User talk:FeatherPluma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia logo red.png Wikipedia logo yellow.png

Wikipedia logo yellow.png borderless Wikipedia logo red.png









Archived[edit]

/Archive 1
/Archive 2

Messages still being attended to[edit]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for cleaning up Cleveland Clinic. I just talked a bit with Patient 32, a new Wikipedia contributor who is interested in learning more about sharing information in Wikipedia. I really appreciate that you responded to this person's attempts to share information and that you incorporated some of their suggestions in your revision of the article.

Thanks for pulling so much uncited promotional content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Blue Rasberry , Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Bluerasberry: Personally I would have preferred that both the USNWR and the other rankings both be omitted for the policy based reasons I've given on the Talk page, but the content is perhaps more reflective of a mid-road view now. I suggest that if we have to have these data, their limitations and informational contextualization needs to be touched on briefly. Using the material you had organized (thanks) I've made the explained edits, and I will let others take it up from here forward. FeatherPluma (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that ratings need context and there is no context for the ratings currently on the page. I worry about giving context because it seems WP:UNDUE. I am still thinking about this. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, @Bluerasberry: We are caught between needing to either hold a pure line by redacting all this data as failing WP:RS or failing WP:UNDUE (redaction on account of criticizing the data sources, or their subjectively assessed weighted impact - as I say this was my first inclination, and purist preference - but which I now think will rapidly degenerate into painful tooth pulling detail with the various dentists we will meet on the road) or alternatively incorporating the numbers but pointing clearly but nimbly to their limitations. Have another look because I think I managed to incorporate all the relevant proferred data from both sides, and provide considerable context of limitations without getting unduly detailed or emotionally engaged, and I was pleased that I was able to do so using sources that are reasonably current and professional. I judge that the ratings now have adjacent, adequate, WP:NPOV, reliably-sourced contextual shaping as of this iteration. Let me know what you think, perhaps after taking a compass read or two with your colleague as well. Thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

James 3[edit]

Thank you for your input and corrections. JohnThorne (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, JohnThorne: And thank you. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Royals[edit]

Wedding of Prince Carl Philip, Duke of Värmland, and Sofia Hellqvist.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I read the RfC and its responses so far. I have no immediate particular input that is policy based. FeatherPluma (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Chagai-I[edit]

