User talk:Rybec/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

sjt003 and MEDbase200

MEDbase200 is a research firm, and I am simply disseminating the research as it pertains to nurse specialties. I would very much like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia--I have a physician research study that I think would fill out some specialties that are now stubs. I do not, however, want to continue editing while being considered a spammer. How can I resolve this? Should I not cite the median income figures? Should I find a new source? Thank you. Sjt003 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)sjt003


I have started using the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a source on Nurse Economics--looks a lot more comprehensive. Should I delete my contribution to Cardiac Catheterization? I will delete the catheterization contribution. Thank you. Sjt003 (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)sjt003


I have replaced the citation in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgical_nursing#Surgical_Nursing_Credentials with a Bureau of Labor Statistics study from 2011. I am in the process of searching for Nursing Economics information on the other specialties. Please advise. Is this the place for these sorts of discussions. Forgive my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia talk policies--I am new to editing on this platform. Sjt003 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)sjt003

I am in the process of trying to find alternate sources for the nurse specialty annual incomes. Medbase200 has been doing this research sinces the '80s, and most companies that do this sort of medical research make you pay for the reports. I think that since this company is giving away pertinent information for free a good place to disseminate it would be on Wikipedia. The information is genuine, the company has been around since 1982 and the website has been with the current owner since 21-aug-2000. I understand how one could see this as spamming, but the information is pertinent and the company is giving away information related to these articles. Please advise as to whether I should delete my contributions and continue using the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a source. Many thanks. Sjt003 (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)sjt003

I have deleted all my contributions and references related to medbase200.com since they are in question. Please advise as to whether the study is a considered a valid source for reporting on nurse annual income by specific specialty. I have left my references to the Bureau of Labor Statistics intact.Sjt003 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)sjt003

List of nonexistent articles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of nonexistent articles. Since you had some involvement with the List of nonexistent articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Liz Read! Talk! 16:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Babylon series (Imogen Edwards-Jones)

Hi Rybec, I went ahead and created a series article and merged all the other books from the series. Thanks for bringing this to attention. If you agree, would you consider withdrawing the AfD. The procedure is write Withdraw somewhere along the top of the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding Babylon. Then I will redirect it to the series article. The content is already copied over but if you disagree with the merge I will of course remove Wedding Babylon from the series article until the AfD concludes normally. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making the new article and for finding the Woman's Day review. Your new article is ~5 kB and the Imogen Edwards-Jones article is ~3 kB. Do you think the "Babylon" series could just be covered in the article about Edwards-Jones? —rybec 19:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It could be done that way. My experience says well meaning editors/fans will try to (re)create standalone book articles separate from the author. With the series article it sort of satisfies the need for a book article without the clutter of separate stubs, allows space to expand new text without putting the author article out of balance. But if you feel strongly about merging into the author I won't object.. it's also still possible someone who worked on the original articles will speak up about the merger, the series article seemed like more of a compromise than an author merge. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:COMMA

You recently contributed to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas. Following a recent related RFC on the wording used at MOS:COMMA in relation to geographic names, a new wording has gathered some support and I have opened a new RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates for further discussion of the proposal, which may interest you. —sroc 💬 08:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suburban Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yelp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Reward board discussion

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ITelagen

Thanks for catching the dropped tag. – SJ + 02:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

spi

Any of this look familiar to you? [1] Seems like other accounts are involved, other than the CU, if you look at spammy articles created and other "new" accounts that have edited them. What do you think? Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks unrelated to the Morning277 SPI. —rybec 08:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, you would know! Again, though, looks like many other accounts are involved, if you look at who else edited the articles by these socks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice this [2]? Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
In the Morning277 SPI, there wasn't a report about Sounoshb, but this diff indicates a possible connection. My best guess is that Chaklalajob is a group of writers in Pakistan who did some work for Morning277 or Wiki-PR, but who also work independently. —rybec 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

كلاب ونساء listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the Arabic sex-related redirects you created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. Gorobay (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gorobay, I noticed that you deleted my HTML comments from these redirects, such as in this edit. You did not mention these changes in your edit summaries. Would you please restore the comments, or explain why they should be removed? —rybec 22:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No other redirect from an alternative language includes such a comment; I was conforming to standard practice. I don’t feel strongly about this and I won’t remove them if you restore them. However, these redirects will probably be deleted, so it doesn’t matter. Gorobay (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The use of HTML comments is commonplace on Wikipedia and is explained on the help page WP:COMMENT. Please make sure your edit summaries accurately summarise your changes. —rybec 00:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Ogden Kraut was accepted

Ogden Kraut, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—rybec 03:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Special *UNofficial* 1-week mini-drive

Davidwr has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. This brownie is for your acceptance of Ogden Kraut and Dells of the Eau Claire County Park. See also: [3]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)†

wikiproject user box

file changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dells of the Eau Claire County Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wausau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dundas Heights

 Done - restored, for what it's worth. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I hadn't seen it before it was deleted. —rybec 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rybec. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cooley LLP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Vahide Perçin

