Jump to content

User talk:TParis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Escalation by Cla68: some unsolicited advice on running
Please review and respond
Line 86: Line 86:


[[File:Original Barnstar Hires.svg|thumb|100px|center|Thanks for the acquisition of X! 's edit counter [[User:Marek Mazurkiewicz|Marek Mazurkiewicz]] ([[User talk:Marek Mazurkiewicz|talk]]) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)]].
[[File:Original Barnstar Hires.svg|thumb|100px|center|Thanks for the acquisition of X! 's edit counter [[User:Marek Mazurkiewicz|Marek Mazurkiewicz]] ([[User talk:Marek Mazurkiewicz|talk]]) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)]].


== Hi dear Tom Paris ==

Can you reverse the deletion of the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ?
Thank you very much and best wishes. --[[User:Samen54|Samen54]] ([[User talk:Samen54|talk]]) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:I got [[es:User:Miss Manzana]] to review it and they've confirmed your sources are strong so I've restored the article.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

::TP, please take a few minutes to reconsider your revival of the Galindo article. Miss Manzana notwithstanding, the article has exactly the same problems as before: (1) Even if all the claims in the article are true, there's little or no evidence of notability, and (2) the references are, with few or no exceptions, blogposts, primary sources, and sources not supporting the article's text. A great deal of time has been wasted combatting an extensive sockpuppetry campaign [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaume_Ca%C3%B1ellas_Galindo] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaume_Ca%C3%B1ellas_Galindo_(2nd_nomination)] to support this article, and by reviving it you risk repeating that waste. I'd appreciate hearing from you (I'll be watching here) after you've had a chance to look into the matter. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
::::EEng - I actually spoke with a fluent Spanish speaker from Spain (an es-wikipedia sysop) who identified the sources as a major Catalonian newspaper. Why is it that she says the sourcing is strong and you say they are blogposts and primary?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::I didn't say they were all blogposts and primary, I said that each was, with ew or no exceptions, a blogpost, primary sources (like the picture of the subject's Save the Children ID card) or (even if considered a RS) non-supportive of the text -- and I will add now, certainly non-supportive of notability. Three or maybe four are indeed RS, the rest being online magazines without bylines, an article by the subject himself, a petition signed by the subject and scores of others, and so on. But arguendo, let's say all the article's claims are both true and supported by RS. Then where's the notability? In the meantime, I've deleted most of the "Written works", which are nothing but on-demand printings of Wikipedia articles, for crying out loud (see e.g. "Product Description) at [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Health-Catalonia-Including-University-Barcelona/dp/1244829951]) [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I hope you will pardon my unarchiving of this thread. You answered my request with a query, which I addressed. I now invite you, again, to give substantive reconsideration, via your ''own'' review of the matter, to your action in undeleting. One needn't speak Spanish (I don't) to see that even if all claims in the article are true, there's nothing like notability under en-WP guidelines. (Other WP's have different standards, as you no doubt know, which makes it inappropriate for you to have deferred to someone not an admin here on en.) As seen below the SPAs are turning out again in quantity and, quite bluntly, you most of all should take the lead in fixing this -- unless you can point out the notability I've missed.

PROTECTION from systematic attacks. Please, do not be fooled Mr. Paris, there are systematic attacks the character on Wikipedia, honest nonsense (Own a vandalism in bad faith). This is an example: "BLP applies to AfD discussions also--see my comment at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaume_Ca%C3%B1ellas_Galindo&diff=460225100&oldid=460223320]. I am going to assume it is an honest mistake, but you should be more careful.DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)". Attacks mainly promoted by this user Catalan, who do not understand:[[User:Xtv|Xtv]]([[Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?)]]). --[[User:Winterfree2000|Winterfree2000]] ([[User talk:Winterfree2000|talk]]) 10:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

::: '''We have verified that has been Attacked with untruths and slander by a group of Catalan separatists''' who managed to cast doubt and delete the character. The reasons "alleged" for deletion no longer exist. Anyone, '''with good will''', can be easily checked.--[[User:Samen54|Samen54]] ([[User talk:Samen54|talk]]) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: Thank you very much to regain the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ( We just ask that protects you from new meaningless attacks ). You are righteous, with a true word honor, upright and generous. We support you on Wikipedia. Our best and most sincere wishes for you and your family. --[[User:Samen54|Samen54]] ([[User talk:Samen54|talk]]) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:29, 13 February 2012


User:X!'s Stuff.

