Hello! I wanted to inform you that I have [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Starkillers_.282.29|requested]] a refund of the draft for Starkillers page. I will keep you posted on what the result is. As you may have noticed I was previously named brawlarecords and then an Admin adviced me to change it to my name, and so I did. I would like to clarify with you that even though I am affiliated with Brawla Records, I am on a volunteer position with them so I am not getting paid what so ever. Therefore, I am not getting paid for any edits I ever make. I am currently a university student. I wanted to ensure we were on the same page. Please let me know if you require further info from my end. Thank you again for offering you help! [[User:Kiran chandani|Kiran chandani]] ([[User talk:Kiran chandani|talk]]) 08:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I wanted to inform you that I have [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Starkillers_.282.29|requested]] a refund of the draft for Starkillers page. I will keep you posted on what the result is. As you may have noticed I was previously named brawlarecords and then an Admin adviced me to change it to my name, and so I did. I would like to clarify with you that even though I am affiliated with Brawla Records, I am on a volunteer position with them so I am not getting paid what so ever. Therefore, I am not getting paid for any edits I ever make. I am currently a university student. I wanted to ensure we were on the same page. Please let me know if you require further info from my end. Thank you again for offering you help! [[User:Kiran chandani|Kiran chandani]] ([[User talk:Kiran chandani|talk]]) 08:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:I see they're having some process issues ... I threw in a blurb about my participation, let's see what happens next. I might have to wait till Monday to really dig into this, due to off-wiki necessities. — [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe#top|talk]]) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
:I see they're having some process issues ... I threw in a blurb about my participation, let's see what happens next. I might have to wait till Monday to really dig into this, due to off-wiki necessities. — [[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe#top|talk]]) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
[[User:Brianhe|Brianhe]] ([[User talk:Brianhe#top|talk]]) Hi Brianhe! I spoke with an admin over email at info@wikipedia and they mentioned that we would have to recreate the entire page and we could do so starting with Sandbox and then submit it for approval. They let me know they have contacted you about my discussion with them. They have emailed me the draft version of the Starkillers deleted wikipedia page. Will that be ok to work with? Please let me know and how can we go about collaborating on sandbox. Thank you so much! [[User:Kiran chandani|Kiran chandani]] ([[User talk:Kiran chandani|talk]]) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
You truly are a Wikihero, and a WikiGod among men. Your dedication to COIN is incredibly valuable to the project and I sincerely thank you for all your work there. Winner 42Talk to me!00:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, on behalf of WikiProject X, thank you for trying out the WikiProject X pilot projects. I would like to get some anonymous feedback from you on your experience using the new WikiProject layout and tools. This way, we will know what we did right, and if we did something horribly wrong, we can try to fix it. This feedback won't be associated with your username, so please be completely honest. We are determined to improve the experience of Wikipedians, and your feedback helps us with that. (You are also welcome to leave non-anonymous feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject X.)
Please complete the survey here. The survey has two parts: the first part asks for your username, while the second part contains the survey questions. These two parts are stored separately, so your username will not be associated with your feedback. There are only nine questions and it should not take very long to complete. Once you complete the survey I will leave a handwritten note on your talk page as a token of my appreciation.
bug in coi-tag , links to non-existent mainspace-article-talkpage
Hello Brianhe, I had two questions for you, about this coi-tag.[1] Currently the article is Draft:Ron_Schnell, and thus the talkpage is Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell , but the COI-tag points 'incorrectly' to Talk:Ron_Schnell which is of course still a redlink. So first question, is that a known bug, or should I bother the template-writing-folks so that the {{COI}} thing will point properly to Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell whilst the page is in draftspace, and then once mainspaced, the same template will point to the newly-created Talk:Ron_Schnell? I've already added the coi-connected-contrib thing to the Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell for User:Aviators99 who is the subject-matter of this BLP-article, and has disclosed as much on their userpage/usertalk.
