User talk:Frank
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Peripheral nerve reconstruction
Hi, Frank. Been a while. :) Peripheral nerve reconstruction has come due at WP:CP. Do you have access to these sources? There's a rewrite at Talk:Peripheral nerve reconstruction/Temp, but I'm hampered in evaluating it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I'll have to look into that. I spent some time dealing with the account itself; I think that's all resolved for the moment. (It was a role account for students.) Frank | talk 15:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- It turns out that little is required in trying to access the sources. I detailed my concerns (I stopped at three sources) at Talk:Peripheral_nerve_reconstruction right after I tagged it. If you take a look at Talk:Peripheral_nerve_reconstruction/Temp, where some effort was ostensibly put in, the copyvios remain. I think the whole article should probably be deleted, but I'm open to other interpretation. I would like you to take 5 minutes comparing the copyvios I put on the talk page originally with both the slightly edited original article and the /Temp version of it. I am not at all satisfied that the copyvios are removed, but I am fine if you judge otherwise. You may rely on my quotes on the talk page of the original article as complete and accurate reproductions from the source, even if you don't have access; they are copy/pasted and I can send you PDFs if you wish. I would delete the article myself myself but I might be considered "involved" and I am fine with deferring to your judgment either way. Frank | talk 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'll compare the original with the rewrites and proceed accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Frank, this is worth noting. They had made an effort to rewrite one passage, but a new contributor came in and restored it to a copyvio state: [1]. Is this one of your project people? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've left him a note about it at User talk:Wikiclass emc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, Frank, this is worth noting. They had made an effort to rewrite one passage, but a new contributor came in and restored it to a copyvio state: [1]. Is this one of your project people? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) I'll compare the original with the rewrites and proceed accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi
Long time no chat, how have you been? Syjytg (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, and you? Frank | talk 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good. Syjytg (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Help Me - October 18, 2010
- Quite some time ago (October 18, 2010), you provided me with some help on my Talk Page. The issue was about my trying to sort a Wikipedia Table by combining two tables to appear as if they were only one table. I have put that project on my "back burner" for now, as I have become preoccupied with other matters. But, I wanted to thank you for your time and assistance. And I wanted to thank you for replying to my Help request. If I have further questions in the future (when I tackle that issue once again), I may be in touch. Thanks for all of your help. Much appreciated. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC))
Hi
Hello, I was wondering if it were possible for you to retrieve the following articles off of jstor for me? One is called "Frankenstein and the Feminine Subversion of the Novel" and the other is an article entitled "Frankenstein's Daughter". If possible, please could you email them to me at nhung0127@yahoo.com
Many many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.211.218 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Although I have access to JSTOR, it's not really meant for just emailing article requests like this. It's meant to check references, so for example if there were an article on Wikipedia that you had a question about a particular reference, I would gladly check that. Mailing a couple of articles to someone by request like this seems to have the potential to be abuse of copyright. I would suggest, though, that your local library might have the ability to do this, either in the library itself, or (as my local library), online. It costs nothing more than a library card in my county. Frank | talk 14:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Question
Hi, Frank.
Have question for you:
Can CheckUser find additional sockpuppets if they were not mentioned during a sockpuppet investigation? The reason why I'm asking is because a sockpuppeter may have more accounts that aren't under suspicion, and weren't mentioned by the person who started the investigation. Does the nominator have to mention all possible sockpuppets even if they don't know about them or CheckUser will take care of it? Is an additional request necessary during the investigation in order to find additional unknown sockpuppets? --John KB (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- These are known as sleepers and checkusers generally try to identify such. It's sort of necessary, actually, because if an IP address is blocked and more than one user has edited from that IP address, there may be collateral damage where an innocent user is blocked from editing. Hope that answers your question; let me know if it doesn't or if you have further questions. Frank | talk 04:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think it does; wanted to know if CheckUser will find them on its own, if there's more than one sockpuppet.