Hi Rybec, Thanks for the article Vahide Perçin. But Vahide is a woman and I made some changes in the category. Maybe you may reword the text also. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that and for the redirect Vahide Gördüm. —rybec 19:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Please don't create useless redirects like Te Ika-a-M\xC4\x81ui. It hadn't been watched once in the last 90 days, according to stats.grok. Its appearance in the top redlink list is probably due to errors in the generation of that list, which incorrectly renders some characters. We shouldn't use an error in a list as a justification to create very improbable redirects. The same applies to Andr\xC3\xA9 3000, Gisele B\xC3\xBCndchen, Lo Que La Vida Me Rob\xC3\xB3 and perhaps others you created. Please delete them again. Fram (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the creation of improbable redirects, related to a page or pages you created, has started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Mass creation of very improbable redirects. Fram (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have answered at the noticeboard. [4] —rybec 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

How to write Simple English articles listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How to write Simple English articles. Since you had some involvement with the How to write Simple English articles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fram (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Global surveillance disclosure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lockheed
Vahide Perçin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Turkish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olga Kurkulina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Israeli and Athlete (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Morning277

Regarding the now-blocked suspected sockpuppets brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pheed, I think it's reasonable that if any of those suspected sockpuppets don't appeal within a week of being blocked, anything created by them that is not significantly changed by others or which has another editor willing to rewrite it is fair game for the {{db-banned}}-hammer. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Re: [5], I would call that an impersonal attack :). If it had been a personal attack I would have expected it to be WP:REVDELeted away quickly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

While deleting the PROD tag, the editor remarked "who gives a shit you asbergers trolls, i love pheed. get a fucking life" [6]. In my opinion, the fact that the remark was made while contesting the PROD shows that the comment was directed toward me as the editor who PRODded the article. But if you feel that pluralising "troll" makes the remark not a personal attack, okay, there's also a guideline about etiquette which discourages such comments. I didn't ask to have the edit oversighted. —rybec 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was the plural thing, and yes, I agree, it was very bad etiquette. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Linguafranc listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linguafranc. Since you had some involvement with the Linguafranc redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

About Linguafranc

Lingua franca is most definitely the primary topic here, misspelling or not. Which is why we disambiguate with "song".Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw those assertions in your edit summaries. However, I disagree. The lingua franca article has existed since 2002, yet there was nothing at Linguafranc until I created the redirect to the song about a week ago: no one before you saw a need to redirect Linguafranc to lingua franca. You've edited on the topic of Girls' Generation, the band who made the song, so it's very likely you noticed the redirect in an article about them, not in connection with the term lingua franca. Currently all [7] the occurrences of "linguafranc" on this Wikipedia refer to the song. Also, before undoing your edit, I used a general search engine to search for "linguafranc -franca", which should return results for pages where the term is consistently misspelled. All the results pertained to the song. I just tried with a different search engine and found the same thing. It appears that the term "Linguafranc" is used only to refer to the song. Can you offer any contrary evidence? —rybec 09:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel like further opinions are required here, how about you open an RfD? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at stats.grok.se; requests for "linguafranc" began only after I created the redirect: [8] [9] [10] [11]; "linguafranca" received 8 requests in the last 90 days [12] (and 2 times last December [13]) whereas "lingua franca" received over 120,000 [14] in the past 90 days. I see no sign that people were misspelling "lingua franca" as "linguafranc". I found one request for "lingua franc" [15] prior to the release of the song ("lingua franca" received nearly 50,000 requests that month). Leaving out the space is unlikely; leaving off the last letter is unlikely; there's no sign that anyone has done both without intending the song. Do you still disagree? —rybec 11:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
@Raykyogrou0: —rybec 20:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I respectfully agree with Rybec - Linguafranc is not a plausible typo for lingua franca, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not relevant. Since there is disagreement, WP:RFD is probably the best way to go with this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I still disagree. Open an RfD. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Linguafranc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

please see talk for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. I reverted some edits you made that we incidental to the main edit I was reverting. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —rybec 21:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: "minor rewording of REALNAME"

Hello, Rybec. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#minor_rewording_of_REALNAME.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Well-restedTalk 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

  • dates
  • years
  • commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
  • common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

Thanks and my best wishes to you!

Tony (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hunter Hunted (band)

Hello Rybec,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hunter Hunted (band) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lgcsmasamiya: I have notified Wikicreed1, the orignal author of the article. —rybec 00:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lukabri's unblock request

{{admin help}}

The administrator who blocked Lukabri asked that another administrator look at the unblock requests. Callanecc did so, but stipulated conditions for unblocking. Now Lukabri has agreed to those conditions, but Callanecc will be travelling until 5 January. —rybec 00:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Be careful when advising new editors

In this edit you practically advised a new editor to evade a legitimate block by creating a new account. Please go back and strike that part of your comment, as it will only cause him more trouble if he does so. I am going to reply saying "don't do that" but it would be better if you formally retracted the suggestion as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have looked at {{Spamusername}}. —rybec 02:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Since you beat me to it, I didn't bother adding my own comments. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Irkutsk Antonov crash

