Still hasn't learned
So after your last block DanratedRKO still hasn't learned not to attack other editors. Several warnings have been issued since the block expired for edit warring and personal attacks.Think someone needs another timeout. Special:Contributions/Danratedrko Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- @WarMachineWildThing: blocked for two months, with a warning of a possible indefinite block if the same continues after this one ends. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit requests on Choujinki Metalder from IP/new
Hi JamesBWatson, I see that you protected Choujinki Metalder for block evasion earlier this month. Since your protection, I processed some edit requests made directly at my talk page from IPs and new users (at least 1, 2, 3, 4), who I believe all to be the same person who currently looks to be acting with good intentions and making corrections. The edit you reverted appears to have been a correction of possible vandalism, given the page history, which I have since updated back to a longer-standing text. (e.g. July instead of June, etc)
I reach out because this editor has requested re-adding a between-episodes-17-18 claim which appears to be backed by sources. What is your assessment of this, despite socking? Again, to me, it appears legitimate. (The blocked accounts: 1, 2, 3) Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Andy M. Wang: There's always some tension between two considerations in situations like this, and there is no absolutely right answer, but I'll give you some of my thoughts. On the one hand, there is the thought "if the edit is useful, denying it just because of the history of the editor is unhelpful", but on the other hand there is the thought "as long as an editor who has been blocked because of disruptive editing finds that he or she can get away with ignoring the block, he or she will never give up, and even if on this occasion the edits seem OK, accepting them may in the long run do more harm than good, as it just encourages the editor, who is likely to do more disruptive editing on other occasions". There is no perfect answer. I tend more towards the second of those views than some other editors, perhaps a very large proportion of my experience has been dealing with disruptive persistent vandals and trolls, which gives me a different perception than editors who have mainly just peacefully written article content, only occasionally coming across disruptive editors, and therefore not knowing how very troublesome some persistent block-evaders can be. Even I, however, don't revert edits which I can see are themselves reverts of vandalism. The edit that I reverted and that you draw my attention to above is not obviously vandalism to me, but it may obviously vandalism to you if you know more about the subject than I do, in which case obviously you should put it right.
- Any legitimate editor who is blocked can request an unblock. Such unblock requests are sometimes declined when I think it would have made sense to have given the editor another chance, but despite that in my experience far more than 90% of editors who keep evading blocks by switching IP addresses, creating new accounts, and so on, do not have any good reason for doing so: they are either persistently disruptive editors who should stay blocked, or they are editors who for some reason don't want to cooperate and go through the proper process of requesting an unblock. In most cases, an editor who is only going to edit cooperatively in future can request an unblock. All of the blocked accounts you link to above were blocked for evasion of blocks, and I'm afraid don't remember what the original account was, so I can't go back and check what led to the block in the first place. However, on the whole my attitude in this situation is that in extreme cases such as reversion of obvious vandalism or libel it is best to put things right in an article, but in other cases the benefit of making a change to an article which might possibly be a minor improvement is often outweighed by the consideration that saying "you will not get away with evading blocks, whether by using sockpuppets, by asking other editors to make proxy edits for you, or by any other means" is the one thing which may put some pressure on an editor to start cooperating. My preference is therefore to say "no" except in extreme cases, such as truly unambiguous vandalism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for your comprehensive feedback, very much appreciated. Yes, I agree that the links given are not considered reliable. I know nothing about the subject. And yeah the initial "July" addition, which I haven't yet bothered to look up in the history yet, was not backed by a source. As far as I can tell, the links the IP gave defends the chronology of the episodes, not the movie (which I suppose is not currently in question in the article). I'm now inclined to leave the request alone unless it becomes persistent. Thanks again — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Changes to Uniclass
Thanks for your advice on editing the Uniclass page. I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I apologise for the things I got wrong. I have applied for a change of username to one with my name rather than a company name. As for copyright, I represent the copyright holder of the article you mentioned (RIBA Enterprises) and they've signed off the copy: this is what they want saying about Uniclass, are well aware that these amends are being made, and are anxious that the old, very out of date page is updated as soon as possible. Any advice you can off on how to achieve this would be gratefully accepted. Ruth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribaenterprises (talk • contribs) 14:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruthatribae: Ruth, you should be able to edit this page, as your account is autoconfirmed, so I have moved your message to here. If for any reason you can't edit here, post again on my "Open" talk page, and I'll see if I can figure out what the problem is.
- You can see how to give copyright release for content posted to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, in the section Granting us permission to copy material already online. However, once you have released content under Wikipedia's terms, you have given permission for anyone in the world to re-use the content, either as it is or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, subject only to attribution to Wikipedia. Are you sure that RIBA Enterprises are willing to do that? If so, I suggest that they change the contents of toolkit.thenbs.com/legal/websites-terms-and-conditions, because at present the section "Intellectual property rights" certainly indicates far more restrictive licensing terms. If, however, you do go ahead and release copyright in the text, it can be restored to the article from the editing history, so that you won't have to repeat all the work you did to put it there originally.
- As you are editing in connection with a subject to which you have a personal connection, you should also look at Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Personally, I don't see that there have been any conflict of interest problems with your editing so far, but another editor has expressed the opinion that your editing has been "promotional", and it's worth being careful to avoid that impression. In my opinion, Wikipedia has far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far too log and complex, which can make things confusing and intimidating for a new editor, so I'm sorry to be responsible for telling you to read such documents, but that's how it is.
- I see that you say "this is what they want saying about Uniclass". It is important to be aware that a business or other organisation does not own or control a Wikipedia article about it, and if other editors don't agree, they can alter it.
- Please do feel welcome to ask me again for any other help you think I may be able to give you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Thanks James. I've asked our web team to add the CC licencing notice to that page so it can be verified that we have copyright permission to use parts of the article there. Hopefully they won't take too long to add it. RIBA Enterprises don't profit from Uniclass, the full tables for which are available for anyone to download for free; I'm sorry I didn't express myself very well, but what I meant was that they/we want current, accurate information about it in the public domain, which I would hope is what Wikipedia want too. I'm not sure which parts of the text is considered promotional, but I'm happy to try and rewrite the offending bits if you or the other editor can let me know what they are. Ruth User:Ruthatribae
- @Ruthatribae: I see that the page https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification now says "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."" I shall therefore restore the version of the article that you wrote. Personally, I really don't see what you posted as promotional. If someone objects again on the grounds that it's promotional, we can ask him or her to explain why, but unless and until that happens I wouldn't worry about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruthatribae: One more thought, Ruth. Even for content freely licensed as in this case, the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license make it essential to state where the content is copied from. The edit summary I gave when I removed the content gives the URL of the web page, so there's no problem, but if you ever add any more similar content, you should say in an edit summary where it's from. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The issue with the map is simply RSing. "Spoken" is not a defined or ref'd term and therefore cannot be verified. (After all, Russian is spoken in the USA and Antarctica, but they're not on the map.) My version is de facto working language per Ethnologue. I'd be just as happy with > x% of the population or significant as determined by UNESCO. Don't really care, just tired of the years-old edit war over which countries should be on the map (Mongolia? Israel? etc.). — kwami (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami: Tanks for the explanation. What you say makes sense. However, my edits were nothing to do with any opinion about how good or bad the change is: I just reverted what I thought was a block-evading edit, and then I decided that I couldn't be totally sure whether it really was the same editor as before, so I self-reverted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)