Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Danger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
 |
Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
 |
Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I already knew that administrators aren't automatically more authoritative than other editors when it comes to content disputes. I was just throwing it out there. I respect everybody's opinion, even if it is in direct opposition to my own. It's just very frustrating because this subject is something that I am well versed in and my college degree (clinical laboratory science) covered such herpetology, especially toxicology which of course included snakes and their venom. I've even had hands on experience with snakes, including some venomous snakes. I have done work and improved several articles about different species of snakes and I put in a lot of work on the black mamba article. I'm still not done yet, but I just wanted to change the name of the article to its scientific name just like the majority of other snake articles. I think it's appropriate and plus when you type in "black mamba" in the search bar it will take you directly to the same article - it will just be titled Dendroaspis polylepis. If you go to the article now, you'll see that at the very top it gives you a list of the "common names". I don't understand what the big deal is and why everybody is opposing the request. However, this isn't over. It's far from over, so we'll wait and see. The admin in my support and I just got Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles members involved. I'm a member myself, so we'll see what happens. Bastian (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that you have education in herpetology. This is not a dispute about herpetology, it's a dispute about editorial practices. At Wikipedia, we use common names for species when such a name exists. The fact that redirects are possible is also not at issue. Danger (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you'll notice that I made an apology to the IP user if you go to the discussion in the black mamba talk page. Look for "Reply to Roger" - it's in bold characters, so you won't miss it. Bastian (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- By "fix it" do you mean take it off or just make another post apologizing? Bastian (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed it. I didn't realize that I hadn't put the 80 at the end. Thanks for letting me know. Bastian (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you are working on IEP clean up, for easy checking and follow up of students and their articles, please see:
IEP student and article lists and how to use them
If you are not working on this clean up, please pass this message along to anyone you know who is. Thanks, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I uploaded this file File:Oxyuranus-scutellatus.jpg and you brought up some copyright issues. Well here is what I found on their site, which is a government website:
- The Queensland Museum retains ownership of all material on this site unless otherwise specifically stated. Permission is granted to copy material owned by the Queensland Museum under the terms of the Copyright Act 1968 (as amended) and in accordance with fair dealing provisions; provided that the content is not altered and the source is acknowledged. (Copyright information can be seen here.
So the picture is safe and can stay. Bastian (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- No. Our license requires any reuse, including alteration of content, so their license is not compatible with ours. --Danger High voltage! 20:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Danger,
I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
(in the open source article)
I didn't put it there, but I left it because I thought it was rather interesting. I did not however look to see whether it was a commercial product, so perhaps you are right. Just wondering why you thought it was spam. Elinruby (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a commercial venture, but non-commercial promotion is still misuse of Wikipedia. The "reference" was just to the main page of the site, which made it look spammy, and the article of the site wasn't linked, so it seemed to be isolated promotion. At any rate, the claim that CC license is especially useful in online music isn't supported by that reference and is an example of original research in that the writer used the example of ccMixter to make an original claim. Danger High voltage! 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I try to hold back, actually...--Mr Fink (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Responding to RFCs
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Good Morning Danger,
I see you have edited my edits to the record of Cue cat.
First, my user name stands for proof reader plus researcher and has been that since 2003 doing freelance projects for childrens school books. All, commenting on the group accepted such. Second, 10 different users were in the comment record on the edits for the cue cat record. Which was posted for weekd before the edits made. Group agreement was reached as to what to be added. I am reversing the record to what the group decided. Thank you for participating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, you must have me confused with someone else, as I've never made any edits to Cue cat. I did remove your name from an administrative category; perhaps you got some sort of notification when I did that. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Danger High voltage! 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am so sorry Danger. What does "remove from an adminstrative category mean? Thank you for any clarification. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
- When The Bushranger put this message on your page, it added you to a category–type of page that lists other pages–that is used to track users who have had objections raised about their name. Since the objections were cleared up, I removed you from that category. Make sense?
- Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tilde (~~~~). Danger High voltage! 19:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- I am so sorry Danger. What does "remove from an adminstrative category mean? Thank you for any clarification. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
Danger, can I borrow your wise eyes? When I started updating the Cue cat record with facts they were deleted repeatedly by a Bbb23, and then a Cullen, well users came to help me and I updated some of the record, and suggested more, BUT - here is the weird point- when moving ahead on gathering the other facts, I find that Bbb23 and Cullen have done the same thing related to ALL the various records related to Cue Cat DigitalCOnvergence and Net Talk live - all inter-related companies and products. Isnt ti weird that TWO different users make the same deletion of records to any records regardinjg this company and supposedly are two different users? I pointed this out before and now have found the same thing in other records by these "two". Could this just be randon? I think it not rally possible? Can you lend your wisdom to this and enlighten me?
here is what I sent to the others posting to the article: "Hey Bushranger, can you look at the Cue cat discussion and see the topic where Kbb23 and Cullen make the same edist to any and all records for digital convergence? Look up net talk live and cue cat. Seems weird to me that two different users make the same edits to different records totally but interconnect to the history of this company???/ ANy suggestions??? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)"
Help? Suggestions? And thanks for the clarification above. Trying to get better at all this ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
- To be clear, are you suggesting that Bbb23 and Cullen328 are the same person or are acting in concert? This is a very serious accusation here; using two accounts is called sockpuppeting and often leads to a permanent block.
- I see no evidence that anything inappropriate is going on. Bbb23 and Cullen are making the same edits because they agree with the action the other has taken. This is very common and completely acceptable. Suggesting without excellent evidence that other editors are using sockpuppets is not acceptable.
- And again, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). You are making Sinebot sad. Danger High voltage! 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I am suggesting is the following: How are TWO different editors- editing different records - different names - different companies, but all have an inter-relation. Meaning ALL the records point back to the top level company DigitalConvergence, and IF you go through and look at the various records, BOTH Bbb23 and Cullen are making deletions to those records - in the same order- in the same log in difference - to completely different records, but BOTH supporting each other? Are you suggesting that two editors editing records universe aparts but relating to different companies is JUST HAPPENSTANCE? The various records are not linked together in wiki, and therefore would have to be looked at independently, and that just happend by accident? Unless you dug into the companies baackgrounds, one would not know the connections, yet these two are making deletions to the same records, in the same manner, and mucking the real record? You are saving thats normal and not weird? Look at the records of edits> DigitalConvergence, CueCat, Net Talk Live! and see no linkes between, but if you reserach the companies, these two make deletions non stop? Come on Danger, this is kinda obvious... Help ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
- Yes, it is normal. They are looking at your edits and that is why they are editing both articles. If you'd like to continue on this vein, you can add your "evidence" to the discussion here.
- And for pete's sake, sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end. For more information about signing, see here. Danger High voltage! 21:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- What I am suggesting is the following: How are TWO different editors- editing different records - different names - different companies, but all have an inter-relation. Meaning ALL the records point back to the top level company DigitalConvergence, and IF you go through and look at the various records, BOTH Bbb23 and Cullen are making deletions to those records - in the same order- in the same log in difference - to completely different records, but BOTH supporting each other? Are you suggesting that two editors editing records universe aparts but relating to different companies is JUST HAPPENSTANCE? The various records are not linked together in wiki, and therefore would have to be looked at independently, and that just happend by accident? Unless you dug into the companies baackgrounds, one would not know the connections, yet these two are making deletions to the same records, in the same manner, and mucking the real record? You are saving thats normal and not weird? Look at the records of edits> DigitalConvergence, CueCat, Net Talk Live! and see no linkes between, but if you reserach the companies, these two make deletions non stop? Come on Danger, this is kinda obvious... Help ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)
Hi Danger. Nice to meet you here. I'm Goldlionist and new here. I am editing an article called the Lucas island model which is a part of the Wiki Education Program for India. I wish to continue with editing Wiki articles in the future but for now am facing a time crunch issue. As you are aware we students don't like to adhere to deadlines particularly. I am unaware of protocol except that I can choose a mentor. Your name sounded cool, so I thought why not just ask you for help straight away. Since you are a science major you would have some idea about going about editing articles based on theoretical models, I presume? Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Goldlionist (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist
- Definitely. Looking over your additions, two things stand out. The first is that you need to connect each idea explicitly with a source by using inline citations. I see that you have a few, but definitely make sure to cover all the claims in your writing. See any featured article, like the one one the main page, for an example of what that will look like. Basically every sentence will have at least one citation. (Sometimes two consecutive sentences will come from the same source, but it's a good idea to add a citation to both so that the attribution isn't lost if someone inserts another sentence in between in the future.)