G'day from Oz; you have just negated the entire discussion over whether to keep the article or not, becuase now there are substantial edits by other Users (you); and the Sock's name is now preserved in the edit history. YSSYguy (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an entirely new version, not based on the banned editor's work. —rybec 04:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't matter; your work is on the article he created instead of using a new name, so he's the one credited with creating the article in its history and he is again the one who has "had his work saved" rather than expunged. YSSYguy (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Who can say what motivates the banned editor? Perhaps wasting other people's time in non-productive discussions pleases him.
Given that I've already edited the article, what are you asking of me? I've stated that I didn't use his work; an administrator can use Wikipedia:Revision deletion to remove revisions from the history, if that's desirable. If you think it would be best to create a new article under a different name, you may do so. Is that your intention? If no one else has edited the article, I could blank it again and it would be eligible for G7 deletion. I'm not eager to do that without a good reason. —rybec 05:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Minor rewording of REALNAME

Hello! Just a quick note to let you know that I've implemented the change we discussed regarding WP:REALNAME. Happy New Year! -Well-restedTalk 05:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; I was waiting just in case someone wanted to speak up in favour of prohibiting celebrities from using their own names. —rybec 05:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

merging from Articles for Creation?

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to San Fernando Valley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • quote=la Silicon valley hanno fatto le valigie per la Silicone valley, altro soprannome birichino (per via [...]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Keeping in mind that the introduction of financial incentive and corresponding frustration is sometimes how we lose good volunteer editors, I posted a message at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suburban_Express asking if it is block evasion for a blocked user to pay another editor like Bio to continue editing after they have been blocked. I was surprised to see an experienced editor remove well-sourced controversial material where they have a COI. IMO, I just wish the page was fully protected a long time ago, so I didn't have to babysit it. However, being rather worn out from the endeavor and seeing that it is well-watched at this point, I am going to scratch it off my list, maybe check back in a few months. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. You posted there to ask about the policy, not to ask for a block, right? —rybec 20:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I think technically speaking block evasion is cause for an immediate block, but I don't see the point and blocking any established editor is nearly impossible anyway. It would also be seen as my making COI accusations to win an argument. I am somewhat sympathetic to his position, having learned myself how difficult it is to do the right thing in that position. And there is no clear consensus on what a neutral article looks like in this case - opinions spanning both extremes. CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion 8 Jan 2014: Linguafranc sub-sectioning – my bad (somewhat)

Thanks for reverting my kludge, Rybec.

Besides any question of the validity of lack of necessity, as an rm rationale my edit was – although at least partially utilitarian/warranted – far from optimal. I was overtired when I made it (within the auspices of a long-term seeming approximation of belligerence / harassment – by way of not invented here, WP:OWN or some more flagrant, perhaps WP:FaoPFC related, contra-WP:NPOV), in regard to the wider-topicality.

In recognition of such, I self-enforced a brief wiki-break – mostly, "FFS go to bed, Ian!".

Meanwhile, notwithstanding emergencies and/or easy stuff, I remain on wiki-break and, at least partial, reversion of that edit was the first such emergency I attended to – so I'm gratified you've done, as least as much as I'd intend of, that job for me. :D

I do think that discussion warrants some demarcation to ring-fence the pro/contra rationale, esp' vis its current _purported_ "I don't know what ... is supposed to mean ..." basis (for elaboration of my purported-usage, see the wikt:-annotation on the first edit (my) which seems causal, vis the discussion) – However, I've no intention of broaching that, prior to a greater abundance of pearls to entrust to the endeavour.

Quite apart from my opening mitigation, thanks again for the revert.   – Best, Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No one ever thanked me for undoing their own edit before. Enjoy your break. —rybec 19:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeeeehaw! Another win for cookie cutter sacrilege! PUNK is NOT DEAD! ;)   – Best, Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Neighborcity article

User Rybec, I have a good rating on the real etate information website and app, Neighborcity, so I'm not inclined to edit the article because of my potential tie to the entity. NeighborCity is also in a landmark antitrust lawsuit with the National Association of Realtors and the Multiple Listing Service that realtors post real estate ads to. This subject deserves coverage when people search for the NeighborCity lawsuit because it impacts the one and a half million real estate agents, brokers and commercial agents of which I am one, and then the millions of homebuyers each year who are likely to be impacted if the association ends up with evaluations and ratings of all of its member-brokers and agents. If there is a problem with the litigation section, or other sections of this page, then why not fix it? If a salaried marketing assistant or intern at the company or a hired person wrote the article in the first place, write over their work like the last 12 months of editors have. I saw the link you posted, and it doesn't look like the page creator was actually blocked until months after the article was created. I'd like to see increased interest in the Neighborcity lawsuit, not less.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.182.119.244 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to present all significant points of view. The NeighborCity article, along with about 300 others, was placed by a PR firm, which has been banned from editing Wikipedia [16]. The firm was offering a "page management" service: for a monthly fee, it would monitor an article and take action to prevent it from being deleted, and to minimise the inclusion of unfavourable information about an article's subject. Look at the changes since the last confirmed edits by the PR firm: [17]. Seven months later, the article tells us little beyond what the publicist wanted us to know. I think it may be best to start over, or just not have an article about the company. —rybec

I see. How i that different from a company marketing intern putting itself on Wikipedia? That's who seems to put up most of these pages. I also can't imagine that user DGG (NYPL) is a hired hand to publicize for NeighborCity. He edited in July. Who hired someone-- did the NAR hire someone to write the piece and add commentary such as "Inaccurate and misleading information about realtor performance is posted on their website along with erroneous agent location, brokerage information"? It looks like no one is looking after the page at all.

