User talk:KoshVorlon/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Duplicate reverts
We were both trying to revert the same thing - it looks like the wikipedia timing was off! Tim :) Timmccloud (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
NSA
You should whack the anti-vandal tool with a wet trout :-) See my post on Talk:National Security Agency; the word "breast" was already there and refers to the eagle's patriotic and symbolic chest area. I've looked again and can't see anything wrong with my edit (which did not change either "best" or "breast"), so I re-reverted; if you do see anything wrong, point it out there and I'll fix it. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Chelsea/Bradley Manning
There exists a very tenuous cease-fire in the issue of this article. I suggest that making an undiscussed reversion of every reference to her gender identity is not going to be viewed as a constructive editing move. I have reverted it. Please join the conversation on the Talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Trindon Holliday
Did you just click on the wrong button? You gave me a user warning for an edit on Trindon Holliday that was a revert of an IP adding unsourced material to the article... Thomas.W talk to me 12:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
removed your comment at ANI
Come on, KV, that's exactly the kind of thing you need to think twice about before posting. Anyone remotely familiar with TTT's editing and TE's editing would see they aren't the same person. TTT is currently blocked, and can't defend himself against baseless accusations. Accusations like that require some modicum of evidence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam, that removal wasn't needed. I made a suggestion that ThinkEnemies is a sock of TonyTheTiger with a listing of their interactions , gained from a tool used on Wikipedia, in fact, one of the few anyone can use. Since I can't CU anyone, I can't prove anything but I can suggest, and only that. Also, bear in mind I'm not the only, nor am I the first person to suggest that they hear a duck qwacking loudly. In spite of that, no I won't revert you, nor will I ask you to revert yourself (heck , you wouldn't anyway, would you :) ?) In the future, don't remove stuff like that, it's not outing, nor attack, only a suggestion that there may be a connection KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're not interpreting that tool correctly. For example: [1] --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I see what you're saying, my edits and his edits can be shown to overlap as well, but I'm also talking about behavior, and the fact that hardly anyone plays the racism card also their edits are tighter together. Also, both users have socked quite a bit in past and both show ownership tendancies.
I still disagree with removing it off ANI. (Don't worry, I won't revert you :) ) KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC
I closed it due to it being severely broken, Take the advice given there and come back with a new proposal if you like. Werieth (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Stay Calm
Edits in the mainspace make things worse when you are put in the spotlight, I think you should try and stay calm and talk it out even if you think you are right. I hope for the best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Wikierror10012013.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Wikierror10012013.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Blurred Lines 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Manning Vote
Might I suggest you refactor your comment on the RM? The article is under sanctions and the language you used might get you into some trouble. Perhaps if you address precedent and policy, that might help.Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Kosh! Your !vote there is breaking the list numbering. Could you start it with a "#" (outside of any bold marks) and separate paragraphs with "<p>"? -- ToE 12:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- bd2412 already changed it (though with a "<br>" to separate the paragraphs with less vertical space, and leaving in the "*" at the start of your text). -- ToE 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to echo the sentiment of Two kinds of pork. Maybe try to explain how you believe how biological sex or legal names are relevant to article names (for the latter, compare Bill Clinton)? I would also appreciate it if you could refactor the statement that Manning is a guy to that it is your opinion she is a guy to that it is your opinion she is a guy. Gender issues are rather complicated, and there is no scientific consensus about when someone has a new gender. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I will third that request, with my Official Admin(tm) hat on. The discussion guidelines made clear that comments about what gender you feel Manning is or is allowed to be are off-topic, and given the tension in this topic area, there's not a lot of wiggle room, because one comment can easily ignite another firestorm. If you are unable or unwilling to refactor your comment, I will do so for you by removing the inflammatory language (your vote itself will remain). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Copied this from my talk to keep the discussion centralized. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)There's nothing inflammatory about my vote. I gave my reasons for my vote,that's not disa-allowed for any vote. I've re-checked that page, and I see no restrictions on referencing Bradley Manning's gender either. You haven't voted, only commented, so I realize your comment is neutral, but honestly, I see no problem with my comments, as they reference both policy and common sense. I would hope you would refactor, as this would be a violation of WP:TPO. As you know, there are only a few reasons to refactor comments on a talk page, my comment doesn't fall into those exemptions. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry we haven't been able to make clear to you what was wrong with your comments in the context of the discussion. I've gone ahead and redacted the problematic parts of your statement (the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area give administrators wide latitude to make decisions of this type). If you'd like to discuss further why they were problematic, I can try to help you understand, but please do not restore the content I've removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, remarks of that sort are disallowed in the guidelines at the top of the discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry we haven't been able to make clear to you what was wrong with your comments in the context of the discussion. I've gone ahead and redacted the problematic parts of your statement (the active discretionary sanctions in this topic area give administrators wide latitude to make decisions of this type). If you'd like to discuss further why they were problematic, I can try to help you understand, but please do not restore the content I've removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, adding my thoughts here. While you are welcome to your opinion of Manning's gender, it is not germane to the title discussion, and the guidelines we developed in advance of the discussion suggested that we keep such opinions to ourselves. That said, I would ask those writing here to consider dropping similar notes on the pages of those who share their opinion that Manning is a woman, as that is not a valid argument for a title change either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Copied this from my talk to keep the discussion centralized. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)There's nothing inflammatory about my vote. I gave my reasons for my vote,that's not disa-allowed for any vote. I've re-checked that page, and I see no restrictions on referencing Bradley Manning's gender either. You haven't voted, only commented, so I realize your comment is neutral, but honestly, I see no problem with my comments, as they reference both policy and common sense. I would hope you would refactor, as this would be a violation of WP:TPO. As you know, there are only a few reasons to refactor comments on a talk page, my comment doesn't fall into those exemptions. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 14:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't asking you to change your vote, just trying to head off unpleasantries as some are rather sensitive. No offense was intended. Thanks,Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Roseclese ... nope, you're incorrect, but thank's for playing. There was never anything wrong with my vote, there was definetly something wrong with fluffernutter's censorship (WP:TPO for starters). From there he just kept digging a deeper hole for himself , he stepped it up to editing against consensus (his talkpage consensus was 3 to 1 with him against, on the ANI board there are at least 3 more against.
