Outhwest

The Room

Hi, as a final step before removing dead links, you could consider searching via archive.org. It doesn't work all the time, but often enough to try. Jarkeld (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

You did a little work on (around, technically) a section that was subsequently removed as "too negative"+- but which I've deemed to be probable vandalism. You may be interested in where I've taken it -- feeling my way a bit but wanting to respond as appropriately and forcefully as I could, given my conclusion. I addressed it here, here, here and finally here. From my point of view it's a good opportunity to learn (still just hoping I'm correct and hoping I haven't overdone anything if I'm wrong) how to address such a difficult situation. Any comments welcome; I'll check back here. And I'm not being critical of your work in any way. It was perfectly appropriate. I did decide to make a more aggressive challenge even than the editor who removed the piece. I guess I would want to embolden you to do the same if you have the feeling but that's down the road. For now I'm just trying to see if I'm on the right track. Cheers and thanks. Swliv (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism, again

Without re-assessing my first comment, above, I've now found another more recent edit you made which served no apparent purpose. As such I'd have to say it, also, is suspected vandalism. The edit was here. I've reverted it. I hope you can work toward constructive editing. If you have any questions or comments I hope you'll make them to my talk page. If you don't make constructive edits your rights to edit will be proscribed. Swliv (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I've now reverted the one other edit you made since Dec. 1 here, but it seemed to have been made in good faith, just not in line with Wiki policy. All of the above has only been "suspected". I encourage you to come for help, if you need it, or keep working on it. Wiki needs editors; it however also needs to develop and observe good editing practices. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand the Hanlon issue but let's be clear on the latter two: for UDP, I followed links in a computer science context that ended up there. It is a non-obtrusive edit that would likely help at least one user; if you disagree, fine, but you have no basis for calling this vandalism. On the College Bowl site, you'll have to be more specific about what was not in line with Wiki policy, because I am affiliated with that organization and that was useful information for people looking to learn about us. Your scare-quoted suspected is as hilarious as it is offensive. I do not believe your two reversions to be constructive edits and would be willing to make a case for your rights to edit to be proscribed. Unsigned edit 11:14, 14 March 2013‎ by Outhwest (talk)‎

Good to raise you. No harm meant and one straight mistake on my part uncovered and now corrected. (I added UDP to the redirect; I think there may be a better way to handle a "multiple users of common acronym" redirect but I'm not coming up with it right now.) As to the College Bowl I'm glad to repeat my Edit summary: "... other wiki sites don't qualify as good sources WP:SPS; good faith edit assumed per WP:FAITH; see User talk"; which is echoed above. My concluding comment about "suspected" (no "scare" involved, just quoting myself to be clear) did not apply to the good faith CBowl edit but could maybe have been seen to; I'm sorry you saw it that way. If you'll follow the policy links I think you'll see that other wiki sites which are also user edited are not considered good third-party sources for Wikipedia. That's how I've "been taught". That's why I removed it while emphasizing "good faith" assumption. Can't you find something in the campus or local paper web site as a source, for example? It doesn't even have to be on line as long as a solid footnote is created with ref. to the paper source; but a live link is always preferable to me.

My concluding comment on "suspected" was in fact trying to reflect my surprise at finding a good faith edit; literally all I had was suspicion, started in the earlier (Hanlon, I accept; I haven't looked back at it) round; the suspicion built when I misread (/or/ contributed to my misreading of? possibly) the acronym element; then I was hit with a good faith error and had to wonder about my suspicion. I hope you can reread what I wrote in this light and accept my good faith. Unfortunately many Wiki vandals do not show positive evolution and, believe me, I have tried with a good many. Which is not to assume, now, anything negative or vandalizing about any of your efforts. It's just how I got going and how I work. My misstep(s) here I will take to heart and, from them, work to improve. (We have to tweak our algorithms all the time, right?)

So. Two out of three+-? I think you're on a good start but learning, is my reading. Another small one: When posting on Talk pages like this, "sign" the post with four tildes ~~~~ and your User name and date et al will automatically print. I've ginned up a signature for your bit above, per fairly regular protocol.

Before coming upon yours here tonight I saw the "see User talk" there; I should have linked that to this page here; as it stood it was non-specific and sort of dangled (confused me, then). On we go; always seeking improvement.

Again, hope we can move forward without rancor. Sorry my tone and effort bugged you. (I just saw that you were parroting the "proscribed" language back at me. Pfew. Yeh. That's "escalating" language when I was suspecting maybe "nobody listening". Got my attention.) Cheers. Swliv (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)