User talk:True Pagan Warrior: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:32, 3 March 2010

Thanks for stopping by to talk. If I left a message on your talk page, I am watching that page, along with over a thousand others. That being said, I have no objection to being left a {{talkback}} on this page just to be sure my response is timely. I also get a little thrill whenever I see the friendly orange message notification - I'm easy to please!

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 17 days may be automatically archived by .

Administration

Can you help me with this concept?Thank You.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your help.Nascar1996 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Nascar1996 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't hesitate to comment on my essay

User:Mike Cline/Conquerng the Dilemma-Creating a Better List--Mike Cline (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: High Schools essay

Hello, True Pagan Warrior. You have new messages at Jerry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA

Some good observations that I agree with. SilkTork *^YES! 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm trying to incorporate the best of what others use to measure but at the same time keep it simple. Do people often invoke the duck at RfA?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Magazine

Would you please explain this edit of yours? This little stub is already well-cited with multiple, third-party WP:RS such as Huffington Post, The Independent, Softpedia, CBS Network and Hypebeast. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see many reliable sources. I see a blog, a very new paper with no track record yet for or against reliability, a software indexing site that also collects news, a major television network, and an online magazine also untested for reliability. Only one of those am I sure is reliable, so I think the article could stand to have a few more reliable sources. Do you think that more sources would be deleterious?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 04:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, of course, the article should include more WP:RS but IMO Tank easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. The Independent is considerably an authoritative newspaper and Huffington Post is a news website, not an ordinary personal weblog (however one of the most famous weblogs on the internet). Plus the cover models of the magazine include big-name fashions models and famous actresses. With that said, I've recently added more third-party references from Daily Mirror, Guardian.co.uk, Times Online and BBC, and removed the tag. Thank you. Best, Scieberking (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please fix this infobox thing if you have time. It's showing unnecessary code with the image for no apparent reason. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure how I managed that, but I will tidy it up!--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 14:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		I think you deserve this for your help, co-operation and guidance. You may display this on your userpage if you wish. Sincerely, Scieberking (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so proudly, thank you so much!--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

User:IBen/TB iBen (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, True Pagan Warrior. You have new messages at WT:EAR.
Message added 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jezhotwells (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CU disambig

