User talk:Ocaasi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:07, 3 September 2010

Click to leave me a message...

sometimes I'm i.p. 69.142.154.10

if I reverted good edits by mistake, let me know

Links

Template:MultiCol Little Kids

| class="col-break " | Big Kids

| class="col-break " | Bigger Kids

Template:EndMultiCol

Special:SpecialPages Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Wikipedia:Requests Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections Wikipedia:Citing_sources Wikipedia:Alphabet_soup Wikipedia:Deletion_process Wikipedia:RS Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes Special:Statistics Help:Contents/Site_map Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index Wikipedia:Tips Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requested_move_Requested_move Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages

Welcome to wikipedia

Hello, Ocaasi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. Happy editing! Sumsum2010 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Open Questions

Does ASF/MEDRS apply to a systematic review if only one exists?
Are article naming conventions using PRIMARY topic guidelines based on WP page views or on common popularity?

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome! Actually, I've been editing stuff on Wikipedia for years - long before logins were required (although I tried to remember to login before editing). Has my history disappeared? Thanks for the public policy tip, too. --Kegill (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of religion

Hi, O (per last edit summary, thee of the Xena Warrior Princess school of WP displomacy presumably ;). Aside from the Lead, I haven't looked closely at your Economics of religion section edits, but there is plenty to be done there, your Cleanup Talk note is right on, and your section-at-a-time edits w Summaries make a lot of sense.

I believe that Talk:Economics of religion#Citation Overkill, esp. the last edit meets the point of your EoR edit, but, if not, I can elaborate there. On the rationale for the earlier format of the last Lead paragraph, I've used your format for Demographic economics, but the individual phrases are shorter there (mostly 1 or 2 words), making them easier for the reader to navigate. The orginal format at EoRis more like a Power Point list w the Notes providing dimensions & disparate examples. I'll post a Talk section on the rationale for the earlier format of the last Lead paragraph if you still find it troubling.

