User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 4
Re: 3R Rule for user 72.134.204.155
[edit]Duly noted. The 3R Rule, however, does not apply to reversions due to vandalism of Wiki articles. The statement "Representatives from RSD claim that Strauss has an interest in writing negatively about RSD because he has marketed..." still lacks proper authoritative citation. Per Wikipedia's guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
It also does not meet the criteria as outlined by yourself:
"Forums and online scam/rip-off sites are not reliable sources. Anyone could make posts or claims with absolutely no verification. Wikipedia cannot use these unverfiable reports as sources.
The neutral point of view policy is central to writing an article. Statements like "RSD is widely critisized in the community" are not neutral, especially when not backed by any reliable source. A neutral statement would be one like "The New York Times reports that RSD is widely critisized in the seduction community because..." Statements need to be attributed, otherwise, they're just an opinion.
Information critical of a company is encouraged. Wikipedia is not a marketing vehicle and we aim to include all points of view on a subject, however, the same policies apply to positive and negative material: the information must be verifiable, it must come from a reliable source and finally, it should be written in a neutral tone. Any information that does not meet these criteria, especially when discussing living people or current companies will be removed immediately. If I can help explain any of these policies, please feel free to contact me. Shell babelfish 16:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"
- Edits you don't agree with are NOT vandalism. The statement is attributed to RSD directly and as soon as I find which of their webpages they put it on, it will have a direct source. Please join in the discussion on the talk page. Shell babelfish 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the issue is not with the statement itself. I suspect that many of these dating coaches are in business to help men AND earn money. The issue is with the VERIFIABILITY of that statement. To remove improperly cited information on Wikipedia is NOT vandalism nor should it warrant blocking in the spirit of the 3R Rule. Further, I decided to research the veracity of said statement and found that it is not substantiated with respect to the publication date of Strauss' book (which the criticism cites) and when his products were made available to the general public. Sadly, wholesale sections of the RSD have now been removed by other Wiki users.
- Precisely. But its still edit warring, especially given the discussion on the talk page and the source given for the information. If you read the verifiability policy, we are not in a quest for the truth -- if RSD makes a statement refuting the criticism and lies in it, that's up to the readers to decide. Shell babelfish 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. RSD can make the statement, "Neil Strauss is the greatest seduction teacher ever." Whether true or not, it would be up to the readers to decide on it's veracity, PROVIDED they have the proper citation to make this decision. The issue of the 'edit warring' hinges on the fact that the addenda to the Criticism (while it was still up) could not be properly attributed to a reputable source. It was therefore removed. Had a Wiki user provided it, it would be a non-issue.
Re: Real Social Dynamics
[edit]Good point. The criticism will be as follows:
RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:
"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was alwasy to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature."
Template:User christian
[edit]- Yes I thought someone might try that. The flaw is that it also specifies where to continue disscusion. TFD. Nothing to stop you listing the template at TFD. I think it is generaly accepted that things do not have to be deleted in order to be disscused.Geni 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleting it isn't productive either. Inabilty to get the result you want at TFD is not an excuse to rule lawyer your way around it (In any case if you do want to avoid Xfd could you please not use a method I suggested as a joke way back?). You have two options. One hearts and minds, honestly win the debate (rather than repeartly declearing it won) or two learn from schoolwatch. The current approach mealy damages wikipedia.Geni 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know off hand. Schoolwatch probably made sure they got the result they wanted in a few hudread AFDs before they atchived the current status quo. You admit you keep loseing TFDs. How many times does that have to happen before you accept the result? Haveing a small bunch of admins inoring long debated process in order to try and get thier way is frustrating. As for methods I don't think you want to get involved in that disscusion. You know that the template isn't really T1 (divisive and inflammatory come on babel boxes can be equaly inflamitory this user speaks kurdish for example. Not very long ago this user speaks welsh). You have admited delibertaly trying to sideline TFD.Geni 02:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Context is everything. Now can you answer my points?Geni 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Single reverts of admin actions are not wheel waring. I should know I've been involved in enough of the real thing. Note you have not talked to Improv about reverting Xoloz or to Tawker about reverting me.Geni 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
PCC Accrededation
[edit]My removal of the PCC Accrededation keeps reappearing. I put in the articles talk page why it must be removed. It is inaccurate.