- Secondly, you should add internal links to relevant terms in your writing, so that a reader who isn't familiar with the topic can easily find more information. But it looks like you're writing is original (which is a big deal) and you are fairly clear.
- Another point is to make sure that your writing is pitched at a level where a reasonably educated person not very familiar with economics can understand it. So perhaps "Robert Lucas eliminated the assumption often made in macroeconomics that people are easily fooled by government policy-makers." (Assuming that that is in the source.) I had to reread that sentence and the next one a couple of times to figure out how they fit together and in the case of econ, I'm an educated layperson. But that's just an example.
- Does this all make sense? Let me know if you have any more questions or need anymore help. Danger High voltage! 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Thanks for looking at the article in such short notice. I was afraid it would take a while for you to reply considering your profile description! I followed your advice (thank you very much indeed) and simplified the assumptions but since the model is one of great importance in macroeconomics and equally tough to understand (I still don't understand it) I will definitely be keeping you busy. Will keep in touch. :) Goldlionist (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist
- Great job on the Assumptions section. I definitely can follow better. Danger High voltage! 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I am almost done with the final bits. Just half an hour to go. One final query.. Could you please elucidate how I can edit the title of the article? It seems when I go to "edit" only the main body can be edited. Thanks, again :) Oh, can I do any final additions (in lieu of coming deadlines) ? I'm extremely sorry for bothering you like this. Your assistance is very much appreciated. You are like a true mentor- person. Tashi Delek! Goldlionist (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Goldlionist
- In order to edit the title of an article you need to move the page (it's a separate software function than editing). There's a tab at the top of the page that should allow you to move it. Take a look at article naming conventions before moving the page. You're probably going to want to move it back to "Lucas island model", but make sure that's what's used in the literature.
- And of course you are welcome to make additions and to continue editing Wikipedia after your deadline. (If anyone gives you grief about it, which is possible given the problems with the India Education Program, just let me know and I'll help you sort it out.) Danger High voltage! 19:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Index of knowledge articles has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Before studying the guidelnes (lazy man) I posted a question wondering if the person in question was worthy of the designation of philanthropist. My query on the articles talk page was deleted with the motivation that it violated several principles, etc.; while admitting the merit of asking for more examples. All my diatribe was my own opinion, no citations. And I was threatened with blocking, etc.
I admitted my mistakes in a lengthy reply, but my invitation to a discussion of the merits of judgements based solely on citations, resulted in no discussion.
I am writing to you since you helped me in August 2011 and said I could contact you if other help was needed.
Now I have done a brief check using the persons name for a tag search within the domain of Wake County School Board activities, including tumultuous recent elections after transfer of power to the Republicans some two years ago, resulting in major changes in policy.
He has been the subject of or been mentioned significantly in four articles, including references to being the principal person named in an article by the national paper Huffington Post, and also by NPR in a newsprogram.
These articles were published in the News and Observer, N&O, established as one of the two leading newspapers in N.C. since 1899, with a subscription list of over 200,000, I believe,---and the subject of an article here in the Wikipedia.
Quite simply, I don't know how I can use these articles, without violating some principle again. Being a defenseless newbie I don't want to violate any principle out of ignorance and be blocked.
My motivation is my disgust with our system which allows those with money to create illusions about themselves
My personal suspicion is that this biographical article is a promotionally oriented. He is a political figure with prominent power and finances which he uses to start think tanks, etc. My personal opinion or suspicions are irrelevant, but the opinions and judgements made in public newspapers should, in my mind, not be ignored when creating a biography. Fact which are verified through verifiable public reknowned sources. It could be that this newspaper has allowed its political position to bias their reporting. But in which case it is carefully based on facts, and references to items in Huffington Post and NPR programs.
In summary, shall I note this as another example of abuse of our systems, including production of self-aggrandizing biographies (IMHO) in Wikipedia; and simply let it go?
Or shall I raise this issue again with these citations as verifiable sources?
Please advise.
