get the message across. Schwede66 21:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a heads up before I go to bed. I just indefinitely CU-blocked Bettifm as a sock master. The puppet is User:Tamaora, also indeffed. The technical relationship is  Confirmed. The behavioral evidence is striking.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I also think they are probably the same people, but they could have been brothers sharing the same computer so I wasn't quite ready to indef. No problem that you have done so.-gadfium 05:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, when I saw this edit and clicked through to that user's page, "sock" was the first thought that came to my mind. But before I could say anything, Bbb23 had it all sorted. Thanks! Schwede66 05:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Sorry to come in late to the party here, but I think you guys are missing a big part about the sock puppet accusation. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tamaora&oldid=655168116 . Tamaora admitted to being a sock puppet, or at least a meat puppet. They were never disguising that, nor were they using it abusively. I am not sure what "sister editor" means. It could literally mean sister, as in they are both using the same computer and are related to each other, or it might mean something else. But in reading WP:SOCK it doesn't prohibit 2 accounts for a person anyway, just so long as they aren't using the two accounts to try to get more support than they would otherwise get, or other forms of gaming the system. I for one can see no evidence of that. I am not going to comment on Bettifm himself, as he seems to be a bit of a novice editor, as you guys correctly noted beforehand. He probably does need some kind of a mentor to go around to help him out. He seems to like you, Gadfium, so you may be a good candidate for that. I just think that going straight to indef ban for removing an AFD notice that, to be frank, should never have been there in the first place (look at the AFD if you are in any doubt - it was a bit of a bad faith nomination by the looks of it, or at least one that was made in haste, as nobody at all thought even for a moment that it should be deleted). We are supposed to encourage people to be bold, and I think that that is all that Bettifm was doing by removing the AFD. Perhaps he didn't know the rules about what you can and can't remove. And perhaps a 1 week block was fair enough to teach him that rule. But I think in principle this is a good editor in the making. Oh, and in case you want to do a CheckUser on me, yes, this is my 2nd account. I am not using my 1st one because I was being wikistalked so I retired that one to make this one. I would hope that you wouldn't indef ban me if you find an old account I haven't used for over 6 months. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a checkuser. I and several other editors have tried to mentor Bettifm, but he has shown no signs of improvement and I think we've all reached the end of our patience with him.-gadfium 18:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No problems. Someone else checked it. Just as a hint, we are in different countries, and the reason I supported him is because I had previously supported someone else (in that case in relation to my normal editing) that was in a similar situation: blocked and then an AFD was started, with both being related to each other. It was unfair that time and it was unfair this time. Tamaora is not an abusive sock puppet, and furthermore is an admitted "sister editor" so is not in violation of WP:SOCK. If he is blocked due to behaviour, that is a different issue entirely, but I thought that a 1 week block had been agreed to already? The sock puppetry accusations seem unfounded. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Death of Chris Currie[edit]

I hope that you will reconsider. I had no idea that here had been a previous article, but the two articles cannot have been "substantially" the same because the article I created today included discussion of the ongoing conversation around this death in New Zealand, where articles continue to appear discussing the stone-thrower as an unusually young defendant in a murder case, and, more significantly, to the case itself in the context of the ongoing problem of death and injuries caused by rocks thrown at motor vehicles, and to the ethnic tensions in New Zealand and the problem of delinquency. (I happened on the topic precisely because it is still being discussed) It is also discussed on more random occasions, such as the retirement of the prosecuting attorney, but even these ongoing mentions speak to the fact that this death continues to be familiar to New Zealanders more than a decade after it occurred. I created the article in good faith, having seen many WP articles about individuals notable only for the memorable conditions in which they were murdered. Not only can the old AFD not have reflected the fact that this case continued to receive significant news coverage more than 10 years on, it was not a very persuasive AFD. More editors wanted to keep the article than to delete it, there was little discussion of policy, and many of the objections were on the gorunds that Currie himself was not notable, although no editor proposed the obvious alternative to deletion, which would have been to create an article on the Death of Chris Currie. I argue that an article on the Death of Chris Currie would not only pass WP:GNG on the grounds of the extensive coverage in major sources, but also that part of the notability would come form the ongoing coverage of the death, which could have been no part of the earlier article and long-ago AFD. I hope that you will agree, restore it, and allow me to improve it. Then, if you still find it inadequate, put it up for AFD and see how other editors view it. It does not seem, to me, to qualify for SPEEDY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please make your arguments at WP:DRV.-gadfium 22:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

Gadfium you just won a Kitty

Bettifm (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A tiger for you[edit]

Tiger in the water.jpg

I understand you like the Wikilove, but that it's sometimes not mature enough. Schwede66 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

/me tries to look as large as possible and yells to deter the tiger from attacking.-gadfium 06:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gadfium. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion on my talk page about a recent block you performed. North America1000 00:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

university of Canterbury , Christchurch New Zealand[edit]

Gadfium Thank you for your comments about the University of Canterbury . I am very concerned about the entries on Wikipedia about the University it is have clearly been hijacked by some negative staff who were made redundant in the wake of the earthquakes which heavily damaged our city. I am not employed by or have any interest in the university other than the fact I went there but as a barrister I am horrified that some negatively minded people can make such patently misleading comments and these are picked up on wikipedia and then not removed . This is an urgent matter and it needs to be corrected regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gadfium. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.kiwi.
Message added 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

I understand you like the Wikilove, but that it's sometimes not quite mature enough, so you just got a kitty

Kahungunu (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm thinking of ducks... Schwede66 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Operation Vula[edit]

I had recently came across a stub called "Operation Vula" that was on the Army chief of the SADF wiki page, and I did a brief 2 sentence entry which an administrator thought was a breach of copyright (which I disagree with), and nominated it for speedy deletion. I challenged this, and it was deleted anyway, without any discussion. I then redid the article, and within hours, I found this article deleted again by the same administrator, this time on different grounds of "no evidence" (although it is specifically mentioned without challenge on the army generals page), and this time it was simply deleted without out any discussion whatsoever. Surely, deleting an article without any discussion is a breach of the wiki guidelines, but the administrator has done this anyway. Is there anything you can advise on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talkcontribs)

You need to find a source which meets WP:RS. A blog is not sufficient, although the blog you have used looks more reliable than most and could perhaps be used as a secondary source for additional details once you have a better source for the basics. Create a draft article at Draft:Operation Vula. Then contact Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) directly on his talk page and ask his advice for what might be necessary to bring the draft up to article-space standards.-gadfium 08:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

I've given the locality of Hunua its own entry but can't move it into mainspace as the electorate of the same name is in the way. Would you mind moving the electorate over the redirect, please? I've tidied up the incoming links. Schwede66 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, and I've also moved the page out of your userspace.-gadfium 19:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)