Second question, can you give the refs a once-over please, and say whether you think the Draft:Ron_Schnell refs satisfy WP:42 at present? I realize some of the 1980s newspapers are offline, and will need legwork-to-some-library to verify, so I don't expect you to go to those sorts of lengths. But if you can give it the five-minute-quick-assessment, I'd appreciate it. There are a few refs still being added into the article, but most of the coverage-bursts are visible in the draft now. WP:CHOICE applies as always, if you are busy elsewhere on the 'pedia and don't have time for this, no problemo. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The draft space is relatively new, so some templates aren't coded correctly to use it. The {{la}} template has the same problem. You can submit a problem report, but maybe you know at IT savvy person who could just fix it :)
Yeah, and I'll advise him to go thataway most likely, aka submit to AfC, but personally I hate waiting the ten days between reviewers. ;-) WP:TIAD is much cooler than WP:NORUSH. There is somebody that responded to one of my template-hacker-needed-please-help-requests last month, I'll see if they are tired of helping me with template-stuff this month. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is already a "fix" for {{la}} being busted, when speaking of a draftspace article, which is to use {{ld}} instead.
You know, I've been around the block on Wikipedia, but this is new to me. Thanks for pointing it out!
A few tips from a very, very quick perusal of your draft. 1) The source quoting is too extensive, you'll need to pare it back. There is no hard and fast rule on how much is too much, but I think what is there will be ruled as excessive by any reviewer. Personally, I try to keep quotes to a minimum to support the quoted factlet. You can use multiple citations to support multiple factlets. There's another way to cite these, but it's probably overkill for this article. 2) The section ordering is wrong, refer to MOS:APPENDIX. 3) a good reviewer won't like the bare URLs in refs. But good news: formatting refs is easy with this tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/yadkard/yadkard.fcgi. Just paste the URL into the URL/DOI/ISBN box. — Brianhe (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The {{ld}} thing was news to me as well, actually; I only stumbled across it while I was trying to figure out what bug you were talking about in {{la}}, which I've never used, so I had to read the helpdocs... and they had a little table talking about when to use la and when to use ld. "When all else fails read the documentation" as the old saying goes. ;-) Also, in true zen fashion, approach each problem with the beginner's mind.
Appreciate the perusal, thanks. And yeah, I realize that the massive quotes for some, and the bare-URLs for others, are utter crap. :-) But there are a lot of offline sources, so I put the key bits into the cites directly for the moment, per fair use law, as a means to remind me what they said whilst messing with the draft-article. And by contrast, I was lazy about pretty-ification of the bare-URLs, for the same basic reason, whilst working on the draft they are easy to open in a new tab, and somebody with WP:REFILL or the tool you linked (new one to me -- thanks) can magically fix up the cite-template-magic from the URL. Will give MOS:APPENDIX a spin, admit that I tend to shy as far away from reading the Dreaded Manual Of Stylization when I can, so almost certainly I've violated it profusely in many ways, though not 'intentionally' but rather from intentionally-blissful-ignorance. p.s. What is the "other-way-to-cite" that you speak of? I have a standing question about double-tiered-refTags for a debates-article I was working on, see User_talk:75.108.94.227#multi-cites_with_variable_quotation-portions if you have a few minutes, maybe you know the answer? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mdann42 and SiBr4 fixed the COI template, and indeed it points to the correct location on the Ron Schnell draft now. Can you kick the tires, and make sure their changes are going to work in ALL scenarios where you might want to place the tag, e.g. user sandbox, user special-page, anon user special-page under their User_talk:11.22.33.44/myOwnDraft type location, AfC draft, non-AfC draft, maybe more options I'm unaware of? If there are still template-bugs to be smashed, they know better than moi, so please comment at that thread and ping one or both of those fine wikipdians. :-) You can ping my talkpage too, though I might not be much help, I'm happy to flail away. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your article-pointers for the ref-thing. I messed around with some of the options, and tried to get what I wanted out of them, but was unable to make it work. Fundamentally, the trouble I have is that I'm trying to come up with a scheme that works on *existing* articles which already have tens or hundreds of <ref>...