I could take over the edit counter or SoxBot. I've also been working on getting them from X!. What do you think?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Have you been in contact with User:X! yet?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I don't mind if you want to take over either.--v/r - TP 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've planning on creating tools hence my account and I'm in the process of writing a few bots that can potentially help RfX's. So TallyBot, SoxBot, and toolserver would be a great addition.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I just copied over all of X's scripts in his public_html folder and I'm trying to work on figuring out how his edit counter works so if you need any of his source code, he's already given me the go ahead to copy everything.--v/r - TP 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will help but, wouldn't it be easier for him to give us the password to his account and and move the data over. Bots too. Wouldn't it be easier for use to give the account passwords to the bots and then change the usernames to them?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be easier, but I don't think Wikipedia or toolserver would like that idea much. For the account, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 would require one owner of an account, that'd be X. For the toolserver, I don't think they'd like the idea at all either. However, if you create a new bot account with X's source code, I am sure the 'crats would speedy-approve the account.--v/r - TP 00:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not even transferring ownership of it? Oh boy. Well then, could you provide me the links to the toolserver code as well as SoxBot and TallyBot?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an account? It's not all available on SVN.--v/r - TP 01:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a toolserver account, google account, and this account. Is there something else I need?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, just point over at X's folder on toolserver. All the code is there. I'm still going through it all myself so I can't point you to specifically what you want.--v/r - TP 01:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just got his edit counter working here--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviving the edit counter! I and many others appreciate it very much. Soap 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Now for the rest. I'll create a backup to avoid such incidents in the future. We also have to fix the links to this counter as well. I'll start off with the RfA.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am restructuring the code to have SoxBot operate under Cyberbot I. I hope to be done in a few days.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit Counter is not working. What's going on?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be working for me. What error are you getting?--v/r - TP 20:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's working now. What about the other tools like article blamer and so forth? Are you taking care of them?

P.S. Where are you getting his toolserver codes from?cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 20:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I copied them right from his home folder to mine. I'm working on the others, but I'm out pulling weeds in the yard today. I've been meaning to do some chores around the house for the last couple of weeks but the new unblock tool has kept me too busy to do it so I'm taking this weekend to get some work done. Once the sun goes down, I'll look at getting more tools working.--v/r - TP 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I will continue readapting his bot code to try and get them going and approved as quickly as possible. Updating the RfX Table and Tally is starting to become a bother to me. At least everyone has their stats though.

Oh and don't forget to adjust the links to the tools. They're still linked to soxred93.cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron
Hello, TParis.
You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing.
For more information, please visit the project page, where you can >> join << and help improve Wikipedia articles considered by others as based upon notable topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in joining, I'll just continue to watch from the outside. Thanks for the offer.--v/r - TP 18:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Critical thought regarding the project, such as you have provided, should hopefully ultimately improve the WikiProject. I'm cognizant of your criticisms of the project; but they can be used as constructive criticism to improve the project, and hence, Wikipedia itself. Anyway, the offer still stands for future consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bluntly honest. One of the biggest drawbacks to the idea of joining ARS is having more involvement with you. I cannot stand your wikilawyering, you constantly misunderstand and misinterpret policy and then you spam it over 10 WikiProjects and Wikipedia space pages. I strongly suggest you find a mentor. I'm willing to let things go if you show serious improvememt in 'clue'. It is what it is, but that's why I'm not throwing my hat in.--v/r - TP 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax

Let me add my voice in thanks for bring back X!'s edit counter. Would you happen to know the source and/or URL syntax used to get the machine-readable edit count results used at RfA pages such as this one? If it was with X!'s counter, will it still work? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always highlighted the entire page, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-P, and wrap it in the <pre></pre> tags to do the edit stats pages but if there is another page then it might take me awhile to find it. X had a lot of code in his home directory and I'm still trying to discover what it all does.--v/r - TP 20:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry to bother you. (I thought that it might be as simple as adding something like "&machread=1" to the URL, like you can do with http://toolserver.org/~River/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TransporterMan&dbname=enwiki_p.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look more into the source tonight when I get home; it might be that easy.--v/r - TP 20:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Escalation by Cla68

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A new admin is going to have to take over from here. I'd strongly recommend the new admin throw WP:AGF out the window since apparently WP:AN feels that a sysop should not attempt lesser methods of adjusting behavior before going straight to a block. So, just instruct the new admin to throw down a series of escalating blocks until they reach indef. *sigh* But honestly, yeah, you'll need to find a new sysop to address the issue from here.--v/r - TP 15:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings TParis. This issue is bigger than you, me, Prioryman, or any other individual editor or admin. It amazes me that ad hominem arguments have become such an accepted part of Wikipedia debate discourse that many people don't see them as violations of WP:NPA. The use of logical fallacies, in general, has just gotten out-of-control. Time to try to put a damper on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None on my end either, I'm more frustrated by the response because I thought not going straight to a block was more appropriate and I dislike that someone suggested that was more appropriate. In any case, I noticed you liked runing marathons. I was going to say something yesterday but thought you might not appriciate how casually I tend to move past things (a few other folks think I'm trolling when I engage with them after a block), but I'm considering starting to train for a half marathon with some folks in my office. I can run a solid 4 miles ( in about an hour) and I havent really tried anything further than that, but these two guys I work with just did a marathon and are getting ready for another and invited me to join them. I could definitely use the exercise, I'm trying to lose about 30 lbs, and I find it relaxing. Do you run for the competition or just to run?--v/r - TP 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I run for the exercise and the runner's high. If I ran for competition, my 5k times would need to be about five minutes faster than they currently are. Four miles at 15 minutes each is a fine start for starting a full marathon preparation program. I won't give you any advice, however, on a marathon training program, as I'm sure your friends have plenty due to their recent experience. How many times a week do you run? Cla68 (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the runners' topic in Quora, which I belong to under my real name, has a lot of good advice on different kinds of training programs and tips for runners with different goals. Cla68 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I run 3 times a week but only for short distances up to 2 miles. I can run a mile is about 7:30 but then I slow down and my mile and a half is 12:30. I can do two miles in about 20 miles and three miles comes up somewhere around 35-40 minutes. I can usually maintain this pace, it's a jog, for the rest of the run.--v/r - TP 13:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I would suggest trying to increase your distance so that your runs last at least 25-30 minutes each session. By keeping your heart rate in the "cardio zone" for that long you should start seeing a noticeable improvement in your speed. For a marathon program, however, as you're probably aware, distance training usually becomes a priority over speed. Anyway, whichever community you live in or near should have some kind of running website that lists all the road races taking place in your area. You might consider participating in a few 5Ks and/or 10Ks if you haven't already. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
For a neutral support, message in a box. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thanks!--v/r - TP 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close question