BTW does citation like this violate copyrights? Perhaps I should have only made short extracts, but then context would be lost. Are links preferable in these discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealist707 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again. First, yes, that sort of citation is iffy when it comes to copyrights. You should use links instead, which you can format like this [http://yoururl.com Link name] .
- I think you're running in one of the qualities of the wiki system that frustrates many people. Basically, because of our policies of verifiability and no original research, our articles must reflect the information that the media presents. And of course, the powerful have the ability to get a lot of positive press attention, which will thus be noted in our articles. It's just the way it works, I guess.
- Of course, the flip side is that the powerful also tend to attract criticism, like in the sources you point to, which ought also be included. It's a matter of finding a balance that reflects the literature about the subject and is not unduly positive or negative.
- I can't really comment on any changes you'd like to make without seeing them, but feel free to post proposed additions here or on the article talk page and I can look them over and offer guidance. The only other advice I can offer is to keep your posts as short as possible, because the points you make get buried in the words. (I'm not suggesting that this will be easy, but it is very important.) I hope this allayed some of your concerns. If you need any more help on this or anything else, let me know. Danger High voltage! 01:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Would this be an appropriate call for help?
- Proposal: Critical press articles about NN are published at URL1, URL2, URL3 and URL4. I would appreciate a discussion as to whether and how they should affect content of this article.Idealist707 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, those are definitely appropriate. It may be easier if you provide a more concrete starting point for discussion by writing out specific additions you think are called for. It's easy to get bogged down in theoretical discussions when what we really need to focus on is the actual text our readers are seeing. Danger High voltage! 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- A veritable fount of wisdom! Seriously meant. But as usual am too shy to say so in that manner. I understand this to mean to cite short text bits which are relevant and give my reasons, and what eventual conflicts I see with the existing article. The text citations would each be followed by in-line URLs.???
- I might even go so far as to propose a general summary, with in-line references, and thus leave it to the reader to read and make his own judgement. For example. "Post election press comment has been less than favorable at the national and local levels as to NN's influence and the situation which the election results entail. Ref 1, Ref 2 etc.
- This might perhaps require a new heading: "Current Controversy" alternatively one referring to the context of the controversy. "Public reversal and press rebuke following Wake county school board election" or simply "School Board controversy".
- Yes, those are definitely appropriate. It may be easier if you provide a more concrete starting point for discussion by writing out specific additions you think are called for. It's easy to get bogged down in theoretical discussions when what we really need to focus on is the actual text our readers are seeing. Danger High voltage! 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Idealist707 (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Why did you remove User:Essaytask from the Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over category? He or she has only edited to add references to the website bearing his or her name. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- See what I wrote to Danjel; precisely the same thing. Danger High voltage! 19:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Danger,
Thanks heaps for your message on our page. I had actually forgotten to check back our request for a change of username, and it was indeed rejected. I don't mind changing it to Florence Liger, my real name, as long as I can keep a generic work address in there. The notifications are the most important part for me, I just don't want to lose those. The name doesn't matter that much. I'll put in a new user name change request.
Florence Liger, web admin at Te Papa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepapamuseum (talk • contribs) 23:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, you can have any address you want. Cheers. Danger High voltage! 04:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to take up your offer on WT:IEP a couple of days ago to send copies of the IEP OA briefing notes and emails. I presume you can do that by email? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- John, the notes are a graphical pdf file, so I can't send them via the email interface here. Send me a message and then I'll forward things on to you. Danger High voltage! 11:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hisham, I am both a member of the global Wikipedia community (as an administrator and editor) and part of the formal structure of the IEP (as an OA). I am happy to provide feedback with regard to both of these roles. As for any Wikipedia related discussion that does not require privacy, the most appropriate way to contact me is via this talk page. --Danger High voltage! 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
G'day Danger. Regarding your edit (diff) to Plcwiki's talkpage, I'm still concerned. PLC is short for Presbyterian Ladies' College, Perth.