Thank you. Given my current involvement in discussions at Talk:Concordia University (Montreal)#Move?, I've been somewhat distracted and diverted, but it remains a worthy task - I'll accept any and all help offered with greatful thanks. (My modus operandi has been to go to here, click on "What links here", and start "dab"ing!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I've been ignoring User pages, Talk pages, WP pages - just concentrating on articles. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 |archive = User talk:True Pagan Warrior/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
-== [[User talk:Smithers7|tb]] ==
-{{User:Smithers7/tb}}
-:You have another message... <font face="Batik Regular"><big>'''[[User:Smithers7|<font color="black">smithers</font>]]''' - [[User talk:Smithers7|<font color="black">talk</font>]]</big></font> 01:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
-== My website ==
-You said it was only a minor concern at my RfA, but I took a look at the text on my site referencing "Wikipedia research" and can see where you're coming from.  I expanded and modified it some to give a clearer understanding of what it is I do.  Since I think you can find it easily enough should you wish to, I see no need to use this as an opportunity to add another "nofollow" link that points to it here.  ;)  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]] 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
-:I just took a look, and the relevant part now talks about additional services include monitoring company persona via monitoring of Wikipedia entries. I'm still not entirely sure what that entails. Does this mean that you offer a professional service ensuring that company information on Wikipedia is not derogatory? <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
-::I offer them updates on what the entries say, but I also coach them on how to appropriately effect changes via {{tl|edit request}} to avoid COI issues, and why properly-sourced unflattering information isn't likely to go away.  Generally once the bad stuff makes it to Wikipedia it's too late to fix it (notable stuff is easy enough to find even if they try to keep it out of here), so I try to help them find out when it's non-notable (via Twitter and blogs and such), since it's possible for good PR writing to have an impact at that point.  If you're wondering in general how I approach promotional business articles, take a look at the history of [[Ebsco Publishing]].--[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]] 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
-:::What are your views on [[Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)]]? <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
-::::If you think this response would be helpful to my RfA, please feel free to copy it there.  I think it's a miserable state of affairs.  I researched that question when I was studying the conflict of interest policy before providing a notice to an editor at [[Ebsco Publishing]] - that policy makes a very [[Wikipedia:Coi#cite_note-0|vague assertion]] about not being "paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the ''sole intent'' of improving that organization's image."  With that information I wrote an article which can be found at <nowiki>[http://business-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/wikipedian_editor_for_hire</nowiki> (with apologies, I cannot provide these external links directly due to the site in question being blacklisted) which explains the principles I had researched at [[WP:COI]].  Thereafter I did some Googling and encountered the tale of [[User:Thekohser]].  I reviewed the debate on paid editing and interviewed Gregory Kohser, writing another article, <nowiki>http://business-writing.suite101.com/article.cfm/dangers_of_hired_wikipedia_editing</nowiki>.  (Interestingly, during that period another article I wrote, "Using Wikipedia as an SEO Strategy is a Bad Idea," was temporarily removed from the Suite101 site because I quoted from CEO Peter Berger's contributions here about Suite101 being blacklisted.  Not all sites are as tolerant of criticism as this one!)  What I found interesting is that I followed a similar research path to Kohser, although I didn't make the entrepreneurial leap he did, and initially reached the same conclusions - that it's not exactly disallowed, but it's a waste of time to put POV info into articles whether you're paid to or just doing it for free.  The weird truth is that it ''still'' isn't disallowed, but Jimbo will nuke your account if he finds out you're doing it.  The policy discussions have halted, I think, because barring finding an offsite advertisement there really isn't any way to enforce it.  Where this leaves the situation now is completely untenable, because there might be editors out there accepting payment because they ''legitimately believe'' it's permitted.  There has been no consensus for either the policy or guideline proposals to limit paid editing, and I expect no proposal that would specifically allow it.  I have not had anything constructive to contribute to those discussions, the above being rant not being any more than a statement of the obvious, so I haven't weighed in there.  I tend to trust that holding all edits to the principles of [[WP:V]], [[WP:N]], and [[WP:RS]] protect this encyclopedia more effectively than any new policy could, but I understand that Jimbo needs to take pains to defend against any perceived credibility problems from a marketing standpoint.  I won't accept payment for editing articles.--[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]] 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
