User talk:Oscitare: Difference between revisions
Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
::<small>Note: Added links to users on above comment for convenience. —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)</small> |
::<small>Note: Added links to users on above comment for convenience. —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::{{yo|Uk55}} I don't see too much evidence just through the [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=I+B+Wright&users=DieSwartzPunkt&users=LiveRail&users=85.255.233.161&users=85.255.233.210&users=85.255.233.196&startdate=&enddate=&ns= analysis], do you have any more evidence? Think back to [[WP:SIGNS]]. —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 04:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::{{yo|Uk55}} I don't see too much evidence just through the [http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=I+B+Wright&users=DieSwartzPunkt&users=LiveRail&users=85.255.233.161&users=85.255.233.210&users=85.255.233.196&startdate=&enddate=&ns= analysis], do you have any more evidence? Think back to [[WP:SIGNS]]. —[[User:Skyllfully|Skyllfully]] <sup>([[User_talk:Skyllfully|talk]]</sup> | <sub>[[Special:Contribs/Skyllfully|contribs]])</sub> 04:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::{{replyto|Skyllfully}} Oh, really? I thought them having edited 15+ different articles within a day of each other would be pretty conclusive... or am I just reading it wrong? Well before I found that tool I was mostly basing it on how they were interacting with me on the [[Talk:Blu-ray#Video_resolution_chart|Blu-ray talk page]] - I thought I was being perfectly civil, but each one that appeared seemed to increase in hostility from the last. They also all followed the pattern of writing one or two angry essay-length replies, then disappearing. I could accept multiple people disagreeing with me, but it seemed odd they'd have so much to say one minute and nothing the next. It also seemed like a really weird thing to get upset about. Plus their writing styles seemed identical, but maybe that's subjective. There were a few other things I noted, but none I would really call conclusive. So do you think I might've |
::::{{replyto|Skyllfully}} Oh, really? I thought them having edited 15+ different articles within a day of each other would be pretty conclusive... or am I just reading it wrong? Well, before I found that tool I was mostly basing it on how they were interacting with me on the [[Talk:Blu-ray#Video_resolution_chart|Blu-ray talk page]] - I thought I was being perfectly civil, but each one that appeared seemed to increase in hostility from the last. They also all followed the pattern of writing one or two angry essay-length replies, then disappearing. I could accept multiple people disagreeing with me, but it seemed odd they'd have so much to say one minute and nothing the next. It also seemed like a really weird thing to get upset about. Plus their writing styles seemed identical, but maybe that's subjective. There were a few other things I noted, but none I would really call conclusive. So do you think I might've been wrong? [[User:Uk55|Uk55]] ([[User talk:Uk55|talk]]) 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:39, 8 October 2015
|
||
User:Skyllfully/StatusTemplate
This is Oscitare's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
Creating Userbox Templates
I need help publishing a userbox template, how might I go about achieving consensus for it? Its currently at {{User:Skyllfully/toa}}. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 18:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
![]()
-- 20:54, Friday, August 28, 2015 (UTC)
|
Users' Information
Hey there, I was wondering, how does one find the IP address of a user? Also, how does one find what groups a user is part of?
|
Page move button in other skins
Hey there, is there any way to get the raw JavaScript for the move button for pages if I want to use it on other skins? —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
|
Template for notification of removal of CSD on one's article
Is there a template for notification of removal of CSD on one's article (i.e. a {{uw}} template)? —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 05:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Blue Jeans Environmental and humanitarian impact section
Extended content
|
---|
Hello Skyllfully.
You recently undid my edit on the jeans page where I removed the whole "Environmental and humanitarian impact" section. Is there any way for me to put a note on the article requesting additional information/citations on this? I really didn't want to remove the whole section, but I couldn't find another way to convey this. If nobody can find citation showing that jeans use more water than other kinds of pants, then I think the whole water paragraph should be moved to the cotton and/or pants pages. Similarly, if nobody can find citation showing that jeans are more "environmentally damaging" than other kinds of pants, I think that the language "environmentally damaging" should be removed. This part: "The production of jeans with a "used look" can be more environmentally damaging than regular jeans" is saying that all jeans are "environmentally damaging". Says who? And if they are, are they more so than other pants options? This is opinion in an article of jeans facts. Maybe we could put the information under a sandblasting article, or under a section in the jeans article entitled "Humanitarian Impact of Sandblasting Jeans". If jeans don't use more water than other kinds of pants, and they aren't more "environmentally damaging" than other kinds of pants, then I think that this section is irrelevant to the whole article. Maybe we could move that to a pants article. Please let me know what you think. If I'm breaking any protocols here, please forgive me, I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.40.160.26 (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Removing AfD template
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Extended content
|
---|
![]()
|
Reverting personal attacks
Extended content
|
---|
FYI
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Extended content
|
---|
With this revert you restored egregious WP:OR which I had removed. In case you didn't know, I'm an admin with over ten years' editing experience. It pays to check the contributions and content when reverting edits. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 09:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Primary source
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Extended content
|
---|
Hi Skyllfully, just a quick note regarding this edit. If a film has been released, then the primary source, i.e. the film itself, can be used a source for non-interpretive plot information and cast. Where we would need references is if someone tried to add a plot write-up for a movie that has not been released yet, or if they were trying to add content about perceived themes and other subjective material. The same goes for the soundtrack. If it has been released, then presumably we could look at the album cover to discern the track titles, or play the soundtrack and figure out how long each song is. The release date should be sourced, since that's not usually printed on an album. And obviously if there are issues with vandalism, that might warrant some {{citation needed}} templates. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|
3RR accusation
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Extended content
|
---|
Hello, Back
Hello, Skyllfully, and thank you for the welcome.