The Lead edit I originally posted might be regarded as a transitional form w the merger of 2 articles. I'll do a little bit more to try to improve on your efforts wout losing the advantages of the earlier edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pl chek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kegill#discrmin.ofDISABLD.40wmf -----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember: Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution Rollback is only for blatant vandalism Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page If you have any questions, please do let me know. --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)##[reply] BP Hi, I did expect someone to remove my Vimeo 'documentary link' because I knew it should not really be there. However, we, in a remote corner of north west Connacht in Ireland face similar problems to the Gulf of Mexico if our corrupt Irish government is allowed to get away with permitting Royal Dutch Shell to get into our home parish and lay the Corrib Gas Pipeline through it - its totally unsuitable - we had the most major landslide ever known in Ireland in 2003. Shell and the Irish Government think we are fools but just because we live in a far flung corner does not make us fools. Transocean, the company involved with Deepwater Horizon is waiting off our coastline too. The local people in North West Mayo have been fighting the giant corporation that Shell is, they have had innocent local people jailed to keep them out of their way, Shell's mercenary terrorist security have sunk fishermen's boats because they refused to stop fishing, they have beaten us up, they have bought the corrupt media, the government, Mayo County Council and all the greedy ignoramuses they can find, they have tried to criminalise an innocent community. We have no money to fight back. They have billions every 3 months. But, they started building their refinery here (on State land owned for forestry, purchased by the state for cents) in about the year 2000. Ten years later, they have beaten the tripe out of us. tortured us, jeered us, ignored us - but they're still not in. We have to fight back with alerting people worldwide to the horrendous human abuses and environmental degradation here in Glengad, Kilcommon, Erris, County Mayo. AND, I could not resist it when I noticed that the article on BP has over 11,500 page views a day. If a fraction of 1% of that see this documentary it gets our plight noticed by a world we cannot reach otherwise! We need to use every possible avenue that costs us nothing to try to save our skins! So, it was no error - and, of course, I have it on all local articles as well. Actually, a few months ago, there were practically no local articles - I had to make them as well over the last several months! So, now you know. Now, if you don't mind I'll have to remove your comment from my talk page as some of the Irish Wikipedian editors might be with our horrible and hideous government and I could be in trouble - again!! Comhar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, thanks, I'll have a look at those links you sent me when I get the time. As the date for submissions to govt, etc... is in two days to try to stop Shell (for the fourth time!) decimating our beautiful part of North Mayo, I'm rather busy at present. Yes, I've had to work hard to avoid being banned from Wikipedia - there were a couple of editors out to get me at the start - one I havn't heard from for a long time - the other goes onto all my articles and apparently he doesn't like my style of writing. If its not that, he labels all my comments with NPV (neutrality of view point I think) and even worse, as there is so little written about here, he keeps labelling my statements with a sarcastic "original research" which he seems to deem a lot less worthy than something he reads in some book. I have been known to tell him (I assume its a him) that he needs to get out more!! LOL! He doesn't seem to appreciate that he's getting the info straight from the horses mouth! Cheers. Thanks. Comhar (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (By the way, that's something else I got in trouble for - not signing my comments with four "tildes" (that's what they call them! I note you don't do it either! Comhar (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] economics of religion Complete screwup on my part during cleaning up spam for an author named "Shayne Lee". Accidentally went way back in article history. It's undone now.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] STiki Feedback Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Chiropractics When different reviews disagree I always go with the Cochrane conclusions in the end. I agree there are some paper that do disagree. Uptodate has a great discussion of the evidence here [1] email me your address if you do not have access. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Changes to Chiropractic You made substantial changes against WEIGHT and without discussion to chiropractic page Towards the top of the chiropractic talk page it says: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information." After it was explained to you the references did not contradict the systematic review[2] you made substantial changes to the article without discussion against WP:WEIGHT.[3] You added a lot of single studies to argue against sysematic reviews against WP:MEDRS.[4] Again, which source says the risk of death from neck manipulation is worth the benefit from a recent review. This is the first sysematic review that summarises all cases in which chiropractic spinal manipulation was followed by death. E Ernst (2010). "Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases" (PDF). Int J Clinical Practice. 64: 1162–1165. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x. PMID 20642715. Please understand that if you continue to try and force changes you might be blocked or banned. QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You have not shown any sysematic review that conflicts with this source. This was explained on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've read the warning. I discussed the change and added citations from reliable sources. You do not own this article. You claimed you discussed the change before you made it. No, you did not discuss the change. You did not discuss making major changes on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The articles I added were primarily not single studies. Please identify which sources you think are unsuitable. MEDRS identifies a hierarchy of sources, but even single studies are relevant provided they directly address the claim. I believe other editors support the addition of views which add context and opposition to Ernst. I believe that is already clear on the talk page. I believe that if I ask them to express their views specifically they will support the recent change, barring some editing. I will ask them.[5] You claim even singe stuides are relevant. Wrong. you are cherry picking singe stuides to argue against reviews. You wrote "I believe other editors support the addition of views which add context and opposition to Ernst. I believe that is already clear on the talk page." No, you did not discuss your major changes first. So I don't see how any editor could of supported the massive changes. What is clear from the talk page is that you were not able to provide a reivew that contradicted the systematic review.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You did not discuss making major changes to the safety section on the talk page.[7] QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I said I believed evidence that other editors would support them was already on the page, throughout the NPOV discussion. On the contrary, other editors were concerned with the way the review was presented. After the text was improved with attribution in the text and the body was rewritten with more specific information you made major changes without any indication and it was told to you none of the references conflicts with the review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You don't have to find a source which contradicts the review? You added several sources that don't contradict the review. You are misusing those sources to undermine the review.[8] If you can't find a reliable source that contradicts the review then don't try and misuse sources to undermine the review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Other editors did think the sources disagreed, but I'll let them speak on the talk page.[9] Which editors thought the sources you added to the article disagreed with the recent review? QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is the first systematic review of its kind. If another source contradicts this review I assume it would have to be written after this review. This systematic review concluded that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck by far outweighs the benefits.[23] QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] You have not explained how those sources contradict with the review.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] [11] You are misusing sources to try and undermine the review when they don't contradict with the review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] If Ernst is the only systematic review, it is a weakness for Ernst because it has not been long enough in the peer review cycle for anyone to address him directly. According to this comment Ocaasi admitted there is no other source that contradicts the review because it has not been long enough in the peer review cycle for anyone to address him directly. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] My advice My advice is for you to follow the instructions given by LeadSongDog here, in order to start a discussion on the reliability of the references you are using at a better venue. I am nearly 100% sure that you do not have to counter a systematic review with another systematic review. But, since the article this is about is fairly important, I think it would be good to get a lot more outside opinions on the matter. I have my own articles I want to work on and things I want to get done, so i'm afraid that I really don't want to get drawn into this and I think i've already gone too far. So i'm going to leave it up to you, since you're invested in the improvement of the article. Follow LeadSongDog's instructions and start a discussion at RSN and make sure you inform all of the appropriate Wikiprojects. I wish you luck. Silverseren^C 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am 100% sure that you cannot counter a systematic review with a primary study. That would be against MEDRS to reach down into primary studies or other low-quality studies. The proposal is also repetitive. There is a lot of repetitve text to drown out the reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are other possible sources besides "primary studies" that are not systematic reviews. It is not a one or the other scenario. But either way, I feel that outside opinions should be brought in to discuss the subject. Silverseren^C 04:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The proposal is one massive WEIGHT violation too with lots of repetitive text too. I don't see how that was a great job. QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can you stop with the pestering? If you have problems with his proposal, put it on the article talk page, stop bothering other people on their user talk pages. Besides, this section I created is not about the proposal, but about making a discussion to get in outside opinions on the references for the proposal. Silverseren^C 04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the advice. Ocaasi (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] pending I didn't realise you were changing my word, I meant them like that and don't want them changing, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK, what you could do if you want and I give you my permission to do it if you like is take my three comments and move them to the bottom of the page and bunch them together leaving a single signature and then replace your bulleted point summaries of my comments, enjoy. I am off out. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Chiropractic NPOV Sorry, I was angry at how ridiculous he is being. There is no use arguing with them because they are going to continue saying the same thing over and over again, and we can never change their mind. Furthermore, they delete whatever they want. How do we get an admin involved? If we are truly wrong then I'll be happy to give it upJavsav (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] IP edits Hi, Ocaasi! I've noticed a fair few IP edits which I presume are by you (the IP signs as you). Assuming it is you, no worries (but do let me know if it wasn't you, obviously!), and have you considered creating an alternative account for editing when you're away from your main computer? It would save you having to remember to sign using the "nosign!" idiom. Anyway, just a thought, and no worries if you'd prefer not to. TFOWR 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, it's pretty much sheer convenience (laziness?) Sometimes I'm not logged in and do a drive-by edit and get to the edit page, realize I'm not logged in and then can either just edit it, or have to log-in, reload the page, and clear the cache. So, sometimes I do it. It sounds like there are easy alternatives. Given that I'm pretty flagrant about it, is it a problem? Or 'discouraged'? Ocaasi 14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I added a note at the top of the page linking to the i.p. Ocaasi 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC) No, not at all - just thought an alternative account might help. I've no objection to you doing it: I've done it myself in the past. Carry on! TFOWR 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] statistics Hi , as you seem quite interested in the issue and in statistics, if you have time I was thinking it would be a revealing thing to assess the comments so far in regards to likely final vote comment results, as in, look at all the comments so far and asses them as either support or oppose with the seemingly undecided and others as a neutral, this would give us some feedback as the general position that may reflect the final result, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sure, I'll do a quick count. Just support - oppose or strong oppose - oppose - support- strong support. Also, what do you think about the proposal on talk, about specific options? Ocaasi (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have done a quick count and got about 19 clear supports and 11 clear opposes, I ignore strong and weak mostly, if a user says he likes this but doesn't like that he is a pretty much a neutral and I didn't bother counting them. I would be interested to see what numbers you return. I will look at the new talk specifics now. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Support: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (+21) Biggest oppose issues: waste of time, confusing interface, misuse as a replacement for protection, against i.p. principles Biggest support issues: better on blps, interface needs improvement, good addition to protection, esp on low traffic articles Ocaasi (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thank you, I think we are pretty much in the same ball park. If that is reflected and the issues addressed it looks like the feedback so far is a consensus to continue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The specific options is interesting and would give very clear feedback, there are ten options to keep and only one to remove , perhaps that is correct. I also think there are issues that presently are unable to be addressed which rules out a couple of the options, I have been informed that a large expansion at this time is not statistically an option, which would rule out three or four of the options. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can you get a slightly more specific read about what is possible? Also, do you think it's better to a) keep the discussion/vote a very simple support-oppose the trial continuing b) focus the discussion/vote on a few of the most targeted features and desired changes/expansions c) have a wide-open discussion about all ~10 options Ocaasi (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have found that you need to keep in simple or the whole issue gets lost in the discussion. I was told that it is a matter of users not being enough to watch a massive amount of pending protected pages. IMO any expansion should be better slowly so that we could watch the actioned times rising and we would naturally find the maximum number of possible articles...saying that I have found a degree of support for a roll out on all BLP articles as a trial, perhaps two months but as yet I haven't found the number of BLP articles we have, if you ask at the help desk someone will tell the place to get those figures. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Here they are, there half a million http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Biography_articles_of_living_people, so imo we need to stamp on the possibility of that as I don't see as expanding to that as any kind of possibility. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Simple sounds good. What about narrowing it down to three simple packages: 1 - Close. 2 - Keep as is, work on improvements. 3 - Keep as is, work on improvements with expansion up to 10k low traffic/BLPs. Ocaasi (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] That is better.A lot more attainable. It may be a good format to offer as the questions to ask in the actual consensus vote comment..... Please respond to the questions below with a single number. 1 - Close. 2 - Keep as is, work on improvements. 3 - Keep as is, work on improvements with expansion up to 10k low traffic/BLPs. - support 2 - Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I like this. I realized that of the 10 options, these are just the first 3, combining low traffic and blp issues, and removing the expand/expand options, which didn't have a chance. So, this is the right list. Should we try to summarize the most consistently desired improvements, i.e.: A review of the discussion revealed consistent support for making pending changes faster, fixing the accept/unaccept interface, clarifying policy regarding when to accept edits, and emphasizing use on lower-traffic pages and BLPs rather than as a substitute for semi-protection. The most common criticisms addressed... No I think simple is good, the comment work on improvements explains all that, as I like it so much and ideas are being posted I have posted it on the ttalk as a possible format for the vote comment upcoming, the format of the questions is of cource yours though. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here's my only issue with that. If you have three options, people will tend to pick the middle one, because either of the alternatives will seem more 'extreme'. In this case, that might be appropriate, because it may be extreme to just close the trial or to expand it, but I think if there's a better sense of just how much people agree on the issue that need improvement, it might allow people to consider the <10k expansion with less concern. Ocaasi (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Hm, the medium option you mean... I see your point, (that is not always a bad idea) as continued usage with slow and steady growth and understanding and improvement is quite the encyclopedic way. Although I do think there is a degree of support for expansion...I wonder of the 21 supports comments how many of them also appeared to support expansion option? head count?... Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] FYI, the 21 supports were not total but net, as in 21 more supports than opposes. Of the total supports (about 45), they were pretty much 50/50 on enthusiasm, with a small majority disliking the feature as is but preferring it on low traffic/blp articles. So i think if you took a poll right now of 1, 2, and 3, it'd be 33%, 33%, 33%. The question I have is, should we try to get option 2 and 3 people to an actual consensus about what issues need attention and what aspects of an expansion would be desirable. Also, we should maybe move this to Talk:pc, since Yaris has been involved and has some of his/her own ideas. Also also, Yaris deleted the old talk sections to focus on this new phase of the discussion; it's a good shift in focus, but a bit against talk page policy. Could you dig into a diff and archive what he did. I've never archived a talk page before. Ocaasi (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes I wil lok at the archive, I don't think we need to work on the issues people have, if it is accepted we go with that then. Off2riorob (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Here's my read on the situation. Pending changes is worth exploring further. It has problems that absolutely need fixing. The current trial is not broad enough to answer several questions about the feature. If we continue the trial as is for 6 months, many of the kinks will get worked out, hopefully reviewer guidelines will become clear, etc. But there still won't be any sense of whether it can scale. Currently there's a horde of reviewers, 5000 for 2000 articles. There's not even a prayer of the queue backing up, which doesn't reveal much about the feature's actual worth. So, if there's a way to promote a minimal expansion, I think it's worth taking time to discuss. Ocaasi (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just to be clear, I don't want to expand it because I like it, but because the current configuration doesn't allow the trial to reveal enough information about it. Also, some of the issues about which pages should get PC might be resolved if there were a few more low traffic type pages in the mix. So... if you think the 10k option is unlikely, maybe it'd be worth just doing a simple close/continue (up to 5k), and try to shift PC use-guidelines towards sentiments expressed in the discussion.Ocaasi (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ah, understood, are they more likely to support an increase to 5 k.....I have no idea, there is time though over a week for you to focus on that and I agree that is worthy of discussion. I see your point. I have sorted the archive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for doing the archive. Yeah, what to do with the next week is the interesting question. The 1.2.3. poll really doesn't require any discussion. Not sure what would be the best option yet. Ocaasi (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Chiropractic It looks like this is quite a problem, I have created a mediation cabal request to help us move on with the issue on the article: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic. I have not looked at this issue until recently, so I may be missing a few involved parties, could you ask them if I missed them. Please participate once the case has been accepted by a mediator. --Anon 08:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] closure this is on one of the talkpages, is it correct? Note that pending changes is still active. It will be shut off in 1 month unless there is consensus to continue Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not sure I understand your question. Note that pending changes is still active. It will be shut off in 1 month unless there is consensus to continue is listed at the beginning of the pc/closure page, and described in the introduction. Ocaasi (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was wondering if that correct, seems as if it is. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] change to republican def ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talk links removed AUSntm Cycle 6 Call out order The old one till I fixed it! Go look back at the history Soembody had it all filled out incorrectly till Kelsey and Joanna final 2 with Joanna winning The show has only aired 6 episodes so far and since I know the spoilers, this is the wrong call out order anyway! talk 11:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Nobody knows the call out order for future episodes, only spoilers on who goes. The call out order that person posted was incorrect and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.84.177 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] why revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.26.129 (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe I explained the reasoning, those two versions are the only ones really used, it bloats the article. Small grammatical mistakes do not warrant the revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.26.129 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Straw poll: pending changes I thought you might be interested in this wonky analysis. I'll put it on the main talk page if you think it's useful, but that discussion is busy enough that I doubt it would help... This is an interesting analysis, but as noted on the talk page, the result might be indicative of a different problem (that much of option 3's support has arisen from the mistaken impression that we're being asked to lock in a long-term implementation). —David Levy 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Two things: I cleaned up the numbers on your talk page. It's simpler now, but has the same point. Also, you've just expressed the issue in a way that I hadn't heard before, and it makes much more sense: If this is the last vote forever on pending changes, then it makes sense to add a little more slack but not too much (option 4 is pretty premature no matter what you think of PC). So... you think that 3's are inflated because voters felt locked in. Do comments reflect that? (Could they?) I think the description of a 'gradual, limited expansion tempered the false enthusiasm of the 3 voters, since it basically described the alternative I assume you think is lacking, just in a non-specific way. I think an easy solution to this situation is just to count the vote as a win for keep, and then focus the majority of efforts on improving the actual interface and policy. Even if three 'wins' under possibly misinterpreted pretenses, it's still critical to make the system better. And once the system is improved, all of the current 3 votes indicate that there is enthusiasm for at least a small expansion. Can't we basically effect that in the implementation? Ocaasi (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Also, FYI, I always assumed that this poll would only be binding for 6 months to a year at which point the feature would be re-evaluated based on the improvements and performance. Ocaasi (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The issue was discovered by WFCforLife, who posted the following message: If it were made clear that this is a short term decision, people would be more inclined to vote 2, on the grounds that when the developers sort the issues out we would look at it pretty quickly. The poll is completely ambiguous as to the timescale, and the result is lot of people voting for 3 while saying "I want to see this expanded, but there are still some serious issues right now that need to be fixed", in all probability because they think this is long term. Assuming we're not simply going for the most popular of the four options, this makes a big difference. I haven't bothered to count, but at a glance it would take the balance of the votes from a weak preference for expansion, to quite firmly saying "we want to expand, but not until some of the issues are mitigated or resolved by the developers." --WFC-- 03:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Until I read that, I was among those under the mistaken impression that we were being asked to determine the feature's long-term implementation. Regarding your proposed outcome, TFOWR made a similar suggestion (stressing the importance of additional discussion), and I agree that this is the best course of action if the poll runs to completion. —David Levy 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see. I take your reading of TFOWR a bit further, though. I almost assume that once the majority of interface and policy changes happen, that the support for a minimal expansion is already there. That is a little presumptuous as to exactly which changes are 'the critical' ones, but having read through the entire pc/closure discussion and helped compile the working summary of issues and recommendations, I have a pretty good idea what bothered whom. I'm not too concerned about the outcome of this poll, as long as people don't feel shafted and pending changes keeps getting worked on. The only tradeoff I see is between minimally expanding before changes are ready --or-- not getting the added info from a slightly expanded trial. Neither is make or break in my mind. What about splitting the difference, authorizing up to 5k in an expansion, with the emphasis on fixing issues first, and a re-evaluation after 6months to 1 year? Ocaasi (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Straw poll#It's a Straw poll!. —David Levy 16:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Toast Thats cool but how do i add it in under a "popular culture" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] RE: Counter-Strike I have reverted an edit you checked on Counter-Strike because the edit violated WP:GAMEGUIDE. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Both editors had a hissy fit after being told to read GAMEGUIDE and then proceeded to state their departure from Wikipedia. One of their edits stated "I am following my neighbour, Armakdaius Europe." Which suspected me of sockpuppetry, but they left, for a short time very likely and I will not call an investigation of sockpuppetry of the editors. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC). One of the editors made a personal attack on me. They also stated my revert was vandalism. They then stated their departure to me, stating I was not nice, even though I have not made any negative comments or personal attacks against them. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC). The personal attack in question was a name calling of 'retard'. I remember one essay stating that almost anyone can be reformed on Wikipedia. I can't find it now. Many Regards, Yousou (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sandy Frank Hello. Incase you're wondering about my edit to Sandy Frank about him being charged for an assult, here's the source. I would've put that in the page (I'm not gonna lie to ya, I really would have), but the thing is, putting the links under to "References" can be kind of complicated for me. Unless, that is, there's any kind of template page on here that can help me out with that? 24.181.236.186 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] interesting stuff http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4519444 68.122.82.25 (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Monitor Group Thank you, Ocaasi. Was just adding to the external links. Couldn't identify which items were not acceptable. Will scan for QA and try again. Appreciate the advice. Thank you. 115.147.192.176 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Re: Monitor Group / Thank you for ordering the list of links, Ocaasi. I understand the rules better now. Thank you for fixing up the list. Cheers. 115.147.192.176 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Pending Changes Question Feel free to disregard this if you don't want to 'debate' the feature. I saw these arguments you made in a discussion and felt like responding to some of them. Utterly useless against long-term abusers (such as Bambifan101) and spammers Almost everything except checkusers and edit-filters are useless against them. Not sure how that's a mark against pending changes. The problem is that unlike other methods of antivandal measures, PC can actually exacerbate the problem by allowing a vandal a chance to overload PC articles with several vandal edits right out of the gate. Semi-protection requires that they create a sleeper account first, delaying them and making it harder for them to IP-hop. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Creates a psychologically-based distrust for IPs and new users in controversial areas I'm pretty sure that IPs are already distrusted and have been for a long time, as evidenced by the perennial proposal to ban them (and require registration). On most semi-protected articles, IPs don't edit at all. Under a PC article, IP edits both good and bad come through, which people can evaluate on the merits. You missed the key part there: in controversial areas. Controversial areas will tend to get more vandalism from IPs en generale which will need to be checked by reviewers, whom will eventually become jaded by the whole experience and start rejecting IP edits offhand as vandalism - whether they are or not. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Has the potential to turn into a form of censorship It could, but compared to articles controversial articles, which are typically 'owned' by those contesting the issues, PC just employs relatively random uninvolved reviewers. Controversial articles will be watched by plenty of people to keep an eye on censorship. And censorship happens already on those kinds of articles. I don't see how PC makes the situation worse. In fact, it opens up controversial articles to more editors, it seems. Only for those editors to be disgusted by the already-existing cabal and leave or to join the calls of the reviewers on the article and opposing anything but the status quo. You're gonna have to do better than that, Ocassi, since this one and the one above are not technical issues, but psychological. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Reinforces a Citizendium-style hierarchy (whether that was the intent or not) There are hierarchies of power and hierarchies of access. Reviewer status is the first kind, but PC can actually reduce the second, if used instead of semi or full protection. This does nothing to change my argument because it, unfortunately, is somewhat linked with points 2 and 3 and, in practice, is too similar to Citizendium's model for comfort. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Inadequate means to protect reviewers (or any user en generale) from off-site harassment, causing an even worse "Defender of the Holy Wiki" mentality It seems that anyone who challenges vandalism is vulnerable to this kind of harassment. They already are and always have been. I don't see pending changes making that worse. Go three rounds with Grawp, chummer, and come and try this one again. (Grawp tends to send 4chan to target any user whom revdels, rejects, or deletes his edits.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] All together, I think the feature can be useful, needs a lot of work, and you obviously hate it a ton. I think some of the problems you mention have been that way long before PC. I can see why you don't want Wikipedia turning into citizendium; do you think it's possible that some/many supporters of PC don't want that either? Ocaasi (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Responses MST'd above. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] RCP Hey why did you do that? Websterjb (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I to query the removal of my contribution in regards to Roesy's favourie fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.134.41 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] MLG The guy (Marc Ward) is a professional gamer at Halo 3 and MW2. He is part of an MLG clan called phase 2, currently ranked #1 in London after we held local championships. #2 was primary suits. He gets paid to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.90.54 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would this be a better picture? http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?pid=5333432&id=618721328&ref=fbx_album&fbid=409556641328 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.90.54 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Megan i will have you know, Meghan happens to be my name and that is the original spelling of the name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.120.239 (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please....dont reverse my edits just because ......... Please....dont reverse my edits just because I appeared as a spurious IP address having failed to notice I was logged out. Careful examination of my edit would have shown it was an appropriate editand was to an article on which I have contributed a lot, none of it junk !! Thank you Ocassi. Aspdin (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] u aint got no pancake mix lady so stopppp