</ref> things in place, and without either duplicating my insertion (puffs up the apparent ref-count), nor adding a brand new 'Notes' section (puffs up the importance of the quotation-snippets since usually I'm the only one use the fair-use-quote-from-the-source feature slash system)... nor for obvious reasons, rewriting the ENTIRE set of extant refs to use something that will properly nest. I've opened up a helpdesk request, that outlines what I want, and proposes a 'footquote' template... which I'm not sure is a good idea, but seemed like a good idea at the time. ;-) There was a helpdesk request just the day before, where somebody wanted to do something very similar to what I'm after, and used a combination of normal <ref>...</ref> followed by normal {{efn}}, which worked decently well... but besides being physically adjacent in the body-prose, there is not (necessarily although one could make it happen) any hyperlinkage betwixt the ref-bit and the note-with-the-quote bit, which I found unfortunate. Anyways, since you seemed to know the existing ref-systems well, I figured I would ping you and see if you had some comments on my footquote idea, or on how to achieve something close to what I am after without any Shiny New Things being needed, please see my own WP:Help_desk#Nesting_ref-tags on the 6th, plus the similar-but-unrelated WP:Help_desk#Help.21 on the 5th (example article now nicely fixed up is at Szczecin#Name_and_etymology in the first sentence of that subsection). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note your work on Draft:Orangemoody Wikipedia editing ring - which, as always, is well done. I'd like you to consider, however, whether this isn't a little too much Wikipedia navel-gazing. As a community, we're pretty notorious for treating anything that happens in relation to our project as if it is inherently notable. Yes, I know it's in a gazillion media sources right now (I understand from WMF Communications that the top question is how we came up with the name "Orangemoody" for the case, which perhaps indicates how actually serious the media are - most simply excerpted from the WMF blog or the report to the community). But it's absolutely classic recentism, and there's no reason to believe it's anything more than flavour of the week, just like the latest Taylor Swift handbag (which will get almost as many media hits as the Orangemoody story). I think there's something to be said for writing a good and comprehensive article about Wikipedia paid editing controversies that have drawn significant media attention, but as a single article. The individual incidents aren't really all that notable by themselves. Would you please give this some thought? Risker (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that if you have only an entry in the incidets section of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia this becomes just one out of 20 incidents with no indication of proportion. Some of these incidences are very minor and inside Wikipedia news, but others are much larger in scale. One indicator of that is a separate main article. At 5252 words, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia probably needs to be spawning sub-articles and stick to summaries.
Support adding quantitative factoids to the existing summary-article. But these must be selected with some care, for instance, the number of "accounts" is an obviously-inflated factoid methinks. There are 381 socks linked to orangeMoody, but how many people were behind the socks? That (number of actual humans or their technically-checkuser-indistinguishable-equivalents), and the number of edits made in total -- NOT counting the long series of edits by e.g. User:Arr4 who methinks got roped into orangeMoody due to ESL and economic enticements more than as a 'sockmaster' of any stripe -- gives us a pretty good idea how significant (quantitatively) the incident was. The number of talkpage hours devoted to cleanup, the number of socks blocked, and all that stuff... inside baseball to my wiki-eyes. Also known as, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then that article needs to be cleaned up and only notable events of paid editing should be included. Realistically, there are only four, maybe five. None of them should take more than 500 words to describe. That article is so "inside baseball" as to be genuinely embarrassing. Risker (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article content isn't limited by notability. The only reason to "clean up" (i.e. delete) anything from the article is if it isn't reliable sourced, or if it some how violates undue weight by giving excess attention to a fringe theory and creates an imbalanced impression. A list of all well-sourced the COI incidents in no way violates neutrality, so it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Labeling something "inside baseball" is in no way a reason to delete an article, nor is it a reason to remove content from within an article. "Inside baseball" is equivalent to I just don't like it. You need to base your argument on a valid foundation, if one exists. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable undue weight on the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article. It has no balance at all, in fact. It treats edits from the NYPD IP addresses (which are, incidentally, available to lawyers, journalists and sometimes even inmates) as being more serious than the Wiki-PR case, and equivalent to the Bell-Pottinger case; it's not, and even the media coverage reflects that. The Orangemoody case does not in any way deserve its own article; neither do the others. My post was about a draft, not an article, and I have not recommended the deletion of anything. Risker (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, did too: "...only notable events of paid editing should be included. Realistically, there are only four, maybe five...." If there are 20 now, and you think 15 should be gone, and you don't think any of them deserve articles, that's saying to delete 15 of them from mainspace, right? Anyways, very strongly agree about the navel-gazing issue, but WP:NOTEWORTHY applies to article-content at the COI on-wiki article, not WP:N. Technically the orangemoody coverage-burst passes WP:GNG, too, and could conceivably be a spinoff article, though I agree (per WP:IAR mostly) that we should NOT give it a dedicated article... plus partly per WP:CIRCULAR quoting of 'wikipedia insiders' by the media, which is then turned around to become the bulk of the dedicated-OrangeMoody-article. Wait for WP:LASTING effects at least, and more WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE that just the initial WP:109PAPERS, before deciding that OrangeMoody: The Movie definitely deserves to be bluelinked, please pretty please with a cherry on top. Also, there is the WP:BEANS issue: we don't want to give future bad-apples specific concrete ideas, of how to mimic orangemoody techniques, right? And a dedicated article has more room for gory details, that a summary-paragraph might elide. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds dangerously close to self-censorship. Yes, let's not give away all the secrets of the checkuser team, but not reporting about events already in the public sphere, because they might "give people ideas"?? I'm hearing similar defeatist talk of tieing our own hands at Doc's talkpage, where defeatists say anything we do to deter self-interested editors will just drive them deeper underground, and I don't like it there either. — Brianhe (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to be called defeatist... if the cause is Let Us Kill Off All Paid Editing, then yes, that is a cause doomed to go down in defeat, so by definition, I'm defeatist about that specific cause. One way or the other, in the long run, that cause is 100% doomed: if champions of the no-paid-editors cause try to get their wishes enacted on enWiki, my expectation is that they will fail to do so. That's doom-option#1. However, even if they *do* manage to get that draconian rule put into place, they will still fail: either wikipedia will be crushed/acquired/whatever by Google in doom-option#2, or perhaps wikipedia would just collapse under it's own weight and be forked as doom-option#3. No matter what, though, I'm a defeatist when it comes to the chances of long-term success of banning anybody with WP:COI, from being able to edit the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's impossible.
But I'd prefer if you would refer to me as a Pragmatic Wiki-Patriot, rather than a Defeatist Wiki-Traitor, if that's not too much to ask. :-) Yes, I'm advocating self-censorship. We already self-censor what information is world-visible. If wikipedia was truly open, every person who wanted to would be able to skim the raw webserver logs, and learn the IP/browser/flashPlugin/geolocation/etc of anybody who ever edited wikipedia, and of anybody who ever *read* an article on wikipedia. I'd be able to track which pornography articles people read, and which kinds of movies they liked, and what kind of politics they were interested in. Plus I'd know where they lived, and security-sensitive information about the software installed on their computer system, too. So, yeah, I'm definitely advocating self-censorship: we should NOT be giving out raw webserver logs, for security reasons. Also for security reasons, albeit of a slightly different type, we should NOT be giving out specific details of the best way to attack the AfC queue, for future orangemoody-imitators to attempt. We SHOULD be working hard to secure the perimeter around the AfC queue (see my suggestions at signpost), and we should stop wasting time tilting at the no-paid-editor windmill (see my 'defeatist' suggestions on the User:Doc_James subpage ... well, the suggestions I finished writing, before I noticed I was getting angry and stopped reading&writing there temporarily ... I'll return when I have cooled off). That's my actual stance.
