Wikipedia

User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish/Archive 11

< User talk:Catfish Jim and the soapdish
Latest comment: 9 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 06 August 2014

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

English language Wiki - with French sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Catfish Jim, et al - A question regarding sources and citations.

I've encountered a major edit, written in English, which is based upon French language sources. The editor has provided page numbers, implying that other editors can read French. How is an English-only speaker/reader to verify the source material?

Moreover, would it be appropriate for the editor to include the passage from the source? In French? Or the English translation? What are the WikiRules that apply here? Perhaps you can refer me someone who knows if you are not familiar with the issue. 36hourblock (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi... personally I find no problem in referencing foreign language sources. References are there to support statements rather than as a source of further reading for the general audience. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Leahtwosaints

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Leahtwosaints has been quite ill, but is able to occasionally access a computer again, and has requested that anyone interested contact her. Please see her talk page for more information, and thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talk:Carnoustie/GA2

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Carnoustie article for which you are the main contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding prose, focus, sourcing and several MoS issues; if you're interested, see Talk:Carnoustie/GA2 for more details. I think all the main information is present and sourced, and is presented appropriately; the article does, however, need a stiff copy-edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request for comment

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 04 June 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 11 June 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 June 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 25 June 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Panmure House postcard

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 

Do you have the back of the card to perhaps suggest a date?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Question

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Wasn't there like a board of directors at one point or something, I read somewhere there was I can't remember where but they are a group of people who help outside of Wikipedia via email. I cannot for the life of me remember but I know they were apart of Wikipedia. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, I prefer it if you blocked me for 24 hours for violating the 3RVT as it is not fair that only Ryulong gets blocked, as I did it too and it is only my first offense. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, but you wouldn't contact them for anything like this. Resolution of matters like this is up to Wikipedia admins. I don't think there would be anything to gain from blocking you. As a newcomer, you can be forgiven not being completely aware of the rules. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Was just wondering. It is not only that, I personally worry about what Ryūlóng may do when he gets unblocked and I am actually scared because of how bad this situation got to where I may not sign on anymore. I am that scared of him. I do not want or need this so I don't know what else to do and it would just make me feel better. I may just semi-retire the account and not come on as much anymore. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Also you may want to let it be known on Ryulong's talk page that you suggested that I avoid interacting with him. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:FilBenLeafBoy

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you try to block him? I think he obvious disruptive editing from Ghost Stories (Coldplay album) to User talk:Kww. 183.171.166.243 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a difference of opinion more than anything else. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Remover of Notable Biochemist

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your recent edit on List of biochemists sir. I observed you removed Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye from the list. I can't fault your edit sir but the above named biochemist is a notable Biochemist from Nigeria. Several Secondary reliable source validated his notability. Removing such notable biochemist from my WP:NPOV may seem like a racial discrimination. No WP:COI is associated with my appeal sir. Kindly accept my appeal sir. Thanks (Wikicology (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC))

Racial discrimination? Don't even go there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Apology and request

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pardon me sir, if you find the statement “Racial discrimination” offensive. I pledge my loyalty to you sir. You can confirm my claim on the notable Nigerian biochemist (Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye) using the search engine as a tool for notability verification. Perphaps it might convince you sir. Once again, accept my unresearved apology sir. Thanks(Wikicology (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC))

I already did. There are tens of thousands of biochemists out there... one test of notability is whether he has his own wikipedia article. Does he? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you sir. Perhaps I will work on that at my leisure. But am still busy with WP:BLPs patrol, which require much attention.(Wikicology (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC))

