User talk:My name is not dave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garry Thompson concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garry Thompson, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hollywood Undead – EP[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Hollywood Undead – EP has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Usage share of operating systems[edit]

If you want to discuss this in the discussion page, fine. Just deleting the information with a laconic "Nope" isn't useful. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garry Thompson[edit]

Hello My name is not dave. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Garry Thompson".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Garry Thompson}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Bret7600[edit]

Hello My name is not dave. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Bret7600, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I am reverting your reversions at N Afshan-Jam[edit]

I am a serious academic editor, and your reversions do not have any Talk, or explanation, as required by WP. Le Prof

I am AGAIN reverting your reversions at N Afshan-Jam[edit]

I am a serious academic editor, and your reversions—RATHER THAN DISCUSSION IN TALK, WITH PERHAPS LIMITED EDITS—do not have substantial enough Talk and explanation, as required by WP, to allow you to remove blocks of carefully constructed text. IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SPECIFIC TEXT WITHOUT CITATION, MAKE A NOTE IN TEXT AND WAIT FOR DISCUSSION. If you are really set on removing material without citations—first, my new material should not be removed, because it has citations, and second, to be consistent, you will have to remove very large swathes of the rest of the article. Take it slow; stop exerting authority that is not yours. Be respectful, to others, and the process. If you do not have time to discuss them, you should not be making big edits. Le Prof 71.239.82.39 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Joni Ernst[edit]

Content removal from Joni Ernst's page

I was going to put the info back 30 second later but you were too fast. I was trying to protect my improvements from being revered by the "undo" option. Both times I tried to put the info back but you had already done so - we're on the same team :) 24.19.210.69 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh sure sorry - make sure next time that you use to the edit summary box to explain this, then I wouldn't of needed to revert your edits. Thanks. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ronnie O'Sullivan[edit]

Have you watch the world snooker championship. Every time when in his intro Rob Walker always called "Blink and you will miss him, the rocket, Ronnie O'Sullivan." at the end so I think this is part of the nickname. (131.111.185.11 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC))

Nah, Snooker ain't my thing, but I'll trust you to know that it's right. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the push…[edit]

Trophy.png Encouraging departure of a content expert
Thanks for giving me the push I needed, to realize how very high the opportunity cost of trying to make a dent in the article issues and self-aggrandizing editor and administrative attitudes that pervade this Huggle- and otherwise folly-driven site. Don't ever let anyone persuade you, yours is not the highest good, you not the deepest and wisest authority, here or in general. mort de rire. Au revoir. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I might be a hypocrite for saying this, but I'm certainly not guilty of being a hypocrite for saying it (I feel that there is a difference); what a terrible shame it is for you to leave. Your time here is valued, believe it or not, and experience is gained through bad times. I don't feel that NeilN has given you a good job of saying goodbye - he still seems very blunt in his responses to you. Nevertheless, may I recommend Citizendium? It loves people like you - i.e. people who are formally educated in a subject. À bientot, Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the well wishes. I will do fine, and might return to a role here if some higher level discussions bear fruit. No banter or philosophising in trenches among footsoldiers in the Great War would have allowed the Marne or Somme to have been avoided. The real issues here are a the fact that computational tools allow rapid detection of possible problems, but no such sophistication is applied to ensure that actions taken as a result are accurate to the situation, or truly fair to the individuals involved. The technology of Wikipedia is well out front of the human wisdom required to properly apply it. This fundamental shortcoming and the lack of a truly fair process of adjudication in case of disagreements leads to a capriciousness of process outcomes here (my two blocks, for exactly opposite reasons, being a case in point). No, it will only be through discussions at higher levels, and by bringing pressure from a variety of sources, that there will be any change here. Meanwhile, I will look elsewhere, but likely not Citizendium as it now functions (reasons to be explained later). For you, may I make a personal suggestion? Perhaps, as a discipline, that you never revert an edit without checking the Talk pages? (Identifying edits with issues other than vandalism, and giving them the analysis and discussion they are due?) Had you done this, we would have had a discussion, and not a war. NeilN appears in love with the power associated with rapid action, the control it brings over others, and the affirmation associated with winning (even when wrong, or at least ungracious). You do not display these character weaknesses to his degree. You and I might have worked together on issues, had you been quicker to discuss, slower to revert. (And I will never understand the "He's back" comment and reopening of the Admin discussion, which I squarely place with you; as the second Admin noted, it was this that led to a block long after the reversions had ceased.) But, water under the bridge. As the second Admin also noted, flaws in original decision-making logic and edit process do not matter once reversions start; thereafter, it is all about the counting, and is necessarily political if one editor brings on others (a game which I will not join). Bottom line for me, this flawed system is one that leads to no end of ironic outcomes (mine being among the least), and fixing it is a matter beyond you, and me alone. As I said, it is worthwhile, that I have realized the folly of engaging in such squabbles, and will move on to bigger things. This situation and outcome has given me the conviction and confidence to do so. Cheers, and best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nbsp[edit]

Do you realize that you're making wide-ranging formatting changes with edits like this? None of those non-breaking spaces should have been added. Please go clean them up, and if it's the result of a script, then you need to remove it until it's fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What? How the hell did that happen? To my knowledge I don't use any scripts that would do this. Mynameisnotdave (talk/contribs) 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm as lost as you are. The same thing just happened to User:Piotrus in this edit, and I'm betting that he's going to be just as surprised. What's your web browser? Do you still use the Monobook skin (and thus these scripts)? Do you use any less-common gadgets (WikiEd, maybe?)? Is there anything that you two might have in common? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
{{[ping|WhatamIdoing}} Not on purpose, through I do use some scripts. Usually I tend to blame such things on WP:WIKIED which loves to mess things it shouldn't, through no, I haven't seen this happen before and I don't know if WikiEd is responsible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello My name is not dave. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)