-Thank you for your full response. I think that some people get slightly over concerned about paid editing, as they feel there would be too much possibility for bias to creep in. My experience has been that we should be rather more concerned about fans writing articles about their favourite rock star. We have a good number of apparently well written and well sourced articles which on closer examination are actually distorted puff pieces. I am engaged in a GA review at the moment which has disturbed me by the choice of material used to exaggerate the status of the subject of the article. Highly favourable comments from positive reviews have been used, while negative comments have been ignored, and those sources which give a balanced view were not merely ignored, but removed from the article! But, hey, Wikipedia is not perfect. We are still getting there.
-I have done as you suggest and moved the question to your RfA. The RfA is in the balance at the moment, and if it remains at 72% will need a closing decision from a crat. I would suggest you think carefully about your response as it could decide matters. There are people on both sides of the fence on the paid editing issue,  and I think you would need to show understanding of the concerns of both camps in your response.
-My personal view is that I have welcomed your openness in this matter, and your willingness to discuss matters, and that if I felt you were more committed to Wikipedia I would be happy to support your request. But at this stage I still remain concerned about your lack of involvement. With such low levels of Wikipedia activity I don't see much need for you to have the tools - there are still plenty of useful areas in which you can get involved (and gain experience). I would be more prepared to support you after another 6 months of solid involvement - with perhaps some dispute resolution experience. regards <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
-:I agree that paid editing is a contentious issue.  The sort of cherry-picking of information you describe is something I've not yet encountered, but I haven't reviewed a GA candidate.  There's a credible argument that paid editing cheapens Wikipedia's image, but it's undermined by the existence of the [[WP:reward board|reward board]], where payment is acceptable.  I am not aware of any suggestion to modify or remove the Reward Board, but it seems central to the issue.  As I hope I have demonstrated at my RfA, I do my darndest to apply policy to a question first, and only my own opinion when it's appropriate.  My opinion on the process to reach a consensus on paid editing isn't favorable, but I would rely on whatever policy or guideline results.  Overall the way we make decisions works very well; this is a very unusual circumstance in which people could get punished for doing something that they thought was acceptable, and that troubles me.
-:I appreciate your caution about how I worded my response, and did consider it carefully.  If I had simply come out against paid editing it would have been easy to see that I've written articles which pretty specifically lay out that it's not forbidden, so I thought laying out how my understanding of the issue evolved would be more helpful.  I may add a note to that effect.
-:I respect your view that my level of involvement falls short of your standards - the minimums established by various editors vary quite a bit, but at least they all can be met easily enough with additional time and effort.  Regardless of the outcome of this RfA, I've received feedback from other editors which will give me some clear focus as I try to meet the bar you've set.  The question of "needing" the tools is a standard I see often but profess I don't understand - no individual needs the tools.  That some editors should not have the admin tools goes without question, but the need for the tools rests with the community and the site, not the individual.  For example, no editor could possibly demonstrate a need to see [[Special:Unwatchedpages]], but the community needs to have people with access to that list.  Your interest in admins having dispute resolution experience is understandable, since an admin is more likely than another editor to be asked to settle a dispute, and I will consider offering some third opinions - but as this process has reminded me of my withered interest in reviewing editors and inspired a new one in articles for creation, I'm developing quite a list of areas that I can help out in, with or without tools.--[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]] 12:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
-== Mt. Tremper map ==
-It occurred to me while I was writing the article that a map would be nice, and that the USGS version would of course be PD. It further occurred to me that I could go into Photoshop and trace over the trails already shown on the map in the blaze color (adding the northern extension, which isn't on the USGS map but which I was one of the first people other than those who built it to hike on) and then add the appropriate [[commons:Category:USNPS map symbols|NPS map symbols]]. It was a lot less harder than it might have been a few years ago. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 15:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
-== Your RfA ==
-Sorry I had to close your RfA as unsuccessful. While some of the opposing arguments were stronger than others, there was a multiplicity of relevant oppose bases cited and I did not find that there was consensus that you should be given the admin tools.
-Reading the opposes carefully, it struck me that a thoughtful response by you over the next few months would make another RfA in the near-future very likely to succeed. You're clearly a valuable contributor and 44 Wikipedians already supported your unsuccessful RfA. I look forward to seeing you pass next time.