Userbox no notable
[edit]thanks for getting me the Userbox code, now do you know who broke policy to delete it? Thanks again! -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 21:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey there. I'm pretty sure no one broke policy to delete it. While I agree with the sentiment, I can see how that could be considered divisive. I think things seem to be going the way of eventually having userboxes out of the template space; I've made sure everything on my userpage has the code there. Also means nobody can change my boxes if they update the templates :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Re:TfD nomination of Template:User intercal
[edit]Hi -- even though you deleted this userbox, you may want to take a look at my comments explaning it here. -- llywrch 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Knew that actually ;) However, like you said, probably a third or more of the people that see it just won't get the joke. It looks like most userboxes will be migrating out of the template space anyways. Feel free to put it back on your page though, let me know if you need the code. Shell babelfish 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have no need for the source; I can snag it myself if I should need it. I never used the userbox & only created it to understand how create them. However, I am disappointed that the conversation is proceeding in the direction of "this is inflamatory & should be deleted posthaste", rather than "it's not funny, & let's discuss why so that we don't use humor in an offensive manner."
- But then I admit that I often naive about these matters -- perhaps too naive for the current state of the culture of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps its more along the lines of "Hey, that's cute, but people might take it the wrong way and in any case, does it really belong in the template space?" I'm not sure what the final outcome will be, but there's been a general movement to try to remove things that aren't for building the encylopedia from the template space and get them back in the user space. I'm sorry if this bothered you, I certainly wasn't trying to cause any distress. Shell babelfish 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sir, i am not spamming or advertising. I am putting up a link for a site so that visitors can find what they are looking for. There are other sites which have are there for the same reasons like pakistanidefence.com being one. You need to leave the link there just because it is related to it, and that what is the section is for.
Please do look at other links like pakistanidefence.com, paffalcons.com, sinodefenceforum.com, defencetalk.com they are all putting up the links, and giving me a message like this is only unfair!
My RfA
[edit]Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 07:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Unblock
[edit]Thanks for the unblock. I am sorry if my comment seemed a bit uncivil (you have to admit it is tempting to use the word clown in this case). I suppose I was frustrated as this has previously happened and in some cases it took very long before anyone noticed or did anything about it. Thanks to your rather quick response the experience was less painful this tim - thank you for that.
I don't know the wikipdia software well enough but it would seem technically feasible to let a blocked IP through if used by a reliable registered user. I suppose that is something that should be addressed at meta. Laurens-af 15:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
No Personal Attacks
[edit]With regards to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not refer to a set of users as the "circus", and their contributions as "precious" in a sarcastic sense. Thank you, Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Now that's precious. Pot, kettle? Obviously you didn't get the point. Shell babelfish 21:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed you've been warning quite a number of established editors using personal attack templates in very dubious circumstances. Personal attacks are defined on that policy you're quoting. You might wish to review it for some examples of what a personal attack looks like. What I believe you're trying to say is that you feel people aren't being as civil as they could be; while being civil important for harmonious editing, it is not the same as a personal attack.
- You and others in your group have spent the entire RfC process being incredibly uncivil to Tony and evidenced by the history of interaction I found for each of the major complainants, this isn't the first time you've made these sorts of comments and worse in his direction. Having found that history, it became clear why certain individuals refused to discuss the issue at hand and kept side-tracking to Tony. RfC is not a witch-hunt. Many editors expressed concern that fighting over refactoring was silly and time wasting, but I have yet to see any acknowledgement of that position from your side that didn't say "exactly, so why is Tony doing it". Somehow, you're just not understanding they don't just mean Tony; your utter refusal to consider that your behavior may be just as disruptive made me decide to stop participating.
- I'm not sure why certain Wikipedians feel they have some inalianable right to self-expression; that's certainly not in any policy or guideline. In fact, our pillars show the most important consideration should always be the project -- the encylopedia above all. We've gotten to the point where contributors make statments like "its just a guideline, I don't have to follow it" and scream abuse when anyone points out to them that this is not the case. There's wiggle-room in guidelines we don't have in policies, but by no means are they to be ignored. Like a good man once said "This is starting to remind me of Usenet in the '90s". Every time a new wave of contributors comes in, ignores community concensus and creates their own little space that doesn't build the project, our foundation gets that much shakier.