Yes, I removed my original post because he censored it to the point of it not even being understandable, and I didn't revert as he says I did. I re-worded and reposted a more concise closing argument. He's wrong as are you. Let me be clear, I'm not asking anyone to re-post any of my vote comment at all, as you can see, certain admins are making it their business to silence anyone they disagree with, as you can see. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 00:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
"Shitstorm"
I've made a single comment toward or about you. Please remove my name from your list of users causing a shitstorm or find other diffs.--v/r - TP 00:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
TP I can't as I've been unfairly blocked by Fluffernutter, but feel free to remove your name if you want, it's fine with me KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 00:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
- I am implementing this block in conjunction with a topic ban, given your inability to control yourself today. When you return to editing, you are topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months. Appeal of your block can be made to WP:BASC. When you return after your block, you may appeal your topic ban to either me, Arbcom, or WP:AE after one month of non-disruptive editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fluffernutter - I removed my vote because I didn't want it censored because you didn't like it. You'll note I re-wrote it, not re-posted it. There was no problem with that. If anyone has been disruptive it's been you. YOu've edit-warred against consensus (shown on your talk page ), stirred a shirt-storm from nothing, are involved and now have decided to arb-block me. 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Do not attempt to evade your block again. If you do so, this account may be blocked for a longer or even an indefinite period of time. NW (Talk) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have never socked when I've been blocked and haven't done so today. If you're referring to my login to commons, yes I have an ID there, and it's SUL, but I don't post or use it here for that reason, and I haven't posted or taken any activity here except under this name. Can you explain your post a bit ? KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 00:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was an incorrect warning. Don't create attack accounts on other Wikimedia sites in response to this block. You're quite lucky your block here on enwiki wasn't made indefinite. NW (Talk) 02:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are ignoring the fact that the block never should have been made in the first place. Still, please don't do any more of that, Kosh. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed AutomaticStrikeout - and I've already advised NuclearWarfare that I won't be doing that again. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are ignoring the fact that the block never should have been made in the first place. Still, please don't do any more of that, Kosh. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Block Appeal
I'm taking the liberty of appealing this block at Arbitration Enforcement. I recognize you aren't doing so yourself, and am sure you have your reasons, and, frankly, I appreciate that, since during your recent interaction with Fluffernutter the heat/light ratio has been rather high. What's more, I don't even agree with your statement that kicked it off. However that doesn't change the fact that the statement was hardly uniquely inflammatory, as three others just the opposite of it were left on the page, so its deletion and therefore your subsequent block was clearly selective enforcement, as was pointed out to the admin by several others. So I'm doing this more on the grounds of Evelyn Beatrice Hall's paraphrase of Voltaire. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
- Special:Listfiles can now display old versions of files a user has uploaded. A new link was also added (Special:AllMyFiles) that gives a list of all files the current user has ever uploaded (that haven't been deleted).
- There is now an Android application to contribute to translatewiki.net from mobile devices. [2]
VisualEditor news
- VisualEditor now has a new toolbar with drop-down menus for advanced tools. [3]
- Many bugs were fixed, some related to copy-and-paste. [4]
- You can now move references, list of references, templates and other elements with the mouse ("drag-and-drop"). [5]
- You are invited to comment on designs for the interface to add references in VisualEditor.
Future
- Developers are looking for ideas of small technical projects that new developers could work on. Please add your ideas. [6]
- Developers are looking for wikis who would accept to try using secure links (HTTPS) for all users. [7]
- You can join an IRC discussion about "Beta features", a tool to try new features, on October 3. [8]
- You can join an IRC discussion about Flow, the new wiki discussion tool, on October 17.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Your move review request
I have reverted your move review request. Aside from being improperly formatted, posting that is a violation of your topic ban, and likely going to lead to another block. (And, in general, you should probably just drop this issue.) -- tariqabjotu 16:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Outing?
Your accusation of 'outing' is a bit ridiculous. Not only did the IP editor explicitly provide his username, but the geolocation of his IP is already identified by the user in the information he's already provided on his own User page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)