Did I tag it wrongly in the first place or something? I still think there's a clear breach of the username policy here regarding WP:ORGNAME... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh no, you definitely were right to tag, no worries. But since the account hasn't been used for a week, it's somewhat likely to have been abandoned, and that category fills up very quickly. If the account is used again in the future, then blocking is probably appropriate. I usually only block promotional accounts if they keep editing after the notice is placed. Danger High voltage! 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not a problematic edit (diff), but, clearly the notice has been ignored. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- Good job. School SPA's always return. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. To describe my recent life as insane is an understatement that insults insanity. --Danger High voltage! 15:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Danger, I was suggested to sign up as an 'Online Ambassador' for the 'India Education Program' by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. You could see the conversation here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง has directed me to contact you. What is the present position with the programme? Are you taking new ambassadors anymore? Neither of the pages India Education Program/Online Ambassadors/About or India Education Program do talk about new enrollment. How is it that I could enroll? Place an application at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply? Hope you could guide me. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Austria, the short answer to your questions is "I don't know". It's unclear if or when the IEP will continue and in what form and there is, as far as I know, no current move to recruit Online Ambassadors. However, you might contact Hisham, who is the director of the program. Sorry to pass you on, but I really don't have any information to give you. Good luck! Danger High voltage! 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its alright Danger. I understand the situation. I will contact Hisham. Thanks for your consideration. Austria156 (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Please explain this edit. This account’s username unambiguously indicates VVR Housing Pvt Ltd. And in light of the account’s spam-only edits on behalf of the company, the account should be blocked. See WP:SPAMNAME. —teb728 t c 01:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- When an account hasn't edited after the warning, I don't generally block. It's also probable that the account was abandoned, as the template you placed suggests doing, another reason to not bother blocking. Danger High voltage! 02:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Danger, I have been receiving notifications from wikipedia that my account is in some kind of conflict, I tried to fill some information in the userpage:ORCHIDHUA and then I deleted myself, and I think it is true that Orchidhua is not representing a person, so I will like to erase this account Is this possible? I have only made 1 contribution
Thanks, Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by ORCHIDHUA (talk • contribs) 05:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. It is not possible to erase accounts, but you may abandon an account at any time just by not using it anymore. Does this answer your question? --Danger High voltage! 18:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello Danger,
Ok, thanks for your reply,
I guess I will leave that account abandoned as you suggest, thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by ORCHIDHUA (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
You'd think by this stage in my Wikipedia career I'd know the answer for sure, but I don't, so I'll ask: Did you forget to actually indef block this user after noting it on his Talk page? It looks like the original 31 hour block is still in place. Thanks, and I apologize if I've misread things. JohnInDC (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um... yep. Thank you for administrating the admins. :-) (I do that so often it's embarrassing. Thank you for the prodding.) Danger High voltage! 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey Adopter... could you have a quick read of Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Rate_enhancement_strategies and check I'm obeying Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_dick? I'm trying for compromise and slightly worried that I can come over as sarcastic... x Failedwizard (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, your dickcheck is clear. (Sentence I never thought I'd type or say.) It's clear that there was a miscommunication here and perhaps the less said about that, after acknowledging it, the better, because there is always the potential for offense to be taken if one feels like they have made a mistake. But I think you handled this fine. Danger High voltage! 17:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I heard you blocked my friend omworkclub. That person was not doing anything.
STOP BLOCKING PEOPLE PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor6 (talk • contribs)
- If your friend would like to appeal their block, instructions for doing so are on their talk page. Danger High voltage! 08:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on the fact that the user created an article with the exact name in the article title(which was CSDed), I would like to understand your reasoning for removing what I would have thought was an obvious case of a Conflict of Interest Username. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is an obvious COI, but I generally do not block users who have not edited after being told to abandon their account, since it's sort of pointless (and makes clearing out that damn category take three times as long). --Danger High voltage! 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Please delete the redirect at List of things named after Paul Erdős
to make way for moving List of topics named after Paul Erdős to that title.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Check. Danger High voltage! 02:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Please delete the redirect Index of auditing articles, which was made inaccessible by a bot fixing double redirects.
And Index of international trade articles. The Transhumanist 22:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Danger, first off, Happy New Year!