Hi TParis. Quick question about your close of this thread the other day. I actually didn't see a lot of support there keeping the indef in place; I think two people had opposed the ban but supported a continued block, but perhaps I missed some? Anyway, I was hoping to get your thoughts on that, because I'm trying to figure out a way to get him editing again. He would like to return, but the ban=no/block=yes close leaves me a little confused as to how to approach that. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say was that although no community ban was supported, neither was there opposition to the block either and a few folks actually said an indef block instead of a ban was appropriate. A lot, and I mean a lot, of folks have said that if Rlevse were to partake in the CCI to go through all of his articles and look for copyright violations or close paraphrasing, then they could see an unblock with scrutiny. If I were working with him trying to find a compromise with the community, I'd start with that. Perhaps also a 6 month ban on autoreviewer right as well. I doubt Rlevse would gain much from mentoring as he already understands how Wikipedia works, but perhaps if there were several editors who volunteered to do spot-checks on his new articles and significant content contributions, that might also be helpful. You might also ask Raul and Sandy (although she might be gone by now) what they'd accept because they are likely to be the most vocal opponents of an unblock.--v/r - TP 20:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps! I appreciate the clarification. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X!'s edit counter

Thanks for the acquisition of X! 's edit counter Marek Mazurkiewicz (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.


Hi dear Tom Paris

Can you reverse the deletion of the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ? Thank you very much and best wishes. --Samen54 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got es:User:Miss Manzana to review it and they've confirmed your sources are strong so I've restored the article.--v/r - TP 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TP, please take a few minutes to reconsider your revival of the Galindo article. Miss Manzana notwithstanding, the article has exactly the same problems as before: (1) Even if all the claims in the article are true, there's little or no evidence of notability, and (2) the references are, with few or no exceptions, blogposts, primary sources, and sources not supporting the article's text. A great deal of time has been wasted combatting an extensive sockpuppetry campaign [1] [2] to support this article, and by reviving it you risk repeating that waste. I'd appreciate hearing from you (I'll be watching here) after you've had a chance to look into the matter. EEng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EEng - I actually spoke with a fluent Spanish speaker from Spain (an es-wikipedia sysop) who identified the sources as a major Catalonian newspaper. Why is it that she says the sourcing is strong and you say they are blogposts and primary?--v/r - TP 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were all blogposts and primary, I said that each was, with ew or no exceptions, a blogpost, primary sources (like the picture of the subject's Save the Children ID card) or (even if considered a RS) non-supportive of the text -- and I will add now, certainly non-supportive of notability. Three or maybe four are indeed RS, the rest being online magazines without bylines, an article by the subject himself, a petition signed by the subject and scores of others, and so on. But arguendo, let's say all the article's claims are both true and supported by RS. Then where's the notability? In the meantime, I've deleted most of the "Written works", which are nothing but on-demand printings of Wikipedia articles, for crying out loud (see e.g. "Product Description) at [3]) EEng (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will pardon my unarchiving of this thread. You answered my request with a query, which I addressed. I now invite you, again, to give substantive reconsideration, via your own review of the matter, to your action in undeleting. One needn't speak Spanish (I don't) to see that even if all claims in the article are true, there's nothing like notability under en-WP guidelines. (Other WP's have different standards, as you no doubt know, which makes it inappropriate for you to have deferred to someone not an admin here on en.) As seen below the SPAs are turning out again in quantity and, quite bluntly, you most of all should take the lead in fixing this -- unless you can point out the notability I've missed.

PROTECTION from systematic attacks. Please, do not be fooled Mr. Paris, there are systematic attacks the character on Wikipedia, honest nonsense (Own a vandalism in bad faith). This is an example: "BLP applies to AfD discussions also--see my comment at [4]. I am going to assume it is an honest mistake, but you should be more careful.DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)". Attacks mainly promoted by this user Catalan, who do not understand:Xtv(Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?)). --Winterfree2000 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have verified that has been Attacked with untruths and slander by a group of Catalan separatists who managed to cast doubt and delete the character. The reasons "alleged" for deletion no longer exist. Anyone, with good will, can be easily checked.--Samen54 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much to regain the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ( We just ask that protects you from new meaningless attacks ). You are righteous, with a true word honor, upright and generous. We support you on Wikipedia. Our best and most sincere wishes for you and your family. --Samen54 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]