- Another question: you do need at least two accounts, a sockpuppeter and a sockmaster, right? The reason why I'm asking is because I've noticed two accounts who may or may not be the same user, but have the same interests, on the same pages and have roughly the same amount of edits (200) and appear sporadically, always making the same repetitive edits. But they may not be the same person, just people working for the same organization pushing an agenda on wikipedia. There's WP:DUCK and that should be enough to nominate the two of them together, right? But they may be acting separately, so even if they're pushing the same agenda, they're not the same person, just two very careful people who want to strike once in a while and hope nobody notices. So that makes me think, if they're two different people, should I nominate them separately and let Checkuser find if they have any other sleepers out there? Or just nominate them together and hope they used the same ip at least once and catch them in the act? --John KB (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you might start by asking the users themselves; unlikely you'll get any admission of being a sock but sometimes the reaction can be useful, whatever it is. Rather than "are you two socks", you might try "I notice these two accounts seem very similar; do you know anything about that?" Maybe you'll get "yeah, that other one is my brother" or "sure, I'm having a bit of fun at someone's expense" or "no, they're not socks" (but you didn't mention the word sock, so they are denying the very thing they are actually doing and know full well what they are up to even with only 200 edits). It's worth pointing out that CU is not perfect. The situation you describe may be two different people, and it may be one person. If it's two, there may be meatpuppetry going on (where they are, for example, roommates and either by mutual assent or by direction of one, they both perform the same kinds of edits). On the other hand, they may be on different continents (but still meatpuppets). And they may have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Then again, it may be one person and CU has a difficult time determining that. And it may be crystal-clear sockpuppetry that CU has no problem identifying instantly. The problem is that CU is not for fishing, as it deals with private user data, so it's not really a situation where you can say "check these two and see what you come up with". So what I would say is that you need to have a case that either a CU or a CU clerk finds compelling, however it is presented. From what you're describing, it sounds like one case. But I have no comment on whether or not a CU would actually perform a check...impossible to know without seeing the evidence. Frank | talk 13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Will see if it works. What I do know is that they're here for promotional purposes and even told a third account that promotes the same organization to stop because he was refspamming dozens of articles. There's also coatracking going on, where you have blps that barely mention the living person and are only a bunch of external links and references about the organization. Have cleaned-up a few of them, basically in the interest of actually having biographies that discuss their subjects and added actual information about them, but who knows how many more blps are there, created by which accounts. It's about checking on them, and will provide more names if I find them suspicious (sporadic appearances, small amount of edits, aiming to promote). Can send you an email, but I don't know if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for the advice, Frank. --John KB (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If there is inappropriate editing going on, it isn't necessary to prove that there is socking in order to have action taken. Why not start with listing the articles showing concerning behavior? Then they can be looked at on their own merits. If a pattern emerges that would support CU investigation, then so be it. If not, at least the articles themselves will be getting attention they deserve. No need to solve all problems in one step. Frank | talk 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Frank. Will probably concentrate on those two accounts and prepare a good explanation to request CU. Maybe COI if necessary for the third account who makes similar arguments as the other two, and may be related or not. One step at a time. --John KB (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by COI in this case. My own opinion is that established editors often throw the WP:COI acronym at newbies with the thought that because one is close to a subject, one cannot write independently about it. I don't think that is true; I think people just need to be mindful of sources and verification. Some folks, of course, cannot write dispassionately, but that doesn't mean that nobody can. Obviously I'm not talking specifically about what you're working on, since I don't know the editors involved; I'm just speaking generically. I think COI is often a non-starter and just muddies the waters. A bad edit is a bad edit, whether or not there is a COI...and by the same token, a good edit is a good edit...whether or not there is a COI. Frank | talk 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Frank. Will probably concentrate on those two accounts and prepare a good explanation to request CU. Maybe COI if necessary for the third account who makes similar arguments as the other two, and may be related or not. One step at a time. --John KB (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If there is inappropriate editing going on, it isn't necessary to prove that there is socking in order to have action taken. Why not start with listing the articles showing concerning behavior? Then they can be looked at on their own merits. If a pattern emerges that would support CU investigation, then so be it. If not, at least the articles themselves will be getting attention they deserve. No need to solve all problems in one step. Frank | talk 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Will see if it works. What I do know is that they're here for promotional purposes and even told a third account that promotes the same organization to stop because he was refspamming dozens of articles. There's also coatracking going on, where you have blps that barely mention the living person and are only a bunch of external links and references about the organization. Have cleaned-up a few of them, basically in the interest of actually having biographies that discuss their subjects and added actual information about them, but who knows how many more blps are there, created by which accounts. It's about checking on them, and will provide more names if I find them suspicious (sporadic appearances, small amount of edits, aiming to promote). Can send you an email, but I don't know if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for the advice, Frank. --John KB (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you might start by asking the users themselves; unlikely you'll get any admission of being a sock but sometimes the reaction can be useful, whatever it is. Rather than "are you two socks", you might try "I notice these two accounts seem very similar; do you know anything about that?" Maybe you'll get "yeah, that other one is my brother" or "sure, I'm having a bit of fun at someone's expense" or "no, they're not socks" (but you didn't mention the word sock, so they are denying the very thing they are actually doing and know full well what they are up to even with only 200 edits). It's worth pointing out that CU is not perfect. The situation you describe may be two different people, and it may be one person. If it's two, there may be meatpuppetry going on (where they are, for example, roommates and either by mutual assent or by direction of one, they both perform the same kinds of edits). On the other hand, they may be on different continents (but still meatpuppets). And they may have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Then again, it may be one person and CU has a difficult time determining that. And it may be crystal-clear sockpuppetry that CU has no problem identifying instantly. The problem is that CU is not for fishing, as it deals with private user data, so it's not really a situation where you can say "check these two and see what you come up with". So what I would say is that you need to have a case that either a CU or a CU clerk finds compelling, however it is presented. From what you're describing, it sounds like one case. But I have no comment on whether or not a CU would actually perform a check...impossible to know without seeing the evidence. Frank | talk 13:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
location
not gonna lie, kind of creepy that you traced my ip. but its all good now because it seems my ip changer works. you say im in pittsburgh? nice!--150.212.72.23 (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)