- Wikipedians have always embraced new editors with new ideas and helping hands. Most editors respect the community and the work that has gone into the project before them. Those who don't are going to continue to feel harassed and disenfranchised. Instead of working against others, perhaps you could spend some time with a mentor or make a friend and learn about the history and foundation that makes this project possible. Shell babelfish 11:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
My Thanks
[edit]I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you for your comments. First, from policy
- The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions"
Second, FYI at the time of blocking I was not engaged in edit warring. I explained I stopped editing before. Third, although I explained to the admin involved I would not edit again he failed to use his discretion. This and the fact he failed to notice the odd behaviour by Mr Anonymous makes me feel your response was not entirely warranted.
As to sig. Can you point out the new rules, I would like to read about it.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Responded on my page.
Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 5th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 23 | 5 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
As 172 said merely looking at his behaviour on the Lenin talk page should have told you what an idelog he is - unblocking him is a mistake in the long run. look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Richardchilton - even 172 and I used to think we could deal with such people. PMA 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Haizum
[edit]Please don't wheel war over blocks. Discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking. User:Zoe|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 02:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- You do realize a wheel war requires more than one action? The fact is the block was ridiculous. If I went around blocking everyone for a week every time they told me I was stupid or abusive or didn't deserve to be an admin because I blocked over an edit war, there would be hundereds of people blocked each week in that manner. He was asked several times to reduce the block and after 2 days, decided another 8 would be enough. 10 days for what? Please review the situation before jumping on someone for a non-existant wheel war. Shell babelfish 12:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please Advise: [1] Haizum 04:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Isa trademark (talk · contribs)
[edit]Thank you for your assistance in blocking. Is there a delay for the warning notice, or it not necessary because all editing will be blocked anyway? I doubt this user will give up in editing the article in question. - CobaltBlueTony 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, it just took me a second to get it up there. One of my cats threw up while I was blocking :( Shell babelfish 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Block of IP 169.244.143.115
[edit]I noticed you denied the unblock request for 169.244.143.115. Can I ask what your reason is? It's not a zombie PC, so the original reason for the indefinite block is baseless. Phoenix-forgotten 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you belive it is not an open proxy or zombie computer, you can request to have the IP address rechecked by posting it under "Alerts" at the m:MetaProject on open proxies. Shell babelfish 00:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even sure that's necessary; I talked to Natal earlier and he says that he was only testing a feature, and wasn't really serious. And a simple whois check shows it to be registered to the Department of Education. And that "MetaProject" link doesn't even exist. What's the real link? Okay, I found the WikiProject you meant, and it only demonstrates that this was an unjustified label as an open proxy. It states "only proxy checks by verified users will be accepted [as proof]", and not only is Natal not on the list, Natal never did such a check. He was purely testing a feature, and said to me that one should feel free to undo his block. Can you unblock the IP now? Phoenix-forgotten 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that an administrator was playing around with the open proxy template and I'm not sure what on earth they were doing in regards to the constant blocks and unblocks, however, looking at an earlier block, there seems to be very good reason for leaving this IP address blocked. It has been blocked a record (in my experience) 48 time for vandalism with incredibly little in the way of actual contributions. Unless there is some really good reason to unblock that I'm missing, I see absolutely no reason we should allow this disruption to continue. Someone needs to alert the system administrators of the ridiculous amount of vandalism and have it handled. Shell babelfish 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I know about the vandalism volume, it's scandalous; that's what happens when a single proxy IP is used to filter the entire state's public school system. I'm hoping to help Tim get them to turn X-Forwarded-For headers on so that individuals can be filtered properly. But an indefinite block just isn't supported by Wikipedia policy - you can't block a shared IP for more than a month. And I think if you just block it until June 24th, when the school year's definitely over, you'll find that vandalism decreases greatly during the summer months. Just an educated guess of mine. P.S.: I keep hearing how very little contributions come from the IP, which does seem to be true looking at the Contributions page. But when you say that, does that include any registered-user edits that may have come from the same IP? Phoenix-forgotten 03:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure it would decrease, but honestly, I can't see any reason that "its not policy" would lead me to support that kind of disruption to the project. IPs are indef blocked all the time and many times in less ridiculous cases than this one. And no, this isn't about registered users; I sincerely hope that the developers will be able to code a resolution to that problem - I'd love to be able to block vandals without affecting tons of innocent people. I'm sorry that we disagree, you're welcome to request that someone else look at it. Shell babelfish 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
RSD revision, thanks
[edit]Good point. The Criticism Section will be as follows:
RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:
"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was alwasy to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.204.155 (talk • contribs)
- Sounds like a good plan, that's a much better worded statement and meets the verifiability/references policies at the same time :) Shell babelfish 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Politeness vs Spirited Debate
[edit]I'm responding to your comment:
- As a completely uninvolved admin, I'd like to point out that your conduct is highly uncivil and seriously bordering on personal attacks. Please stop and find a polite way to contribute to the discussion or you may be blocked for disruption. If you have any questions, please let me know. Shell babelfish 21:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr1819"
As a long-time admin of many boards (my first was in 1986, back in the dial-up BBS days), I've been involved in many discussions about the difference between being impolite and simply disagreeing, or even calling into question the comments of others.
