User talk:Herostratus

Talkback

here Pass a Method talk 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hidden Wiki

Hello Herostratus. You investigated a bit in this area, and I believe you might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Wiki. Best. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

Herostratus, will you take a look at the edits I reverted at the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles? I reverted because the references that are used are bad, even very bad (such as softpedia), non-scholarly references. Not to mention, the user removed a scholarly-sourced line in the Physical attractiveness article. But then I was reverted by an administrator, all because I was stalking Pass a Method again. I understand blocking me for being a previously blocked IP proxy/stalker, but I don't understand reverting sound edits. Are all administrators like this after blocking an IP, out to revert anything the IP may have edited, no matter how right the edits may have been? What if I had been reverting outright vandalism? I would go ahead and revert the user again, but that administrator is likely watching those articles and will revert me on principle.

Thanks for saying that you are going to revert any bare url additions made by Pass a Method. He's still making them, though. I've come to accept the fact that he's either lazy or hasn't a clue about how to properly format references. Very likely both, or else he would taken the time to learn how to do it by now if he doesn't know how to. And that "lede" edit summary he so often provides irks me to no end. The least he could do is provide a proper edit summary if he isn't going to provide proper reference formats. Some other articles I am wary of him editing, ones you might want to watch if you aren't already, are Incest, Indecent exposure, Marriage, Sexual intercourse, Virginity, anything to do with children/teens and puberty (you already know that I can't stand him editing child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics) and men and women and their bodies. I would include the Abortion article, but there are enough editors watching it who are more than willing to revert any bad edits he may make on it. 194.170.28.239 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) Well, I dunno. I can't really follow this user around as that would be stalking. Some of his edits are OK but he is kind of peculiar, generally. As long as he stays away from articles dealing with child sex and sexuality, which he has, he's not really a big concern to me personally. Other than that not really sure what to say or do about him. Herostratus (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

So, by the "sexuality" part of your comment, you mean only child sexuality? You must, because Pass a Method has still been tampering with other types of sexual topics. Seriously, it's a problem that this user edits any type of sexual topics. I saw that you put two of his articles for deletion. Good call on those.

Oh, and I don't hold it against you that you ignored my concerns about the Physical attractiveness and Blond articles. Another user took care of the first one, and I alerted him/her to the second one. 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Alexei_Davidov.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Alexei_Davidov.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Juice Leskinen at Rind et al. controversy

This user is way more of a worry than User:Radvo is. At least Radvo recognizes the great harm that often results from child sexual abuse, while Leskinen acts as though harm generally does not result from it. See Talk:Rind et al. controversy#No personal attacks. This user (Leskinen) is a mess. I hope you and others do your best to keep this article and the other child sexual abuse/pedophilia articles from being ran over by that sickening view.

Pass a Method got the article and talk page semi-protected so that I can't edit or comment there. But I bet he was hoping for a permanent lock-down. Instead, it's only temporary. I'm not sure why he thinks he can silence my voice for long or that he can get an article I may edit semi-protected, along with its talk page, simply because I'm the the one editing it or commenting, but he's sorely mistaken. Someone might want to tell User:DeltaQuad that too. 115.124.88.2 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(I'm responding here because I'm not sure that your IP address is static (I recommend getting an account, it's easy free and safe).) I hear you. I'm monitoring the article. We'll work it out eventually I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leskinen has taken my dare and has now moved on to the Child sexual abuse article, saying that it needs to be checked for being non-neutral. In just what way are we supposed to be neutral on the topic of child sexual abuse? By suggesting throughout the article that child sexual abuse has a healthy chance of not being harmful? Leskinen sounds just like the other suspicious users who have showed up at that article claiming POV issues. One of them was recently blocked. I hope the same happens to Leskinen. On the Rind talk page, he says he'll be leaving soon. I hope he means permanently. I'm calling this user a "he" because they are always "hes." 23.20.58.44 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes OK, but what is your deal? How can you have addresses in those ranges unless you're using a proxy or something??? I'm not inclined to converse with you much in that circumstance, can you not register an account? Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

