User talk:Oscitare

User:Skyllfully/StatusTemplate

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

Hi Skyllfully! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started. The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge The Teahouse new editor help space Wikipedia Help pages -- 20:54, Friday, August 28, 2015 (UTC) Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7 Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together Get Help About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue Jeans Environmental and humanitarian impact section

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

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) Hey there 170.40.160.26, thanks for you wonderful explanation and reasoning! Great question, if you would like additional citations for articles or sections, you can place {{Unr}} at the top of the page, as long as there are no citations, if there are some references, you can place {{Refimprove}} or {{Refimprove|section}}, and if there are some references in an article but none in a certain section, you can use {{Uns}}. I hope this helps, remember, if you need any further help, I'm always a reply away! —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC) @170.40.160.26: P.S. Thanks for being bold that's a great trait for editing because everything is reversible on Wikipedia, I just wanted to let you know that Community Consensus is the formal method for enacting big edits like the one you performed, and it also helps avoid edit wars. For more info on this topic, please see WP:CON. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Marking as  Answered for my reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting personal attacks

The following discussion is marked as unresolved. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

The reverts are removing personal attacks/harassment/outing attempts. I have requested that the IP be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Okay, thanks for explaining NorthBySouthBaranof, we have both made multiple reports and it is in the hands of the (slow) admins. Although, I must ask that you stop violating the 3RR, I will try to revert what I can as well but we must ignore the case for now, until there's any further developments. Thanks for understanding! —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Question: you stated that NorthBySouthBaranof had a "bad track record". You've been here two weeks. If you don't mind my asking, where did you encounter this user before? Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Note: Marking as  Unresolved. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 03:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Back

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

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) Hey there Chris Madden, you didn't seem to have a talk or user page so I assumed (wrongly) that you were a new user, without checking your contribs. So a happy belated welcome to you, I hope to see you around. By the way, please modify your signature to conform with WP:SIGLINK. Happy Wikipedia-ing!! —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Marking as  Answered for my reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Metropolitan Airport

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.
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) Okay, I guess I can be a little "quick to conclusions" at times! Marking as  Answered for my reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 01:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Itailevi700000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

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) Apparently Samwalton misspelled the user's username when tagging the sock's userpage, but I have fixed it now. Everymorning (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Okay, thanks for doing that. I only removed it because it was a misleading link. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) Marking as  Answered for my own reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 01:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nova Science article

The following discussion is marked as answered. If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

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) @Al Andaluz Toledano: thanks for your detailed response. I have placed some maintenance tags on the article, someone will eventually come around and clean it up! If you like, you can help the article. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 22:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Note: Marking as  Answered for my reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Note: Reopening discussion. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC) @Al Andaluz Toledano: Another Wikipedian has edited that article, only removing the maintenance tags, do you have any thoughts on this? His reason was, “consider this the WP:JOURNALS answer to the edit request. Basically, we follow reliable sources, and Beall is considered reliable.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyllfully (talk • contribs) Note: Marking as  Answered for my reference. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 19:15, 6 October 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)

You may want to check here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skyllfully: Hi, I'm a bit confused, because you posted on that report but didn't reply here. Are you still willing to help with this? Uk55 (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I's sorry to disappoint you but I'm not British. I am Canadian. What makes you think I am British? I B Wright (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor Interaction Utility

I have brought this discussion here because (a) I have conceeded the point at the SPI and it is becoming a distraction to the central point and (b) most of the relevant prior discussion is here. I therefore apologise for apparently hijacking your talk page.

Engineers tend to have specialist areas of interest with areas of overlap on the edges of their discipline (and for any other interests that they have). It is therefore not surprising to find overlaps of editing interest (plus they do have a tendency to follow each other). Put any four editors (the IPs are most likely the same editor with a dynamic IP) who have contributed to to any engineering based article into the Editor Interaction Utility (EIU) and it is almost bound to provide many hits (and, of course, it will increase with the square of the number of editors). What you need to do is try them two at a time to get any real picture. IBW & LR - probably about par. Myself & LR - a few more but probably reflects our mutual interest in railways. Myself & IBW - Back down to about par (and a surprise overlap). And just picking two editors for no reason other than that I know they have no relationship with each other (or this matter) 2 unrelated editors - I didn't actually expect the list to be that long (it is probably the higher edit count), but it amply illustrates my point. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I'm fine with anyone joining or making new discussions.

I see where you're coming from and I totally agree with you, what do you suppose we do now? —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 15:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we do anything. The time has come to just let the SPI run its course rather than add further distractions. I confess to being a little bemused by Uk55 seeking advice from someone who has less editing time on Wikipedia than he is claiming to have - no offence to you intended. Incidentally, there is no need to add a reply tag to my talk page as I had popped you on my watch list - at least for now. I DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

May I ask where I claimed to have any more editing experience than I claim to have? —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 16:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for any misunderstanding. I did not intend to suggest that you had made any such claim and I do not believe that I did. I merely made an observation of my bemusement. What I intended to convey is that it is Uk55 that is claiming to be a relatively new editor (from end of June 2015). That he was aware that I hail from the UK when that fact has not been revealed since at least the end of 2013 (I am still looking for when it was) plus his knowledge of Wikiprocedure establishes he was around before that date. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I would like to notify you that Uk55 could've assumed that, you do type in British English (or a closely related dialect, not Canadian or American), Uk55 also displays similar signs. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 17:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)