Wiki rules and policies not only do not consider either of the latter two approaches to be impolite, as I referenced on my discussion page, but Wiki even goes so far as to encourage debate in an effort to get at the truth. These concepts and Wiki's prohibitions against blocking simply for disagreements are clearly stated on the administrators pages I referenced. Dr1819 12:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you're not interested in reviewing your behavior after so many editors have expressed their concerns. When one must make such a provacative comment as to compare touching "your" articles to the Salem Witch Trials, there is something seriously amiss. I will be opening an RfC on your behavior surrounding the men's fashion articles to gain the input of a wider community. Shell babelfish 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 12th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 24 | 12 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
BenH
[edit]Thank you for blocking him! He is a giant annoyance to myself and others. --CFIF (talk to me) 22:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem - hopefully it will get his attention before he's blocked for good. Shell babelfish 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I also find him annoying - I myself have fixed some of his edits. CoolKatt number 99999 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
He's back on his reign of terror, try 48 hours, or better yet, 98 1/2 years. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Unblocking
[edit]Hello, with regards to your removal of my unblock request
(Please do not re-add the unblock template. You've been told how to resolve the problem, please do so. If you continue re-adding the template without taking any other steps, we may be forced to block your talk page from editing. Shell babelfish 04:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
I would like to stress that I find you were wrong and should never do such things again. As Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Socafan 13:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. You had many avenues open to you to contact the blocking admin since other admins looking at the case didn't feel comfortable unblocking. The {{unblock}} template is not an entitlement to be unblocked; other admins have the option of declining to unblock. We frequently run in to users who get 4 or 5 other opinions and yet still keep adding the template in the hopes that someone will not check their story and unblock them. Shell babelfish 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
RSD
[edit]Thanks for the feedback on the new Criticism section. The version by Bluecrush has since 'evolved' into a monster (seemingly reflecting the agenda of some members) and has now disappeared completely. I will try to restore the 'pared down' version. Thanks again. Wikifly 00:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) --Beyruling 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)The user talk page has a ring to it that reminds Me of the shell Gas stations are you one of the the old retired attendants/there is lot of room up in the front of the lines now, when the prices go up.