They/he (it's probably the same guy who has since been banned for an army of sockpuppets) were trying to get you to act as a useful idiot for the insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Wikipedia, gaming the system by abusing your good faith, "Juice Leskinen" was banned as a sockpuppet of "Cataconia" and kept/keeps coming back on numerous IPs, see here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cataconia --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 04:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What "they", Lskinen et all or user 23.20.58.44 et al? Anyway there is no insidious pro-paedophilia movement on Wikipedia, is there? I thought all that was in abeyance. Herostratus (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina, I'm highly insulted that you would accuse me of being Juice Leskinen. Why the hell would I rat myself out?! Or debate with myself on the talk page, calling myself a likely pedophile?! If I was Juice, how does that help my cause at all? I have been someone who has been worried about pro-pedophilia pushing on Wikipedia, which Herostratus can attest to. And, Herostratus, I'd thought you'd known for some time now that I am always a proxy. It's the only reason I keep getting blocked, aside from stalking Pass a Method's awful edits. 23.20.67.42 (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think that Mistress Selina is confused, or something. OK, 23.20.67.42, right, I figured something like that. I agree with the thrust of what you say, but I don't understand why you need to edit via a proxy. Why not come in from in the cold and get a proper account? As it is, I'm pretty much not too comfortable with engaging with you, since proxy editing is against the rules, and there's no reason why a good-faith editor can't edit withing the rules, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Even good-faith editors edit use proxies, per WP:PROXY and per my contributions. My only offense has been using a proxy and WP:Stalking Pass a Method, although I don't consider following his edits and trying to fix the bad ones to be an offense/WP:Stalking. WP defines it as "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That's not why I'm following him. Anyway, I don't want my true IP to be shown, and it's not because I'm not trustworthy. As for getting an account, I have heard how Wikipedia can become addictive, even an obsession, once you become one of its official members, and I don't want that happening to me. I also like to be able to bounce around as a different IP. Besides, Pass a Method would likely try to get me blocked for WP:Block evasion, even though I'm no vandal, have never had a Wikipedia account, and should be able to have on as sort of a WP:Fresh start. 23.20.83.143 (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hero, are you going to Wikimania? Was hoping you might be interested in being a panelist on paid editing representing the paid advocacy watch. See the submission here. You may have already seen this on the Paid Advocacy Watch Talk page. King4057 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, are you going to keep some form of the Paid Advocacy Watch alive? As someone who has - and continues to - invest a lot of time learning, implementing and sharing ethical best practices, how to collaborate with other editors, rules and guidelines and so forth, I feel bitter at the prospect of unethical editing being more effective. King4057 (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Substantive change"

Can you please point me to where the addition of the word "online" to WP:NOT was discussed? It was not there originally, it was a later (though admittedly still old) addition that I'm simply undoing because it was used as an excuse to go change the five pillars and a bunch of other stuff recently. --Gmaxwell (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well these are valid points and you may be right. My stance is more or less that it's not worth making the change because it doesn't really improve the sentence, but I could be wrong on that and I've opened the question on the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection

Katy Perry is re-releasing her 2010 studio album Teenage Dream. It's called Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I want to make a article about this studio album. I already have a article I am going to move to Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. It is called User: CPGirlAJ/Teenage Dream: The Complete Confection. I tried to move the article but it won't let me do it. Could you figure out how to move this article? Please answer this question at my talk page. CPGirlAJ (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A re-release does not typically require a new article, even with a slightly new title (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)\

You're probably right (although I don't know the specifics of this particular album), and I advised CPGirlAJ that she'd probably be better of editing the relevant section of the existing article, although she's free to make and argue in defense of a separate article if she wants to. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAIDWATCH

Hi, I made a bunch of edits to WP:PAIDWATCH stuff, I was thinking, when you made it you weren't sure if there was going to be interest it says, but given that people have started joining and recent events like User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Wikimania_Panel + [1] I think it really seems like it's time for it to go into full throttle maybe?

