User talk:Aoidh: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:47, 20 November 2012

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment.
Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on).
For oversight requests please see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.

Talk page archives (: 14 days

)

2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Archives

2011 Template:•w 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher

I have started a sockpuppet investigation of ThePortuguese and Bowlfisher. The users' edits appear very similar to a contentious editor, Y26Z3, who was permanently banned from wikipedia for making contentious edits, personal threats, and legal threats (and with whom you have had interactions in the past). If you'd like to weigh in, please feel free to visit the investigation page: [1]

Goodsdrew (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on my watchlist, but just to clarify Y26Z3 was indefinately blocked, not banned. - Sudo Ghost 16:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin

Hi there, I'm terribly sorry, I was traveling this weekend and was under the impression I'd replied to you. Is the consensus still that unprotection is the way to go? Just curious since I notice it hasn't been unprotected by someone else via RFPU since you left the note for me, so just wanted to confirm. · Andonic ^contact 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like there's been a lot of issues with sockpuppets of HowardStrong coming along to vandalize Bitcoin-related pages, to the point that even the Talk:Bitcoin had to be semi-protected several times (and is even now semi-protected). So, I'm not so sure. - Sudo Ghost 16:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SudoGhost. Just wanted to say hi and "thanks" for being diligent on your work on the Bitcoin page. I agree with your edits, and hope you will continue to work there. (Fist-bump!) Jtibble (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17

Hello SudoGhost: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you had signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Linux distributions

Thanks for removing the 'redlinked' entries on the List of Linux distributions page. It's already more than big enough. I was about to post about a similar thing on the talk page, but I guess the be bold policy is important. I have taken the liberty of removing three more redlinked entries but I am unsure of 'Elementary OS', under

third party Ubuntu-based distributions. While I believe that if it is not reputable enough to have its' own Wikipedia

page, then it should not be on this list; it seems reputable and I think I should give it a week to see if anyone

creates one.

Also perhaps I should create another list of only major Linux distributions, this would be much more readable and could

archive a higher article quality.

What do you think?EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be a good idea in theory, but the problem would be determining what makes a distro "major". I think if you brought this up at WT:LINUX they might be able to come up with an idea for how that could be done. - Sudo Ghost 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Don't you just hate it when the rollback hyperlink just happens to be right next to the actual thing that you meant to select? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I went to click a diff on my watchlist, my browser apparently hadn't finished loading so it had other, more diabolical plans. - Sudo Ghost 21:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme

Hi there. Please be advised proposals are being solicited for replacement text for the discussion you entered at Talk:Bitcoin#Fundamentals. prat (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