Hi FeatherPluma.
It was about 2.5 years ago you made some biggish edits to Chagai-I. Perhaps you might be interested in some of the latest edits there? 220 of Borg 14:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 220 Looked quickly and edited a bit; may look again if more time. P.S. Plagiarized from your use of WP color logo to enhance this page's previously bland logo. It was futile to resist the urge to upgrade. FeatherPluma (talk) FeatherPluma (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi back, I didn't get a 'ping' that you mentioned me here! I usually use {{ping}}. Yes "Resistance is Futile!", but I stole that 'logo' from someone myself.
I saw that you edited there. But, there is more 'fun' going on there again. I queried about normal quote rules etc at the Teahouse and then brought up the issue of the same editor altering sourced quotations there too. Consensus there seems to be that it's a big non-no. Didn't stop that editor though. When I last reverted them, after giving a very detailed description on their talkpage [1] of what they were doing that they shouldn't, less than 4 minutes later a new IP turns up at Chagai-I. They used very misleading edit summaries, and then revert some of the quotations back to the inaccurate wording with another misleading summary. See here and then here where the IP actually changes the quotes. I have therefore made a WP:RFPP here. - user:220 of Borg of Borg 20:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: I want to acknowledge your close, helpful attention to these details and also thank you for pointing to {{ping}}. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. I think the editor has stopped their shenanigans, for now. This sort of editing really annoys me, especially when they can't be bothered to explain. Came across an editor once, ≈87,000 edits never/rarely communicated, like this person. IIRC turned out to be making un-sourced BLPvio edits everywhere, and slso socking, got banned.. 220 of Borg 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Zombie433 (talk · contribs)
Then again who do these edits remind you of? 220 of Borg 10:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: I agree - thoroughly disheartening. However, on reading all the changes carefully I can't quite work out if this is very clever stupidity and rather stupid cleverness - if purposeful, leaving this unclear may be part of their ploy (I really need to stop reading MI6 stuff). Anyway, it has pulled me in and I have started sniffing at the referencing more closely, which turns out on first approach to be unsatisfactory. The article has never had adequate grammar or readability and there are several sentences that are of imprecise haziness. I am not in the mood for a big overhaul of this article right now, but I will get back to it. More to follow, I would suspect. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Good morning! (though a rather late one for me). Just booted up my PC and saw that you were editing per my above message. Sorry for 'dragging' you into this. This editor can obviously speak English, but I wish they would communicate rather than the very occasional edit summary. I'm pretty sure they are editing while logged out and using very misleading edit summaries from IPs that almost all geolocate to one area. If it keeps up an SPI or AN/I report may be necessary.
• I'm seriously wondering if they might be a blocked/banned user or just an unknown sleeper sock of one? (see edits by Ironboy11 (talk · contribs)  It looks like a duck to me)
Per above, moving back in the edit history, I just found that a lot of 'Chagai-II' text (that's the second Pakistani test) was previously at Kharan Desert, until removed in June 2012 here. If it was the same editor that added it there, they obviously don't understand what is appropriate for article 'specificity' and seem to be, almost, spamming the 'glories' of Pakistan's nuclear tests on multiple pages. And the most recent IP edit to 'Kharan' looks, strangely familiar, as in multiple blue links to barely related pages, like linking 'mountainous' to Mountain ranges of Pakistan. Oh dear that took a long time! I started soon after I was 'pinged', but was running about and kept finding 'evidence' of my suspicions. Face-surprise.svg - 220 of Borg 02:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Aaaaaah! Aaaaaah! (in case you missed the first cry!) They are still at it, look!! Smiley emoticons doh.gif 220 of Borg 04:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Your related edit is here 220 of Borg 05:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oy! I added [2] that {{caption}} template you removed here! >;-/ (mock anger). Doesn't matter! Face-wink.svg - 220 of Borg 05:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: Since the template was partially dysfunctional then (some type of technical glitch) I redacted its usage, although this can be on a temporary basis.
Following on your general notice on the article Talk page, and taking account of the situational profile of serial edits, I added a specific request on an editor's Talk page, pointing to a request for a proper explanation on the article Talk page, as well as articulating a plan of action. I realise that there are additional text problems, but I think it may be best to approach these in sequence, giving the editor ample room to explain themself. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks mate, I had a look at your message, too polite I think! However, I am becoming more suspicious as time goes on. The editing behaviour I am seeing is very similar to an editor that I had never come across, until I saw their name in the edit histories of multiple Pakistan nuclear related pages, an editor who is now banned. Possibly not related, but see this on page 27 at "Uranium infrastructure", and compare it with Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction#Uranium infrastructure. Almost exactly the same (esp. here before I edited it), not 100% sure when/who added it, but will look further. Now I have to get some more sleep (UzT), so gone for a 3-4 hours at least. Have 'fun'! - 220 of Borg 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
OMG! It speaks! PeerBaba has actually replied to you at Chagai-I's talkpage.[3] I have already commented.[4] They haven't addressed the issue of their "eccentric" caption. 220 of Borg 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: Thank you for the heads up. The actual source for the editor's turn of phrase may be a conscious or subconscious harkening to "When Mountains Move – The Story of Chagai" [5]. That said, at this point I have become somewhat skeptical of the image's claimed provenance on its upload summary page as a Government of Pakistan Press Release. A google search of actual Government of Pakistan web pages was unforthcoming (although perhaps the search tool may not function perfectly), and my other attempts to confirm verifiability have been unsuccessful. Please see the article's Talk page. Sometimes where there is smoke there is fire. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Specifically to that image, did you note who uploaded it? Fill in the blanks here: Iro_b_y11 and win a set of steak knives engraved with the Wikipedia logo! Face-wink.svg 220 of Borg 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: I notice that you have been devoting extra time to trying to clean up this disaster of an article, and I wanted to express appreciation for that intense effort. If non-constructive reversion of these efforts continues, whether competency-based or otherwise, I am in favor of sanctions. The editor's reply does not address the problem properly, but I do see a tiny ray of rational connexion within it. I provided a very detailed response to the editor's reply concerning the image caption, but obviously the work product now needs to get to the article page, and not pander further to any strange unencyclopedic notions. Accordingly, I tagged the article as being under (re)construction. I would think that we could get it cleaned up fairly quickly if non-constructive reversion discontinues. Again, expressing thanks and appreciation. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting to feel like it's a big waste of time, I (and you) have better things to do both in real life and on WP than try to 'help' or educate someone who is likely a sockpuppet who will be blocked, then come back with another sock or IP to revert to their preferred version of Chagi-I or related pages. I've been through this before with editors blatantly lying "No I'm not so and so who was banned no." "No I'm not that editor who was banned for recreating their Autobiography six++ times, But he is a very famous person in his village and deserves a wiki page. That is why I created his page" (3 times using different accounts and multiple IPs). This seems to be more common with Indian subcontinent editors than another, but that is just my perception. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil/Archive for the one I was thinking of, or see Ali Raza Jaffari and its' draft Draft:Ali Raza Khan Jaffari for a recent potential example.)
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I was a bit more off-line yesterday and today than normal. (likely tomorrow too, at least in the morning (pre- 05:00 UTC) when I am limited to my tablet.) We should get a few more 'expert' editors involved, but I think the Pakistan Wikpedians Noticeboard is pretty dead. I think Sitush on the Indian side may have been involved on some related pages, if not this exact page.
Re a possible (becoming likely) SPI, you may also be interested in my and Berean Hunters' 'investigation' on his talk-page, latest diff. here. He listed 4 IPs that are likely related and I found another 8. All making similar edits or reverts, and all geolocating to Nevada, especially Los Vegas.
Another thing I found out IIRC, is that apparently all Indo-Pak pages are subject to ARBCom Discretionary sanctions (A decision dating from 2007, nearly 8 year ago!).that means only one revert per 24 hour period is allowed(Have to check that, per Sitush's comment) That's another possible path for 'whacking' the editor, though it could boomerang on me/us. See the warning template, {{alert|ipa}}. (You know I started this message over 12 hours ago! Did some other things in the meantime and am now finishing it at 4 am AEDST!) - 220 of Borg 18:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing about the Chagai tests, sorry. If I have edited any related article then it would probably have been gnoming. I don;t think the WPIPA sanctions include a 1RR restriction, although of course such a restriction could be imposed on any contributor under the umbrella of those sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Sitush, it may have been a BLP of a scientist, or test location, I can't recall. Anyway, I have dropped the appropriate template on PeerBabas talk-page. 220 of Borg 20:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Munir Ahmad Khan[edit]

Great edit summaries! [6]. Thanks for the laughs! Face-grin.svg Those odd links and piping are very distinctive, no? Now, maybe I can get that shut-eye I need! - 220 of Borg 01:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Message about a new topic goes here please[edit]