I have a good rating on Neighborcity. Its ratings have their faults for sure, but its ratings do inform home buyers who know nothing about the real estate agents they hire. Am I allowed to edit it so people learn more about the litigation with the NAR? I would think that's why most people visit this Wikipedia page after getting some overview of what NeighborCity is or does.64.182.119.244 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This sentence you marked out on NeighborCity was probably put in by a disgruntled residential real estate agent who was poorly rated by NeighborCity. No one is watching out for this page so it ends up with adds like this one that are off base.

"Inaccurate and misleading information about realtor performance is posted on their website along with erroneous agent location, brokerage information."

It should be deleted, and that' coming from an agent who should have a bone to pick with NeighborCity. What needs more coverage on this subject is the lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors. Can you write something since no one else is looking after this page?

Wikipedia will never have a citation to back up the quoted sentence above that you marked out. That sentence midirects the discussion about NeighborCity, which is really about the antitrust lawsuit. 64.182.119.244 (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I've proposed that the article be deleted on the grounds that it was placed by the company's publicists. If I then deleted the only negative "information" from the article, it would look as though I were trying to support my deletion rationale...which in fact was part of my motivation for adding the {{citation needed}} tag. I think adding the tag is fair play, whereas more substantial changes might be questioned.
If you don't feel like editing the article directly because you may have a conflict of interest, you can still suggest changes on the article's talk page. Perhaps you have some information to add about the counter-suit. —rybec 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Silicone Valley

You commented at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 25#Silcone Valley. That discussion was closed with consensus to retarget the Silicone Valley redirect to Silicon Valley. Your opinion would now be welcome about whether Silcon Valley should have a hatnote pointing to San Fernando Valley#Adult ednterainment, the former target of the redirect and only other notable meaning of the term. Please comment at Talk:Silicon Valley#Hatnote, thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not leave beucase of you

I just have been taking a break — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


thanks Sasnfbi1234 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for all the work you've done lately. The list of articles you produced was excellent and your feedback has been really valuable! Keep up the good work --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@HectorMoffet: Thanks for noticing! I have something to ask of you. I noticed that you uploaded a larger version of the NROL-39 logo. Would you mind overwriting the previous version as the guideline on overwriting asks us to? —rybec 10:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd be honored, but I'm not exactly sure what overwriting is. Do I create a 'redirect', do I do a reupload somehow? If you know how, you have my 100% permission to effect the change yourself-- we only need one copy of the image, whichever is better. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It puts a new image at the same file-name. Then the other copy at the different name can be made to redirect to the old name. The link I gave [18] starts the upload wizard with the file name filled in. —rybec 11:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Irkutsk Antonov An-12 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Joel Brinkley page

  I have changed jobs, and I know it is a conflict to edit my own page, but how else am I going to keep the page accurate? No one else is going to update it. I'd appreciate any advice you might offer.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.140.232 (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help

Things can get pretty intense! Thanks for all your help. I honestly don't care what the community decides-- I'm the waiter, not the chef. My role here is to generate a big menu and present it to the community. I do not know what the "right" answer is, I leave that question to wiser minds than mine.

I've been really shocked at the amount of negative pushback we've gotten. If it's really such a bad idea, I assumed people would be content to oppose it and watch it fail, but it seems we've accidentally stepped on some toes by suggesting the possibility that NOTBUREAUCRACY could apply to the main page bureaucracy.

WP:NOTADVOCATE is a really honest and sincere objection. Heck, when the final !votes are cast, I still might cite NOTADVOCATE myself.

But instead we've seen all these bureaucratic objections: "We don't allow Featured Lists on Tuesdays" or "That article was on the Main Page seven years ago, so it can't be shown now". Just silliness that trivializes the whole scale of the issues being considered.

So, please keep your attention on this proposal in the coming days. Your support and feedback are essential to this process. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

When someone nominated the page for deletion, and an administrator said it should be kept (for now) even though he opposed it, that was bureaucracy too. —rybec 11:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No aftermath?

Hi Rybec,

When I do a search for NSA or Snowden + "fallout" or "aftermath", no Wikipedia page comes up in the results. If I were to research the most common search terms folks are using for the ongoing disclosures and fallout, is there a way to make sure the related Wiki page will appear in the results? petrarchan47tc 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I'm not an expert on the search feature; I've had my own problems using it. However, when I search for Snowden aftermath the results look reasonable. If you could give me a link to the search results page you're looking at, I might have more to say.