Second, I have to ask you a question. It was obviously not my brightest hour a couple of hours ago on the Aziz Shavershian article. I completely back-flipped in getting to discuss with the other editor about the source - although I was reverting what I thought were controversial unsourced claims; there must have been another way to go by this. I was no innocent by-stander, I should have done something else. I have that feeling, that what you do at the start of the year - you'll be doing at the end - yesterday wasn't the best way to start off the year, that's for sure. Danger, what should have my approach been? Thankyou, -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 00:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Happy New Year! I've caught up with you, sort of. At least I'm in 2012 now. You can tell me if the next 18 or so hours look like good ones or if I should skip them, though. :-)
- Yeah, probably not the best way to go about everything, but not horrible. Leaving a short note on Zuloon's talk page directing them to a discussion of zzyzzcentral.com and then explaining on the talk page why it's not a reliable source and what BLP means for the article would have been the textbook way to handle it, I think, but there's no guarantee that it would have helped. (And you could have gone straight to the talk page, but I've noticed that a lot of new editors don't seem to realize that they exist, especially those who might not have a watchlist. And then frustration for everybody!) Trading volleys in the edit summaries never seems to work out well. You were also getting up against 3RR, but in this case of a recently deceased person, I think that's fine, but definitely something to be aware of. These are all just the opinions of a gnome during their tea, so feel free to disregard or disagree. I'm just pleased that you asked. --Danger High voltage! 01:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it's opinions/gnomes coming from an Administrator or another experienced editor, I'd be crazy to disregard. I don't disagree either; Wikipedia has these policies, not for good looks - but for people to actually follow. I think after this case, it's my cue to closely abide by them. I shall do that. Thank you so much for your assistance and advice, the next time I'm in a situation like this ~ I'll know more clearly what to do, step by step! :) -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please tell me that this is an improper use of WP:ABOUTSELF and somewhat in violation of Bio policies. If it's neither, I'm crazy. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's absolutely ridiculous. If we accepted sourcing like that, in 50 years the article about me will state that I'm a murderer for hire, an alcoholic, a tree, and a pussy cat, based on various obvious jokes I've made on online forums. Danger High voltage! 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Danger! I'm glad I'm not crazy! :) -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a psychiatrist, so I can't make any judgments in that regard. I can say that you're not wrong. :-) Danger High voltage! 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well I may be just a little ;) Anyway, I have written a section in the talk page - does this make sense? If it doesn't or is wrong, could you please fix it? Thank you! -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a psychiatrist, so I can't make any judgments in that regard. I can say that you're not wrong. :-) Danger High voltage! 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Danger! I'm glad I'm not crazy! :) -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's absolutely ridiculous. If we accepted sourcing like that, in 50 years the article about me will state that I'm a murderer for hire, an alcoholic, a tree, and a pussy cat, based on various obvious jokes I've made on online forums. Danger High voltage! 04:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please tell me that this is an improper use of WP:ABOUTSELF and somewhat in violation of Bio policies. If it's neither, I'm crazy. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 04:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it's opinions/gnomes coming from an Administrator or another experienced editor, I'd be crazy to disregard. I don't disagree either; Wikipedia has these policies, not for good looks - but for people to actually follow. I think after this case, it's my cue to closely abide by them. I shall do that. Thank you so much for your assistance and advice, the next time I'm in a situation like this ~ I'll know more clearly what to do, step by step! :) -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've left a comment there. You're pretty much correct. Danger High voltage! 05:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You might want to look at this. Kauffner (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"Aone Beats" is the PERSON'S NAME, pseudonym or not. There's nothing inappropriate about it. Please unblock them now: User talk:AONE BEATS. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right. I apologize for my error. Thank you for pointing it out. Danger High voltage! 12:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you are the blocking sysop of User:MarcRey and as reason you gave making legal threats. Is it possible to provide me some diffs where he had done it? I was quite long away from all projects, and today I saw his message on my talk page. If so, I would like to see if there is any connection between his post on my talk and the block. Thanks in advance. --WizardOfOz (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- PS if possible ping me on meta as I´m not allways around here. Thanks once more. --WizardOfOz (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- All threats were made in this ANI thread. These are the diffs: , . The threats merely triggered the block; his battleground mentality and the disruptive editing resulting from that were also primary factors. Danger High voltage! 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response and clarification, and your time. Now it´s clear for me, so I can forget his message on my talk page. Best regards. --WizardOfOz (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Damn, am I glad you are still around. I need your help again...