-Good luck, --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-:No problem. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 12:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-I'm really sorry about this. I thought your responses to my oppose were measured, intelligent and demonstrated capability, which is why I moved my !vote to neutral (I don't really ever support candidates I haven't experienced outside of RFA). I wish you the best in your future endeavors. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-:No worries - I offered to help out in a different way, and that offer was declined.  I have a clearer idea of what the community would expect of me should I decide to try again.  Happy editing!--[[User:Otherlleft|otherl]][[User talk:Otherlleft|left]] 13:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-I originally misread your comment, which made it look "worse" (for lack of a better word) than it actually was, and I agree very much with the sentiment expressed by you on my talk page. In retrospect, while I still disagree with the manner you presented your thoughts on uncivil and/or unpleasant administrators, I was probably wrong in seeing this as irrefutable evidence of your unsuitability for the role. Maybe the project would be better of having an outspoken admin who would not be afraid to speak out against what is definitely a problem, if not as large as some editors make it out to be. In my own experience, nine out of ten editors that I've interacted with, admins or not, are in fact very civil. One more thing: You may have already noticed by the time I've finished writing this, but you did not properly close the kitten table you placed on my and others' talk pages, resulting in subsequent text being enclosed in the table. Regards, <tt>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</tt> ([[User talk:Decltype|talk]]) 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-:Yeah, sorry for creating even more work for you. Like those above, I hope you will give adminship another try at some point. All the best, <tt>[[User:Decltype|decltype]]</tt> ([[User talk:Decltype|talk]]) 13:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-Sorry to see this. Oh, well. I never had much faith in the RfA process anyways. :) I don't blame you if you never want to think about running again, but I'm confident you can pass in a few more months. &ndash;'''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-This sucks. You're a great candidate. Though it probably wouldn't have affected the outcome, I wish I had reaffirmed my support near the end. [[User:JamieS93|<font style="color:#4682b4">'''Jamie'''</font>]]'''[[User talk:JamieS93|<font style="color:#50C878">S93</font>]]''' 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-:Yes - and that's a good way of viewing the situation. As much as I may disagree with the oppose reasons, the opposers themselves were considerate and offered good advice. :-) If you run again in a few months, it will probably be a different result. Cheers, [[User:JamieS93|<font style="color:#4682b4">'''Jamie'''</font>]]'''[[User talk:JamieS93|<font style="color:#50C878">S93</font>]]''' 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-Just to let you know, that although your RFA failed and I have contributed to that, you have a lot of my respect. I sense in you a strong editor and hope to cross with you (collaboratively) not once in the future. Cheers. [[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] ([[User talk:Materialscientist|talk]]) 22:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
-Thanks for the kitten! I'm sorry your RfA didn't get you a mop and bucket this time, but I agree with Dweller who said "...it struck me that a thoughtful response by you over the next few months would make another RfA in the near-future very likely to succeed." I look forward to seeing your name appear again in the non-too-distant future. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|<font color="darkred">Boing<b>!</b></font>]] [[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#top|<font color="darkgreen">said Zebedee</font>]] 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-*Kudos to you for going through RfA and keeping calm through the whole debacle - it's obviously a very tough experience. It's great to see you're not discouraged, and I encourage you to keep it up in the direction in which you are going and I can almost guarantee you'll pass next time. =) [[User:Master&amp;Expert|'''<span style="color:Blue">Master&amp;</span>'''<span style="color:#00FFFF">Expert</span>]] ([[User talk:Master&amp;Expert|<span style="color:purple">Talk</span>]]) 07:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
-== Talkback ==
-{{talkback|MWOAP|Participation at my RfA|ts=22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}}
--- <font color="green">&#47;[[User:MWOAP|<font color="green">MWOAP</font>]]&#124;</font><font color="blue">[[User_Talk:MWOAP|<font color="blue">Notify Me</font>]]&#92;</font> 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-== jmcw ==
-Thank you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APdfpdf&action=historysubmit&diff=343359325&oldid=343322214 for your concern]. I agree that "it's all about John", not me, and confirm that I do not wish to create a distraction. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FJmcw37&action=historysubmit&diff=343461810&oldid=343452923 However ... ], Cheers, and thanks for your concern, [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 05:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 == Administration ==
@@ Line 84: / Line 25: @@
-==[[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA]]==
+== [[User:True Pagan Warrior/RfA]] ==
 Some good observations that I agree with. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 :Thanks!  I'm trying to incorporate the best of what others use to measure but at the same time keep it simple.  Do people often invoke the [[WP:DUCK|duck]] at RfA?--'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|TPW]]'''  [[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|(trade passing words?)]] <small>TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft</small> 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
@@ Line 97: / Line 39: @@
 :Hmm, not sure how I managed that, but I will tidy it up!--'''~[[User:True Pagan Warrior|TPW]]'''  [[User talk:True Pagan Warrior|(trade passing words?)]] <small>TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft</small> 14:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
-==Barnstar==
+== Barnstar ==
 {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
 |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Compass barnstar.png|80px]]