ugh
[edit]You removed Socafan's accusations of "personal attacks" by me, as "resolved". I would personally like to see a resolution censuring him for his frivolous litigiousness, but, while I'm content to let your removal stand, I doubt that we've seen the end of this nonsense. Tomertalk 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Understandable, but there's really no recource for vexatious litigation except going through the RfC and even ArbCom depending on the scope of the issue. Feel free to drop me a line if he brings it back up since I'm already familiar with the situation. Shell babelfish 07:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Will do. Keep up the good fight. Cheers, Tomertalk 07:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Doright
[edit]Thanks for looking into it. Could you clarify why these are not personal attacks? It seems fairly clear to me. As far as the RfC goes, I've been trying to move slowly and avoid drastic action. What is frustrating is it seems that very few admins have been willing to even tell him to knock it off. --CTSWyneken 10:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Aloha
[edit]I have cleaned up the newly revised RSD Criticism to be more NPOV. Thanks again, Shell. Wikifly 20:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 19th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 25 | 19 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You are reciving this message because you have been involved in a dispute with BenH before. Due to some currently ongoing disputes with this user, I invite you to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. —Whomp [T] [C] 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 26th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Message delivered by Ralbot 23:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Would you mind taking another look at this article? First, should it be deleted at all? Second, can it be deleted now? Conscious 14:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Since I don't have a copy of the Blue Book referenced as the source for some of the material, I'm not certain what, if anything is a copyright violation. Maybe ask on the talk page if they're done merging the relevant information to the non-copyvio article? If so, I'd be happy to delete it. Shell babelfish 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Shell, Could you give me any additional suggestions on how to edit the article Moe Jaffe? Thanks. Apace361 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not the best person to ask; I'm much more of a copy-editor myself. I'd suggest talking to some of the people at the feature article pages -- they tend to have great ideas for improvement. Shell babelfish 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Please get rid of the clown.
[edit]"Can't sleep, clown will eat me" has a picture of a [clown] which I find very distasteful on his personal page. It looks like a child molester. Please force him to banish it to Hell from whence it came. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.33.132.19 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note that this IP has been on a string of vandalism recently. If you please, delete this comment from your Talk page. —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 3rd.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 26 | 26 June 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Signpost updated for July 10th
[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 28 | 10 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Response to your mangosteen link message
[edit]Shell,
There's no confusion here, and you may want to take a closer look at both sites you mentioned. Both sites have things to sell. Montoso gardens has an online store (http://www.montosogardens.com/online_store.htm), and Proscitech.com.au is busy plugging their latest book (http://www.proscitech.com.au/trop/details.htm). Their page even has pricing information and a Visa symbol. Interestingly enough, the source I cited from the XanGo website (which doesn't have a shopping cart or sell anything online) was removed. I think this kind of behavior is ridiculous. What's the point of adding content to Wikipedia if people with an agenda will constantly take it down? Also, I think we should be consistent. If we're not going to allow citations to information from commercial websites, then we should do it for ALL commercial websites (not just sites we like or dislike). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jf248 (talk • contribs)
- You know, I've had this come up on other fruit articles with new wave drinks or supplements. I understand the interest in using the site for reference, but because it is really one large advertisment, its not a good source. Find a book or a study on the fruit with the information you'd like to add. The external link policy is clear about using robust, well sourced links and the policy on reliable sources explains why we don't use sources with an agenda, like selling their product etc. If you think the other two links still there aren't appropriate, discuss it on the talk page of the article and find out what the consensus is. Personally, I don't see your argument of shopping carts working for either site - for instance, Discovery.com has a shopping area but their site isn't primarily to sell a product and contains informative, well sourced articles useful as a link in some of our articles. Shell babelfish 21:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
A short Esperanzial update
[edit]Signpost updated for July 17th
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 29 | 17 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Treebark (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 24th
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 30 | 24 July 2006 | |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 31st
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 31 | 31 July 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
attack on page
[edit]Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Social_Dynamics&diff=67448689&oldid=67439044
This user blatantly attacked the real social dynamics page by putting false and damaging information on the page. Please take notice of this and deal with the user accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keepitneutral (talk • contribs) .
- Have you tried contacting the user or using any part of our dispute resolution process? Shell babelfish 15:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I have not. I fixed the false edits the user made. I am simply making you aware of the fact that this user blatantly attacked a wikipedia page with nonsensical edits. If it is a persistent problem I will take further steps but I was alerting you as a moderator that this user is not even attempting to make real edits. Such users should be banned. Keepitneutral 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I saw that you had already fixed them; that's usually the best course of action for vandals. While I am an administrator, I only have the authority that the blocking policy gives me, and if you'll take a look at it, you'll see that we don't ban users except in extrodinary circumstances. I'm happy to help warn vandals, though you are welcome to do that yourself as well, but for persistant problem users, you'll find that our dispute resolution process will be able to give you much more help. Thanks for all of your hard work on the article! Shell babelfish 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 7th
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 32 | 7 August 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)