You can get an idea of how many people are searching for a term by looking on the site stats.grok.se (graphs require Javascript). For instance, Snowden aftermath shows zero hits in the past 90 days, so it's probably not worth making a redirect for it. —rybec 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies, I meant people who use the Internet search engines such as Google. (I won't bother with a link, but you might type "Snowden fallout" or NSA aftermath" and the like into Google's search.) petrarchan47tc 23:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I've made Snowden aftermath since there were over "about 3,160" results for it on Google. Google may start showing the Wikipedia page as it does when one searches for Snowden leaks as a phrase "Snowden+leaks". You might what to make redirects for some of the other terms. —rybec 00:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so there's no secret to creating redirects? That solves everything, thanks! petrarchan47tc 00:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
(from previous research): petrarchan47tc 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Google pulls up:
  • 1,860,000 hits for "2013 + global surveillance disclosures"
  • 129,000,000 hits for "NSA leaks"
  • 130,000,000 hits for "Snowden leaks"

Hello Rybec, on a somewhat-related subject, I brought your name up in a discussion about the google:foo namespace over here. meta:Talk:Interwiki_map#Baidu. There was a suggestion to create the baidu:foo namespace, which was turned down... but that brought up the question of yahoo:foo / bing:foo / duckduckgo:foo / amazon:foo / ebay:foo and thus, why *do* we have that thar google-prefix, in the first place? We could always just have people paste in https://google.com/search?q=foo — which is uglier than google:foo but "fairer" to the idea the interwiki links should only be for wikis with free-as-in-freedom content. If you have time to comment, on whether 1) you still actively use the prefix, and 2) whether you think the prefix needs retaining/deprecation/expansion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, and see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coffee House Positano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Coast Highway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you set up an RFC?

There's a growing consensus that we need a sitewide RFC, asap, to discuss any plans to do something special on Feb 11. I'm hesitant to set it up myself, as my attempt to lead this didn't work out so well. We have Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day/RFC, but I feel like someone else should look it over and be the one to actually advertise it at WP:CENT. --HectorMoffet (talk)

I've only done one RFC (and it didn't go well) but I'll have a go at it. RFCs are supposed to be neutrally worded so the question should be rephrased. —rybec 08:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks good to me. If you have confidence in it, please create it at a neutrally-titled location and advertise it at WP:CENT. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you consider changing it to a 'should we participate in some way or not at all" rather than "or should we oppose"? I don't think that's a viable option, nor is protesting - we are either going to raise awareness in a wiki-like NPOV fashion, or we won't be celebrating the day at all, is how I see it realistically. Hope you'll consider, sorry I didn't catch you sooner :) petrarchan47tc 10:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
At the same time, maybe this is completely genius. All I do know is that RfC wording is key. Sorry to be of so little help. I guess I don't know the right wording, but I do agree with SJ - it should be 2 choices. A yes or no. petrarchan47tc 10:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: I was trying to make it neutral. If no one's commented, I'll be happy to withdraw it so someone else can post an RFC with different wording. —rybec 10:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know you were - maybe it is. I wonder though if we'd be safer with a simple yes or no option. What do you think? I'm not very familiar with this, would you need to withdraw to amend the wording?petrarchan47tc 11:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't know much about RFCs; I've only posted one before. If I withdraw it then we can discuss the wording at our leisure. —rybec 11:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
If you're fine with that, I do think it's good. I imagine within 24 hours or less we will have solid wording and can go forward. petrarchan47tc 11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, I need to check out for awhile and will be back in touch later today. No worries, we still have time to get things right if they aren't already. I asked for second opinion from User:JusDaFax, who weighed in on the initial survey, because s/he's always good at this stuff. I thought it might help. Thanks, Rybec, for getting this off the ground! petrarchan47tc 11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. Since no one had commented, I simply deleted it...I hope it hadn't yet been copied somewhere. —rybec 11:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I highly doubt anyone go to it that fast :). Here is the link to my quest for a second opinion. petrarchan47tc 11:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Legobot had already copied it. I'll take a look at your link. —rybec 11:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Every eye has blindspots-- thanks for showing me some of mine! HectorMoffet (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually both of you deserve some sort of recognition for diplomacy.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

my mistake "historically black" has nothing to do with the article.

I apologize i had it confused with USC and upon checking the article for the College itself it states that at the top. But i see its already been reverted :-).

Evenios (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I edited that page, but didn't edit that portion of it. Feel free to neutralise it. —rybec 03:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That text had been added by Bachcell [19]. —rybec 03:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC

I just wanted to drop you a note and say I made the very bold step of removing the RFC-- I think Jehochman and Petrarchan47 had some concerns about wording? Obviously, it I did wrong, I trust you to undo me, as I'm only acting as I think the three of you would have wanted.

I only got involved because it looked like the combined wording by Rybec and Bench would lead readers to become confused and conflate a future proposal with the mainpage idea I had been working on that that never had any support. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Farther up on my talk page you can see Petrarchan's suggested wording. What I wrote was as close to that as grammar would permit. —rybec 17:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out the obvious - contrary to what HectorMoffet has alleged, I did not alter any of your wording, I simply added links below your wording to The Day We Fight Back and WP:Surveillance awareness day. The first, because it gives an immediate link to what the protest is (and would have saved people having to read through all of the discussion at user talk:Jimbo Wales to find it); the second, as I said in a later edit summary, because "it's a relevant link to show all the previous discussions rather than give the impression that this was only discussed at Jimbo's talk page". I'm afraid I don't understand HectorMoffet's complaint against me. BencherliteTalk 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest to ask Jericoman for an opinion - on both wording and on links to add. To be honest, I really don't know how it should be worded. I do think that it needs to happen today, and that the community would appreciate the opportunity to discuss how and if we want to respond. petrarchan47tc 20:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