If editors disagree with my reference style, I am more than happy to discuss the issue on talk, and seek consensus. I have linked you are relevant policy to explain my actions. In particular, while enforcing and undoing LDR may be controversial, I am also running REFLINKS and improving the informational constant of references. You undoing my REFLINK edit is clearly disruptive. Implementing LDR helps me to pre-clean the refs for the REFLINKs run. Feel free to remove LDR if you really hate them, I don't particularly care. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost, I have to admit that I don't see the point of you following Piotrus around and with one little click undoing a lot of work. You can point to "oh one shouldn't go around making large changes" all day long, but at some point you have to be able to argue that the status quo you reverted to is better than what Piotrus had to offer--and he put time and effort into it. I suggest you stop reverting, if there's anything left to revert, for now. Strongly. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When an editor is going to dozens of articles and arbitrarily changing the formatting without discussion, and that editor is being reverted by multiple editors, I don't think they should be surprised when they are reverted. This is no different than an WP:ERA change, if an editor's going around arbitrarily changing something that specifically requires a consensus to change, that's not appropriate. It's one thing to work extensively on a single article and change the formatting; its another thing to go to dozens of articles they've never edited before just to change the formatting for no other reason than to change the formatting. this has been discussed on plenty of talk pages, and when the very thing he's citing says that "articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so", maybe he should get consensus before doing so. - Sudo Ghost 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there's a consensus, it shouldn't be changed; that's what WP:Citing sources#Avoiding clutter says, and not a single article talk page this change has been discussed on has been supportive of the change in any capacity. I think that's cause for not having an editor going around making large scale reference changes like that. I don't think "well I already put time into it" is an excuse to ignore these factors, because there's nothing supporting these changes, and both guidelines and discussions giving plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be done. - SudoGhost 03:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's time (if there's dozens such discussions--you only linked to one) to centralize this somewhere. I hope you and Piotrus maybe could agree to one single discussion somewhere, and in that case your comments about dozens and multiples are more easily proven. Piotrus, since the B was your Boldness, maybe you should start this somewhere. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The relevant guideline you linked says specifically not to do it without consensus. Get consensus, then make the change. Do not make the change and then do additional edits expecting it not to be reverted back to the previous version, I cannot help that you created that problem for yourself, but I'm not going to manually pick through your edit just because you chose to ignore Wikipedia:Citing sources, the very thing you're citing as reason to do these edits. I do not care if it helps you with WP:REFLINKS; if you have to ignore the very thing you're citing in order to allow you to use WP:REFLINKS the way you want, you're doing it wrong. It's odd that you're citing WP:BRD in this section header, then telling me that my reverting you is disruptive, despite that fact that you already know you need a consensus before you make these changes. It's fine that you want to use WP:REFLINKS, but don't arbitrarily change the formatting of the article without getting a consensus first, and then expect others to clean up your mess and then call their edits "disruptive" when they revert your edits. - Sudo Ghost 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 **When an editor is going to '''dozens''' of articles and arbitrarily changing the formatting without discussion, and that editor is being reverted by ''multiple'' editors, I don't think they should be surprised when they are reverted.  This is no different than an [[WP:ERA]] change, if an editor's going around arbitrarily changing something that specifically requires a consensus to change, that's not appropriate.  It's one thing to work extensively on a single article and change the formatting; its another thing to go to dozens of articles they've never edited before just to change the formatting for no other reason than to change the formatting.  [[Talk:United States#Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references|this ''has'' been discussed on plenty of talk pages]], and when [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter|the very thing he's citing]] says that "articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so", maybe he should get consensus before doing so.  - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 **Unless there's a consensus, it shouldn't be changed; that's what [[WP:Citing sources#Avoiding clutter]] says, and not a single article talk page this change has been discussed on has been supportive of the change in any capacity. I think that's cause for not having an editor going around making large scale reference changes like that.  I don't think "well I already put time into it" is an excuse to ignore these factors, because there's nothing supporting these changes, and both guidelines and discussions giving plenty of reasons why it shouldn't be done. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
+***Maybe it's time (if there's dozens such discussions--you only linked to one) to centralize this somewhere. I hope you and Piotrus maybe could agree to one single discussion somewhere, and in that case your comments about dozens and multiples are more easily proven. Piotrus, since the B was your Boldness, maybe you should start this somewhere. Thank you, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 *{{ec}} The relevant guideline you linked says specifically ''not to do it without consensus''. Get consensus, ''then'' make the change. Do not make the change and then do additional edits expecting it not to be reverted back to the previous version, I cannot help that you created that problem for yourself, but I'm not going to manually pick through your edit just because you chose to ignore [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], the very thing you're citing as reason to do these edits. I do not care if it helps you with [[WP:REFLINKS]]; if you have to ignore the very thing you're citing in order to allow you to use [[WP:REFLINKS]] the way you want, you're doing it wrong. It's odd that you're citing [[WP:BRD]] in this section header, then telling me that my reverting you is disruptive, despite that fact that ''you already know'' you need a consensus before you make these changes. It's fine that you want to use [[WP:REFLINKS]], but don't arbitrarily change the formatting of the article without getting a consensus first, and then expect others to clean up your mess and then call their edits "disruptive" when they [[WP:BRD|revert]] your edits. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)