I don't agree that we should delete mention of the incidents, but I do agree that we should keep them short and sweet and vague on the specifics of the particular attack. There is a school of infosec, which believes that the best way to deter attacks is to keep the details of attacks as public as possible, for example, the source code to the Linux kernel is 100% public, and the security breaches against older unpatched versions of that kernel are also 100% public. But nobody in their right mind says that somebody *running* a Linux server should publish the patch-level of that server for all the world to see, or publish the SSH passwords for all the world to see, or publish the other internal-security-procedures that they use. There's a difference between street-smarts, and security-through-obscurity. I'm in favor of the former, and against the latter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point, of what I mean: there is a WP:VPT thread here, plus a couple of bugzilla-fka-phabricator reports, about a "security" hole. There is no actual risk to the servers, so this is only a scarequoted "security" hole and not a pants-on-fire-fix-it-now-nonscarequoted security hole, but there is the annoyance-factor and the opportunity cost (admins wasting time trying to control the disruption yet they cannot). It is openly being discussed. I am in favor of that. But you will note, that there is NOTHING in the you-have-been-blocked-template, which says "please do not create new sections on your talkpage from a tablet since our software is incapable of blocking you from doing that even though you are not supposed to since officially your talkpage access is revoked". Putting that into the you-have-been-blocked message would be asking for trouble. So we don't say that in the you-have-been-blocked message, we just discuss it on back-end pages like WP:VPT where most blocked editors will never know about the 'security' hole at all.
Again, respectfully disagree on strategy. Seems to me we have to make a choice to embrace change and fix some majorly broken systems involving integrity. I might be misreading your comments but will reiterate that there's no risk to WP in discussing what's already in the press. The maefactors surely know more about circumventing WP protections than the newspaper writers do. Nobody's talking about writing a "how to mobilize a sock army via Elance" article (though that would be very useful COIN volunteer training handbook material, come to think of it).
I've engaged WMF for direction on some of this, as I think they should be taking a policy lead or at least guiding the community on what they are and are not willing to help with. — Brianhe (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else[2] mainspaced a spinoff, titled simply Orangemoody. I have commented over on the talkpage of the COI-on-wikipedia page, but in a nutshell, my suspicion is the future orangemoody-type attempts will try to rope in good-faith editors to do some of the dirtywork, using social engineering techniques for instance. My further suspicion is that some of those good-apples will be hoodwinked by the future-orangemoody-type sockmasters-slash-meatmasters, and will therefore be blocked by checkuser evidence of interleaving edits, and have all the articles they've worked on summarily deleted. I have a hunch that may have actually occurred during orangemoody, in at least one case, though it was probably more of a thought-I-could-get-away-with-it scenario, rather than a hoodwinked-into-it thing. I hesitate to refer to a username, but you are familiar with the person I'm vaguely referring unto. I don't see much worry of a lawsuit against the WMF in 2015, but I think we should be scrupulously careful so that we are in practice when a much-more-devious incident occurs in 2016 or 2017 or whatever. Anyways, the tide pulling us towards the navel might be insurmountable, now that the new article is up, and nobody besides you has responded to the weasel-tag. I will probably still take a crack at rewriting the summary-paragraph, but my prose-smithing skills are not as sharp as they need to be for such a task, I fear. Anyways, appreciate that you are able to disagree with me in WP:NICE fashion, though you feel strongly on this matter -- thanks for your patience, and see you around the 'pedia. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Road Runners Motorcycle Club
Road Runners Motorcycle Club was deleted via the prod process which is for uncontroversial undisputed deletions. Since you've said elsewhere that you consider that deletion "a mistake" I have restored the article. It could of course still be deleted via AFD, but only if by consensus. Take care and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers12:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Starkillers
Hello! I wanted to inform you that I have [[3]] a refund of the draft for Starkillers page. I will keep you posted on what the result is. As you may have noticed I was previously named brawlarecords and then an Admin adviced me to change it to my name, and so I did. I would like to clarify with you that even though I am affiliated with Brawla Records, I am on a volunteer position with them so I am not getting paid what so ever. Therefore, I am not getting paid for any edits I ever make. I am currently a university student. I wanted to ensure we were on the same page. Please let me know if you require further info from my end. Thank you again for offering you help! Kiran chandani (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see they're having some process issues ... I threw in a blurb about my participation, let's see what happens next. I might have to wait till Monday to really dig into this, due to off-wiki necessities. — Brianhe (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brianhe (talk) Hi Brianhe! I spoke with an admin over email at info@wikipedia and they mentioned that we would have to recreate the entire page and we could do so starting with Sandbox and then submit it for approval. They let me know they have contacted you about my discussion with them. They have emailed me the draft version of the Starkillers deleted wikipedia page. Will that be ok to work with? Please let me know and how can we go about collaborating on sandbox. Thank you so much! Kiran chandani (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