It's your idea, but if you don't I think I'm going to make one myself lol. It's more likely to get more people joining if it's up as a proper project than looking like it's someone's userpage I think. You should totally be listed as the original idea for it though, that should have been done years ago. It really is about time I think, it looks like the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Websense,_Inc. stuff has been going on since around 2006 after I gave up on Wikipedia for a while -.-

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Barbara Newhall Follet.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation.Template:Z134 --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be answered

Do you agree with this edit summary by Mistress Selina Kyle? If so, i'm afraid that Wikiproject Cooperation is going to have to break all ties with your group. Silverseren^C 23:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Being supportive of the Corporate Representatives Group is not a requirement for being open to supporting genuine ethical paid editors that do not seek to lobby to enforce their will n Wikipedia to work within the wp:Conflict of Interest rules — or it shouldn't be, if wp:COOP would stay within the original stated aims before some seem to be trying to hijack it into Corporate Representatives Group on Wikipedia... You have no authority to threaten people with "breaking off", you cannot "own" wikiprojects and the fact that you seem to be seeking to exclude people who want to encourage Corporate Representatives to work within Wikipedia's policies is showing that if anyone should be "broken off" from wp:COOP it is you and bobrayner who have been actively supporting the lobbyists on Facebook and attacking people like me attempting to encourage them to act within the rules like wp:COOP is MEANT to be about. If you were not like this wp:PAIDWATCH would not even need to exist... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

CREWE is the main group we are working with right now, the one that all the ethical paid editors are joining. I don't know where you got your opinions on them from, but all of the paid editors that have contacted us have been a member of that group. And it has nothing to do with "authority". If Herostratus' group is going to specifically focus on working against paid editors that are trying to ethically edit Wikipedia, that goes at direct odds with what Wikiproject Cooperation is meant to be focused on. Furthermore, I haven't excluded anyone, you've just been going around to a number of places and making comments that are attacking CREWE and its members. As for as I can tell, you've been doing this for no discernible reason. Silverseren^C 23:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, to add, they have been acting within the rules. Completely and utterly. They are more focused on getting other PR people and companies to understand that what Bell Pottinger did is wrong and shouldn't be repeated. Silverseren^C 23:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what this Paid Watch project would accomplish. Banning or heavily restricting paid editing isn't feasible. It will just drive it underground, which is something nobody wants. From my time working with my fellow reviewers at WikiProject Articles for Creation, I have dealt with more paid editors than I can count. The vast majority of them try very hard to write Wikipedia articles that follow our policies and guidelines. It is just a matter of explaining to them why something should be or can't be done.

The current AfC system works magnificently. The user writes an article, and a member of the project reviews the article. It is moved to mainspace if it is acceptable, and "declined" with a reason if it isn't. We have an IRC channel and a newly added help desk to answer queries. Often times reviewers are also asked questions on their talk pages. AFC has had some very high quality articles come out of the process. While I agree that some paid editing can be harmful, if the PR organization is genuinely willing to follow policy (and most are), it does not cause any harm. For mainspace, we have COI edit requests, and for new content we have Articles for Creation. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Silverseren to answer your question, I wouldn't have made that edit and wouldn't state things that way, no. On the other hand, the phrase "Widely regarded as a pressure/PR group" is, I guess, wrong only being somewhat weasel-worded; "Is a pressure/PR group" would be better. I'm not sure if "PR" is actually accurate or necessary, but since they are PR people I don't see as they or anyone would much object to being characterized as a "PR group", so I suppose that you're objecting to "pressure group". But they are. Right? I mean, I hope that CREWE is a pressure group because if they're not, what on earth is the rationale for their existence? To play golf? To operate soup kitchens for the homeless? What on earth could they be except a pressure group???

There's nothing inherently wrong with being a pressure group, of course. It's simply a description. I have belonged to various pressure groups (Greenpeace, ACLU, etc.) and feel that that's fine. It's a question of to what end the pressure is being applied. If it's an end that feels is laudable, one will presumably support the pressure group; if not, then not, that's all. Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what CREWE is about (from their FAQ): "Initially a group of PR professionals and marketers who wanted to get together to change the existing status quo with Wikipedia over editing with a conflict of interest... Once a few Wikipedians joined the group, the forum has evolved to one of education about how to ethically edit when you have a conflict of interest, and continue the discussion about improving usability on Wikipedia for editors with COI." By "usability", CREWE means improving the editing interface so that novice editors can more easily access policies regarding MoS, COI, RS, V, NOT, etc. Rklawton (talk) 03:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK, that sounds fine. You'll excuse me I hope if I don't necessarily take their (or any entity's) self-description at face value. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but on the other hand my Sham-WOW bill is quite low. But to the extent that CREWE has come around to abandoning toxic advocacy and come around to being Wikipedia-firsters, this is great news! One thing I was thinking about is this: it seems to me that a lot of our articles on corporations are really lax in outlining their larger impact on society, specifically in insufficient attention to corporate malfeasance. I think it'd be outstanding if CREWE members who have insight into particular corporations -- perhaps as their clients, for instance -- would be willing to help out by expanding our material on corporate malfeasance for those articles. This'd go a long way to proving their bona-fides as Wikipedians first and foremost, so this looks like a win-win. Any ideas on how we can get the ball rolling on this? Herostratus (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Paid advocates