Just one question: As my habit of making minor (and very occasionally major) changes dates back at least five years, why issue me a welcome now? Just curious. Thanks. Chris Madden 00:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Detroit Metropolitan Airport
I've removed the speedy tag from Detroit Metropolitan Airport. I think it would be best to let the move discussion run its course. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is marked as resolved. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
|
---|
I reverted your edit b/c I didn't know why you removed the user's username from the template, but now I see why as that user doesn't exist. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
|
The proposed changes were already formatted, and now they are a chaos. The entire second half of the article must be changed I feel as I proposed, to make it compatible with latest results in bibliometry achieved by the University of Granada in Spain.
Also, the SENSE results from the SENSE consortium in the Netherlands are presented in a very biased way. Sense says that Nova are a decent publishers, not that they are in a lowest category. We in Wikipedia must keep our standards and put back emotions. If someone does not like the company, why not write an article in a major peer-reviewed journal of Library science, bibliometry or what have you? But such articles don't exist. What has happened though is that passionate Nova critics say things for which there is no evidence in either PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS or in the INTERNATIONAL QUALITY PRESS. Quoting from the social media is not enough. I left though the last part of the article as it is; althoug I fundamentally disagree with the formulations in the light of the mentioned evidence, I think there would be an edit earthquake if I were to change it. Inshallah.Al Andaluz Toledano (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Is this now correct?
The following discussion is marked as unresolved. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
|
---|
I enter here this answer sign, can I then edit the page?
|
Help with Sock Puppet Investigation
Hi, thanks again for your offer of help yesterday, I wondered if I could take you up on it now?
I gathered some evidence, which seemed solid-ish, but then I came across the Editor Interaction Analyser, which lit up like a christmas tree. Hundreds of common edits on dozens of unrelated pages. I'm now 100% certain they're the same person, the problem is I don't know how to translate that information to the investigation form. Is it possible you can help me?
Thanks so much. Uk55 (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey there, thanks for your interest in busting these sockpuppets!
I also find that the Editor Interaction Anaylser tool is useful. If you're okay with it, I will create the case for you, all I need are the editors' usernames. Don't worry if I create the case, you'll still be able to voice your opinion on the SPI! Please reply back with the usernames... —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Skyllfully: If you can that would be incredibly helpful. The users are I B Wright, DieSwartzPunkt, and LiveRail. There's also a set of IP addresses 85.255.233.161, 85.255.233.196 and 85.255.233.210 - this is one person who claims not to have an account, but their behaviour, particularly on my talk page, has been more than suspicious. As they change IPs constantly though, I don't know if it's worth adding them. Thanks again. Uk55 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Added links to users on above comment for convenience. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Uk55: I don't see too much evidence just through the analysis, do you have any more evidence? Think back to WP:SIGNS. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Skyllfully: Oh, really? I thought them having edited 15+ different articles within a day of each other would be pretty conclusive... or am I just reading it wrong? Well, before I found that tool I was mostly basing it on how they were interacting with me on the Blu-ray talk page - I thought I was being perfectly civil, but each one that appeared seemed to increase in hostility from the last. They also all followed the pattern of writing one or two angry essay-length replies, then disappearing. I could accept multiple people disagreeing with me, but it seemed odd they'd have so much to say one minute and nothing the next. It also seemed like a really weird thing to get upset about. Plus their writing styles seemed identical, but maybe that's subjective. There were a few other things I noted, but none I would really call conclusive. So do you think I might've been wrong? Uk55 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Uk55: I don't see too much evidence just through the analysis, do you have any more evidence? Think back to WP:SIGNS. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 04:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)