CitizenNeutral is blocked as a sock of Wiki-PR. I'll get around to the G5 tagging later tonight. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: thank you, I noticed Dcoetzee's post on CN's talk page. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innoz I listed some articles that in my opinion didn't have substantial edits by others. At User:Rybec/bundle are my notes about articles created, or moved from AfC, by CitizenNeutral. I think my list is incomplete. —rybec 00:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Kevin Gorman: I saw this sock-blocking coming about a week ago. Although you should consider adding Pogoseat to that list, you probably can't because it has been substantially updated as a result of the article improvement process that began with Pogoseat's AfD. - tucoxn\talk 01:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Pogoseat expansion was what built the fire beneath me. —rybec 01:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I'm a bit disappointed in myself for not noticing the likelihood that CitizenNeutral was a sock to begin with. All the G5 recreations had been annoying me, but I hadn't paid enough to who was doing them to put two and two together. I poked at it a bit more after the BI article and then suddenly went "d'oh". It is kind of interesting that more than one set of people separately converged on the same conclusion about CN at about the same time, heh. I'm trying to put together a gallery of some of Wiki-PR's best work if either of you remember any real doozies: I have what I've put together here for now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: Thanks for doing this. I thought it was interesting that I couldn't thank (à la WP:Notifications/Thanks) you for the edit that you used to create the page, as it was protected. I'll see if I can dig up anything to add to that page but I think Wiki-PR's behavior is some of it's best work, as opposed to the articles its employees and contractors created and re-created. I would propose adding links to creation and deletion and re-creation histories/logs to that page (complete with links to a Sublimeharmony sandbox, if available) . - tucoxn\talk 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR and Morning277 SPI

Hi Rybec. To explain where I'm coming from, I think we've been screwing up this investigation for a long time - ever since we started mixing in Wiki-PR accounts with Morning277 accounts, and using behavioural evidence that could be applied to almost any paid editor or editor with a COI. To some extent this hasn't been a big deal. Admittedly, we occasionally block an unrelated paid editor by mistake, but if both Wiki-PR and Morning277 were using socks, grouping them together mostly just meant that our administration was muddled up, not that the blocks were incorrect. However this has now become a legal issue. There's a risk that the WMF will try to use the findings of the broken SPI to demonstrate that Wiki-PR has acted against their cease and desist order. I hope they realise just how broken the process has become, so that they won't rely on it, but my feeling is that we should be more careful now that it has legal ramifications, especially given that Wiki-PR are saying that they have been abiding by the order. When we claim that a new editor is a Wiki-PR account now, we aren't just referring to a problem within Wikipedia, but we are also accusing them of publicly lying and acting against the order, so we want to be pretty confident of what we're doing. - Bilby (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: thank you for the note. The e-mailed document was dated 2013-11-19. CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs)'s account was abandoned in October; Tolsonbeerd's single (remaining?) edit was on 2013-11-06.
I don't know whether you saw it, but someone has claimed ownership of the Morning277 account and says he continues to edit [20]. If his edits could be unraveled from those by/for Wiki-PR, it might not make much difference: Jordan French said "We do pay hundreds of other editors for their work—they're real people and not sockpuppets." [21] and I'm inclined to believe it. —rybec 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see that 172.162.11.195 has been blocked. Your concern applies to the edits from that IP address, because they happened on 20 January. The block log mentions Morning277, not Wiki-PR. —rybec 15:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
All the blocks mention Morning277, because that's what we use to refer to both Wiki-PR and Morning277. And yes, I know CitizenNeutral was editing prior to the cease and desist letter, and not since. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be taking care when accusing people of being Wiki-PR socks, even if the accounts edited a bit earlier. To complicate matters, I'm very aware that Morning277 is actively editing again. I don't know what accounts he is using yet, but he's certainly editing. So the likelihood of creating confusion through the messed-up SPI is high. - Bilby (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There are other reasons to believe the two are connected, using private evidence. --Rschen7754 20:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The best we've ever found is that Morning277 and Wiki-PR may both have been hired by the same client, or Morning277 may have been hired, for an article or two, by Wiki-PR. They're competitors - Morning277 runs his own business that competes with Wiki-PR. They are not the same group. That's why this is such a mess. We cannot assume that an account attributed to Morning277 can also be attributed to Wiki-PR. - Bilby (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've left a note about this at meta:User_talk:Jalexander#Mike_Wood.2Flegalmorning.com. —rybec 23:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point. It doesn't matter whether or not Morning277 also gets a cease-and-desist. The problem is that so long as we work with a screwed-up SPI that conflates multiple separate editing groups and treats them as one, we we have difficulties making any claims about the past and future editing practises of any individual in that mix. So we have to be very careful about how we proceed. Any given editor we block could be a Wiki-PR account (who deny that they are still editing here), a Morning277 account (who is still editing here), an unrelated paid editor, a client or other editor with a COI, or just a mistake, but we can't necessarily tell which one they are. We shouldn't have allowed this situation to happen, but now that we're stuck in it we need to show more care in how we handle the SPIs, due to the legal issues around alleging that Wiki-PR are still editing. - Bilby (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bilby: you had written "There's a risk that the WMF will try to use the findings of the broken SPI to demonstrate that Wiki-PR has acted against their cease and desist order." Hence I've attempted to apprise WMF Legal about the statement attributed to Wood saying that he's unaffiliated with Wiki-PR. I'm not sure why you think I've misunderstood you; I'm sorry, but I didn't gain any greater understanding from your post of 23:16. If you think I've said something about someone which may not be true, please let me know specifically and I'll make a correction if one is in order. —rybec 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
WMF Legal will do whatever it wants; it certainly is not bound by our findings. Also note Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy#Sockpuppets, as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. --Rschen7754 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No they are not bound by anything we do, although they did use our SPI as part of the basis of the cease-and-desist letter, and the media has been using it as evidence of the number of accounts. What I'm saying is that our actions in the SPI have implications beyond Wikipedia, and thus we need to ensure that what we do is correct. Thus I'd like to be more cautious as we move into post-cease-and-desist letter than we clearly have been up until now. I'm not saying we drop it, or that we don't block accounts, just that we keep in mind the situation in which we now sit, and the problems with the current SPI, and make sure we abide by our rules as they stand. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As a note to those following this section (since I mentioned it there, and was motivated in decent part by this talk section) - I've posted a proposal at WP:AN to allow for the blocking of all accounts that have the modus operandi of a paid sockpuppeting editor regardless of whether or not a master can be assigned to them. I think a solution is needed to both avoid conflation (which is indeed an issue) while still taking action on obvious behavioral evidence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, what do you think about...