I have recently been working on a creating a similar project looking at paid political operatives. I'm sure you would agree there is a correlary....payment. Hidden or not hidden it effects the result. It effects Wikipedia. For the time being I will keep my edits and opinions to a minimum. I don't want to bring my baggage here and diminish your effort. What I hope I can do is to keep threads "on topic'. While there may be a miracle answer at the end of a drift away from the opening of a thread, that is a rare occasion. I'll start reading and catch up. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With your permission, I would like to include the following entry from 'paid advocates' and include it at WP:Paid Operatives#Conversations elsewhere on WP. Right now I am just a gatherer, a harvester. I hope to emulate the work you have done at User talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch. The level of conversation far, far (not a typo) surpasses anything at Paid Operatives. Great work! I would not include your sig since I feel that "colors' the RL response. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, it's a complicated issue. My opinion is that overall paid advocacy editing is a net negative, for a lot of reasons. One of them is the effect on our reputation. Another is the effect on morale. A third is corruption of our processes. But mainly, no, I don't believe that entities "merely want a neutral Wikipedia article". Because, you know, one man's neutral is another man's whitewashing, and putting money on the table just makes this impossible to fairly determine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buster7 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up. Someone is notifying about your list.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm your new clerk. :) →StaniStani  05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, well, sorry I've gotten a little behind, but to address the above:

• @User: Buster7: Well, thank you for you kind words. Yes of course you have my persmission to re-post anything I write -- it's part of the release agreement anyway, but it's kind (but not necessary in future!) to ask for permission.
• @[[User:Berean Hunter, OK, thanks for the heads-up. I'm pretty sure all those users already know about (and don't object to) their listing.
• @User:Stanistani Well, great! Welcome, and thanks for your help! Herostratus (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject: Privacy & Personal Attack Protection

Hi Herostratus, I wonder if you are interested in joining the Privacy & Personal Attack Protection WikiProject? PaoloNapolitano 19:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi PaoloNapolitano. Sorry, I've gotten shamefully behind on my correspondence recently. It sounds interesting, but you've deleted it, so I didn't get a chance to look at it. I'm sorry if this was due to lack of response, especially to the extent that my own slowness in responding contributed to that. I'd be glsd to discuss this with you in more detail. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Age of consent and its spin-off articles

Shouldn't all of these articles be semi-protected, not just Ages of consent in North America, or do you guys have them all under control? 221.194.177.162 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Is there a specific problem? I don't have them under control -- I'm supposed to be basically retired from that field, and while I have a couple of articles (Age of consent reform for instance) presently on my watchlist, I reserve the right to remove them at any time. If you want permanent semi-protection for any articles, I guess Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place to go. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PAW

I like that....PAW...so does my French Bulldog, JoeJo. Anyways, you said "...Figuring out how to do that is one of the tasks of this project, I guess. I'm willing to engage with you and other paid editors, but I'm not that interested in arguing with you. I'm not going to persuade you to give up your meal ticket. I'm mainly interested in seeing paid editing ended, and unless and until that is done, watching it and fixing it. It's tedious work but it has to be done, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Don't hesitate to ask for assistance in watching and fixing. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heads up, Pass a Method in disguise

Herostratus, take note that Pass a Method may start to edit under a different account and that therefore any future conflict you have with a "new editor" over things you have combated against Pass a Method in the past may, in fact, be Pass a Method. See here. If it comes to that point, I'm sure that you already know you will have the right to report him for inappropriate use of WP:Fresh start. 222.45.72.124 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion about an editor and articles they are editing?

Hey, Herostratus. I see that you were reverted by Avalongod at Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling me what you think of the issues expressed at User talk:Avalongod#POV editing regarding media topics? 122.72.0.113 (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)