...on a rather technical problem...
I'm about to redesign my user page (it's long overdue for an overhaul).
One thing I'd like to include is a summary of my contributions on Wikipedia.
So I've been looking over my contributions, and I discovered that a fair number of my edits are missing!
Around December 26, 2005, the person who had started the Main Page redesign project had not been around for awhile because he had run out of steam. I stepped in and spearheaded that project and brought it to critical mass. But there's inexplicable gaps in my edit history and in the documentation of the project. So much so, that I can't accurately show how I participated in the project.
So far, my investigation has led me along 2 paths:
1) I posted recruiting notices on the Main page's talk page, in its Template:Main Page discussion header. Unfortunately, someone deleted it, rendering the Main Page talk archives historically inaccurate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=32809378
Where the header used to be, all that's left is a redlink. The header was inappropriately speedied, and the admin who did it hasn't been around for months. (That's why I've come to you).
In my contribution summary, I need to provide diffs to edits on that header. (Back then, my user account was User:Go for it!.
Please restore the Main page's talk page header.
Here's a link to what the Main page's talk page looked like around that time on the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20051230062852/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page
I posted the yellow notice box with orange border.
2) One thing we did during the project was take snapshots of the Main page draft at various stages of development. They were displayed in the archive box for the project. Four of those snapshots got deleted:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_1_Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_2_Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_3_Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_4_Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_5_Archive
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Main_Page/Draft/Draft_6_Archive
The admin who deleted them is only around sporadically. Please undelete 1 thru 4 above.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- So, the four archive snapshots are, as far as I can tell, empty. The first one was deleted, but had no meaningful content to begin with. Two through four never seem to have existed, nor has any page with that prefix with any meaningful content been deleted. For the template, could you take it to requests for undeletion? While the deletion itself was out of process, I'm not sure enough about undeletion "policy" (there is no explicit policy, which means if I don't follow the unwritten rules someone will come and give me a bit of abuse for not having followed the thrilling saga of RfU for a few years) to restore almost 350 revisions of an unused template. Danger High voltage! 03:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, "clue". Delicate one, that. DRV, here I come. I haven't been there since I got Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics undeleted back in June 2009. Wish me luck.
- Thank you for looking into it for me. The Transhumanist 05:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Done – see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 2#Template:Main Page discussion header. The Transhumanist 05:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Blast, and it even looks like I directed you to the wrong red-tape storage facility. Someday, when I'm feeling especially masochistic, I'm going to go through and make sure that all our instructions make sense. (For example, the instructions on how to lift an autoblock don't work at all. There's some other trickery that must be done to do it, which I rediscover every time someone gets caught in one of mine.) Maybe even have a users guide to the bureaucracy, like a dichotomous key for official processes. </rant> Danger High voltage! 08:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in copyediting, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by giving a thorough review of the article Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore? MINDS turns 50 this year and getting their article to GA status would be a great way to appreciate their support of intellectually disabled Singaporeans. Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You said on the talk page of this template that you made the requested edit, but it seems you only made the change in the documentation, not the template itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Danger,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'd definitely be interested. I've already added myself to the list
, but I'll send you an email as well. Danger High voltage! 02:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your shared insight to my request- it added nuance to my query. Do I correctly understand your position regarding sourced variations [corrections] on unfortunately expressed but traditional conventional commonplace translations to be that they are eligible for citation in an article but unsourced variations are excluded even in the face of consensus among participating editors to the contrary? Eschoir (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Even if there's local consensus to include it, challenged material must be attributable to reliable sources. That's the heart of verifiability. I can't make any comments about how this applies to whatever discussion you are involved in. Danger High voltage! 01:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points. This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Danger, I've think I've adequately addressed your comments at the GA nomination for Ucu Agustin. Could you give the article another look? (I trimmed roughly 340 characters to reduce verbosity) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Last one done Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great. I've done all the piddly stuff (templates and such). Well done. Danger High voltage! 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