Thanks for all your help at the wikiproject! Would you see if you can polish and expand these article:

I feel like all three might have a good DYK in them, but I leave it up to Wnt to find and craft the DYK nuggets in our articles. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks-- I nominated the redirect for deletion as you suggestion. Good work! Glad to have you to show me what's what. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, great catch!

You are the star player on this team. This edit I made right here [22] falls under the category of what would be pronounced "Duh-Doy"?. I'm not sure if the phrase translates, but essentially, I can't fathom how my brain missed that this was still a draft. Thankyou! GREAT work on the article :) HectorMoffet (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhatner fort, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sher Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

re:Alan Sugar

Because it was his company that did it, not him personally. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@The C of E: But it's discussed in the article about him, to which Amscreen redirects. —rybec 22:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it him. If he personally developed that system then yes, but it was his company that did it and should be on the company page not the Alan Sugar page. Since there isn't one, you can feel free to make it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
As I explained, a section in his biography is serving as the page about the company. —rybec 22:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Great work

Great work on the book! --HectorMoffet (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Evo Morales grounding incident

Hello, Rybec. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Evo Morales grounding incident, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Evo Morales grounding incident

Hello, Rybec,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Evo Morales grounding incident should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evo Morales grounding incident .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Waldir

I got pinged about your edit, but see that you already reverted as well: [23]. For the record, I was wrong in my post at Waldir's, and said so much afterwards in the deletion discussion and apologized to you there as well. I should have said as much on his talk page as well probably, but like you say, "old" best describes the issue now. Anyway, just wanted to drop a note that I agree that you were right and I was wrong there. Fram (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you; I responded to the old message, then remembered the explanation you'd given at RfD about how you didn't intend to include single-character redirects. —rybec 07:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

How do you do Rybec? I'm part of the legal with Banc De Binary. I see your name first and many times on this Wikipedia page. Is it best to voice the concerns than make changes? 1. The company is headquartered in Limassol, Cyprus only. According to Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Investment firms says: Banc De Binary Ltd. 12, Arch. Makariou III, Kristelina Tower, Flat 301, Mesa Yeitonia, CY-4000 Limassol, Cyprus (Here is the link**http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx) The links in the box with the logo for Ramat Gan, Israel,[1][2][3] Petah Tikva, Israel[4][5] is for an office in Ramat Gan, no headquarters. 2. The beginning sentence says "Banc De Binary...is an Israeli-Cypriot based private option broker..." BDB is Cyprus based. Kindly appreciate your input. Respectfully yours, Om.piat (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Om.piat: it's good to hear from you. Thank you for not editing the article yourself. Would you mind posting your comment on the talk page for the article, so that other editors besides me will notice it? —rybec 21:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
OK Om.piat (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I did this. Can you help? Om.piat (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anel Lopez Gorham

Hello, Rybec. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Anel Lopez Gorham, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: thank you for the notification. Could you please explain why the sources I used are unreliable? —rybec 02:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Rybec. I think you will find a quick primer on sourcing in Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. More detailed information on establishing notability can be found in WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Maybe you can dig around and find more sources and expand the article. But right now it doesn't make a credible claim to notability and the sources don't meet Wiki standards. If you do find some good sources and evidence that your subject meets our notability standards feel free to remove the PROD tag. On the other hand if you look around and come to the conclusion that she just isn't quite notable enough right now, you can either just leave the tag in place or you can request the article be deleted. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Acharya Shri Chandanaji

Hi, Rybec - I see that you have postponed the Acharya Shri Chandanaji article. You my be interested in the above discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

List of places in Queensland by population

Hi Rybec. You may wish to participate in the discussion at Talk:List of places in Queensland by population#This article is not ready for article space. Regards, Mattinbgn (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rybec. You have new messages at N419BH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Another message N419BH 22:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mladen Veselinovi

Hello, just so you know, I sent Mladen Veselinovi for deletion as this AfC is for a non-notable player - See the discussion here JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Farewell, and thank you

Hey Rybec-- thanks for all your help in the last month. It's been great working with you. It was always a long shot that we would do something "special"-- as it should be, and I'm not at all disappointed that a controversial idea wasn't adopted. I had a lot of fun working on it.