User User:Ryulong edit on my talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I have an issue concerning his behavior in regard to the dispute with User:Bumblebee9999. He removed Bumblebee9999's message from my talk page. The message asked me if I would comment on the other two articles in dispute because I had commented on the third one. That may or may not have been a violation of WP:CANVAS, but I see nothing in the policy allowing someone else to delete the message. Is my interpretation correct? VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@VMS Mosaic: I would not worry about it and I am sorry for dragging you into the drama. Please forgive me for that. I am strongly considering after this last incident on my talk page on not logging on anymore and just abandoning the account as I do not need the drama. And I did not look at the WP:CANVAS when he mentioned it here but looking at it now that you mentioned it I can see where he got the idea as to how I was "canvassing" because he thought I figured because you commented on the AfD for List of Family Guy DVDs that you would weigh in the same on both the Hannah Montana DVDs AfD and MMPR home media releases AfD (I am shorthanding cause I want to get off here quickly) and to him I was if I read the article correctly he felt I was WP:Votestacking when I know you could have easily sided with him. But I do not (and this is my personal opinion so do not count it for anything) see anywhere specific that says he had the right to call it out or remove the message from your talk page, from what I am seeing he was suppose to give me a notification on it and go about his merry way but he instead took matters into his own hands, again this is my personal opinion so do not count it for anything. As I said at the beginning I would really not worry about it and I am sorry for getting you drug into this. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bumblebee9999:. Do not worry about it. As opposed to some of the blood letting and knock-down, drag-out fights I've been in on Wikipedia, I am definitely not losing sleep over this one. Unfortunately, this stuff/drama comes with being an editor as much as we wish it was not so. Don't let it stop you from editing. If an issue becomes too much to deal with, move on to something else which needs editing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
It's slightly tricky, this one. No, you're not supposed to refactor other peoples' posts on talk pages (pay attention there Bumblebee!) unless it's an uncontroversial edit. In this case, Ryulong may have thought removing it was uncontroversial as there was some WP:Canvassing going on (albeit without Bumblebee understanding that it was frowned upon). Clearly it wasn't uncontroversial. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim:@VMS Mosaic:@NeilN:@SpinningSpark:@ChrisGualtieri: Thank you guys for everything, all the advice, etc. I do appreciate it. I popped on here cause I was getting notifications in my email so I popped on to put a stop to them and I figured it would be rude of me not to comment back to all of you while I am on for one final time. I have looked at everything and I have read and took everything in from all of you and I know a few things that in future I did not know and now do. As for User:Ryulong, from what I have seen I will probably not be the last editor he chases off. You may want to keep a strong eye on him cause I looked at his block log after Chris mentioned it and I see what Chris was getting at above. So that is my words of advice to all of you is keep an eye on Ryulong because there are going to be other editors like myself he is going to chase off because he does not handle situations right at all. I think it is very sad that editors like Chris avoid posting on Japanese and A&M pages because of users like Ryulong and the drama they get. I think that is sad and very wrong. I thought Wikipedia was open for anyone to edit anywhere they want without being reprimanded or getting a lot of chaos? But to me this is just a website and personally the drama is not worth being an editor on this site. I find it very said Ryulong was able to make another account just to come and harass me on like he did on my talk page because he wants to blame me for his block when he did wrong first and try to cover it up and I do not see that he has learned from his actions as I have looked at everything and I see that he has continued to argue with other users who disagree with him and pretty much dogs them. To me he is not a user worth responding to as he only wants his way and I have read some of the policies and from what I have read and seen it is surprising he has not had an indefinite block from editing because he seems to break and use every WP to get his way and keep up his horrible behaviour towards anyone who he gets into a dispute with. Good luck to all of you and God bless and again thank you for all the words of advice and I will take them to heart. Thanks for everything. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Before this spirals again, Ryulong did not create a new account to post to your talk page. That was some troll, impersonating Ryulong, wishing to stir up more drama. --NeilN talk to me 20:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This is correct. I did not make a new account. It was someone else who was trying to get my goat. And I am an established editor, former administrator, and prolific content contributor who just thought that your article wasn't up to snuff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is plenty of evidence that the Carl's were part of the Picts tribe. Why deny it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carltf (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why did you unblock Ryulong?

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I was edit conflicted twice when making this post, but you should review this an re-weigh it. Ryulong has been told time and time again that his behavior is unacceptable. Ryulong's behavior is a long-standing issue, but he was recently blocked for it. Particularly of note is the block on April 16th. Though the block for "Continuing to revert another user's talk page after being advised not to and that a block would follow" on Feb 4th is telling because right after that block he had to be blocked AGAIN on the 6th for continued disruptive editing! And those blocks followed barely a month after a two-week block for mass violation of 9RR and over 100 reverts of another editor Ryulong was in a conflict with. Ryulong was also aware that his behavior was problematic on July 18th with the last block. Harmony944 is not a sock - so Ryulong's unblock to fight a vandal may be misinterpreted - but he is clearly aware of the correct procedure for dealing with these disputes. More concerning is that Ryulong was being deliberately disruptive in trying to delete a page that the user had JUST created and decided to also put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hannah Montana DVDs in response. A clear WP:POINTY violation and make more clear the retaliatory and disruptive editing. Ryulong's classic "blank and redirect" approach less than an hour after its creation followed by trying to speedy the image they added is also in poor taste. When the revert was undone, Ryulong sent the page to AFD it less than 10 minutes after it was restored and proceeded to make a huge fuss over it, rather than even discuss with the page's creator. These violations, coupled with the problematic history, means that Ryulong will likely continue to provoke the situation and continue in the disruption within hours of his unblock. Also, Ryulong only has access to Twinkle because it cannot be stripped from him, but its pretty clear that Ryulong uses it to throw his weight around and bully editors who are actually trying to improve the project. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. I will be monitoring the situation. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's all I can ask. I've been avoiding the A&M and Japanese culture sections for quite some time because of the petty conflicts which pop up. Its much more quiet on architectural and historic places, parks, diners, food and such. Awesome user name by the way! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What is your problem Chris? WP:BLAR isn't policy. And these "hundreds of reverts" were to stop someone who was subsequently banned for the edits that I was reverting in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are monitoring the situation, you may wish to have a look at Ryulong's Afd nomination here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David W. Horvitz and my comment thereon. --Edcolins (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dandaleith stone

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for creating an article on the Dandaleith stone. This looks like a very significant discovery, and it will be interesting to see if anything else is found in the area. Curious that they are not revealing the location beyond saying "near Craigellachie", yet anyone with an OS map can see exactly where Dandaleith is. Still, mapreading would count as original research, I suppose! --Deskford (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catfish_Jim_and_the_soapdish/Archive_11&oldid=1079733919"