This was done because of the time that has passed, right? I don't disagree, I'd just like to know the reasoning. Thanks, Nolelover Talk·Contribs 00:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Otherwise that category becomes a useless morass. Danger High voltage! 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the category "Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over" from this user? The username clearly violates WP:ORGNAME as the name of a charitable organization, the promotion of which has been this editor's sole purpose for editing Wikipedia? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- The account hasn't been used in over two weeks. It's probable that the editor has simply abandoned the account. I usually don't bother blocking in such situations. Also see the discussion with Nolelover above. Danger High voltage! 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Index of auditing articles - need this redirect deleted to make way for a move.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 03:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies. I was on vacation and forgot to put up a wikibreak notice. Danger High voltage! 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am very confused as to what is going on with my Wikipedia page. There's all this nonsense about my username being changed. And i really have no idea what's going on. Gay4RKO (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're probably fine with your username. I'm not going to make you change it, though I suggest you do. Danger High voltage! 08:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please help me change my username? Gay4RKO (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have the technical capability to change usernames. In order to change your name, follow the instructions here. If you have any questions about the process, let me know. Danger High voltage! 00:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please help me change my username? Gay4RKO (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I read the link you sent me, but it did not show me how to change my username. All it did was give me information on the matter, never once gave me steps in actually changing it. I would love for you to guide me through deleting my account. Gay4RKO (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- 1. Choose a new username. 2. Check here to see if it's taken. 3. If it is not taken, make a request here. 4. If it is taken, pick a different name and start over. (Technically, it's possible to usurp another user's name if they have not edited, but you haven't made enough edits here to make that worthwhile.) These instructions are available at the page I sent you to here. Danger High voltage! 00:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
| Announcements and news for WikiProject Punk music | |
|---|---|
|
February 2012:
Articles
Features | |
Delivered by In actu (Guerillero) on behalf of WikiProject Punk. You are receiving this because your user name is listed in Category:WikiProject Punk music members or on our participants list. If you would like to stop these sorts of updates please remove the userbox from your profile, remove the category from your profile, and/or move your name down to the Inactive/former members section of the participants list. Thanks.
16:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As a previous contributor to the discussion, I wanted to let you know that a motion has been made to close the recent RfC and implement some of the ideas with regards to labeling and usage. Your inputs would be greatly appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Wrapping_this_up. Buffs (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Danger,
Last week I send a request to Wikipedia to modify my username. Today, I recieved an e-mail wich confim that my request have been accepted, but when I try to log-in it doesn't work. And I can still log-ini with the old one.
Can you explain it to me ?
Thanks in advance.
R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.109.53.10 (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I really have no idea. Without your username, I can't even venture a guess. I suggest that you contact a bureaucrat (MBisanz deals with a lot of renames), as they are the ones with the ability to rename accounts. Danger High voltage! 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Learn how to use your tools. You need to know the difference between a user page and a subpage. You should know better by now. Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I apologize; I made an error. Danger High voltage! 18:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
| You showed support for the Punk music Collaboration of the month. This month Bikini Kill was selected to be improved to featured article status. We hope you can contribute. |
Delivered by benzband (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Punk music, 16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Danger! long time no talk ;)
I have decided to take a different approach to this - and instead of edit warring over it and telling someone when it is too late - I have decided to come before you, now.
User:Zuloon has returned, which is great, however, has once again added in the controversial "drug dealer" content to the Aziz Shavershian article that has a Formspring post as a source. This particular post, not only has its authenticity shot, but is contradictory to the multiple reliable news outlet sources provided. Zuloon has also added this in despite our lengthy discussion on the matter.
Danger, I don't want to be in danger of another edit war, so could you please assist me in kindly reminding Zuloon, that all content in the article - especially if controverial, must be accompanied by multiple reliable sources and not just one contradictory Formspring post?
Thank you Danger! -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 05:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The server, nightshade MiszaBot runs off is down -- the bot owner has periodically run the bot manually when he's had a chance. I'll probably switch WQA to cluebot iii when I get a chance ... Nobody Ent 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, good to know. Thanks for the info. Danger High voltage! 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear Danger,
I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. I want to start by thanking you for agreeing to speak with me about your experiences being a Wikipedia administrator. These questions should take no more than 30 minutes to answer. This interview is completely anonymous and that your user name will not be used in any of our reports.
Please feel free to email me your Skype ID at tinuadams@gmail.com to set up the interview date and time.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinu1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