Unfortunately, I found out some things about how parts of Wikipedia are run, and they just don't sit with me. I spent two years without really looking at mainpage, and I probably could have happy spent two years more without looking. If you like sausage, don't watch how the sausage is made, I suppose.

But I couldn't leave without saying goodbye and thanks for all your hard work! If you ever get bored with with this place, come over to scholarpedia-- all the joy of editing Wikipedia with any of the drama of editing Wikipedia. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Morning?

As someone who appears familiar with the matter,

  • User:Lweavernc

A long dormant account that comes back to suspect articles - is it just coincidence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: As far as I know, neither Selected Hilarity nor Jerry Carroll (comedian) were mentioned in the Morning277 SPI.

Lweavernc resumed editing half an hour after being notified of a PROD on Selected Hilarity. It seems likely that this editor is the Larry Weaver mentioned in that article. The "Connected contributor" template was put on the article's talk page in 2010.

The creator of the Jerry Carroll article does look to be a hired writer, and has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Ali Khalid/Archive). —rybec 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Rybec:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Your submission at Articles for creation: JUSTUS ESIRI (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Ochiwar (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Whipped cream

I took those interwiki links back off of this article. If interwiki links are not in Wikidata, the thing to do is add them there, not add them to the article. There is a separate Wikidata entry for crème Chantilly, which is apparently slightly different from whipped cream and even has a section in the whipped cream article here. If you think they are the same, you could merge the Wikidata entries. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Auntof6: As you can see from my comment at Talk:Whipped_cream#Language_links_and_whipped_cream I didn't say they are the same. I don't see how removing the interwiki links without migrating them to wikidata is constructive. Please restore them and I'll ask on wikidata for help with this. —rybec 01:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It may not be constructive, but having them in the article is incorrect. I know the two things are extremely similar, but someone apparently decided that separate Wikidata items were needed, so they shouldn't be mixed in articles. Maybe they should be considered the same things, but some languages have separate articles so the two Wikidata items can't simply be merged.
In any case, I removed three links.
  • The French one links to a different Wikidata item, and so it shouldn't be included on our "Whipped cream" article.
  • The Estonian one's interwiki links are all coded in the article. They look like a mix of whipped cream and Chantilly cream articles. Google Translate seems to indicate that the Estonian article is about whipped cream, but Wikidata won't let me add it to that item. Maybe they aren't using Wikidata?
  • The German one linked to a section of an article. I know you can't add interwiki links in Wikidata that are to sections, and I personally don't think they should be in the articles, either, because they aren't an exact match.
So for now, I'd rather leave those off until the people at Wikidata respond. By the way, I don't think redirects should be entered in Wikidata, either, and the error message you got seems to confirm that -- somehow it saw that it was a redirect and it looked at the redirect target to verify it. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I've asked at wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#help_request_.28whipped_cream_vs._Chantilly_cream.29. I wonder whether you noticed that the whipped cream article here also covers Chantilly cream. —rybec 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Not only did I notice that, I mentioned it above. It has a separate section, but the main subject is whipped cream. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sent you an email

I'm sending you an email about something that is concerning me. I don't want to post about it in the open since it's just a theory and could be wrong. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me here. I don't often check my e-mail. —rybec 07:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No problem. I hope I'm just being paranoid... but it's better to share this particular concern. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Abby Martin disambiguation deletion discussion

Hi Rybec. I made some changes to the dab page that you put up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin (disambiguation). Perhaps that will take care of the problem?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've withdrawn the deletion nomination. —rybec 08:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm learning how to do these dab pages better. I'll remove the template if you don't get to it first. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Rybec

Thank you for your help in creating "Hugh D T Williamson". I'd started this more than a year ago, got disheartened, and then was delighted to receive notification of its creation, and even more delighted that several other people, including you, collaborated to fill in the gaps. Wikipedia in action, good job!

Cheers


Idge62 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Idge62

DYK for Mass surveillance in China

The DYK project (nominate) 02:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop following me around

What is your problem? How about if you read up on things before you revert my changes, and how about not acting like a jackass? Gavleson (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following you around; you've been editing pages that were already on my watch list. —rybec 16:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, even if that was true, they other questions remain. Why would you not read up on things before you revert other peoples changes? And adding a whitespace, just to make your revert tedious to roll back on? That's a move only a jackass would make. Gavleson (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a dispute over the content of an edit I've made? —rybec 17:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rybec/Archive_2&oldid=1139333619"