User talk:Cgt/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
|
CVUA
 |
Hello, Cgt/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Your rollback request
Hi Cgtdk, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 07:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki !
|
Hello, Cgtdk, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and DBigXray 08:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
IRC cloak request
IRC cloak request
newspaperarchive
I've never use this to talk to anyone so I hope I'm doing it right. Recently you removed an edit I did on newspaperarchive.com telling me it could be libelous and created a userpage for me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adyingpoet Link I used the word scam which is what probably blinked software. However libelous it may have sounded, it was a true and honest statement about the company. I can support my edit with corroborating links from multiple sources and links. Here are just a few. Most of the sites below have multiple complaints.
[http://scamhunter.com/online-scams/newspaperarchive-com-a-total-ripoff/ Link [http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/003889.php Link [http://www.ripoffreport.com/directory/newspaperarchive-com.aspx Link [http://www.scambook.com/company/view/48624/Newspaperarchive Link [http://www.scambook.com/report/view/97574/NewspaperArchivecom-Complaint-97574-for-$119.88 Link [http://www.scambook.com/report/view/104724/Newspaperarchive-Complaint-104724-for-$96.88 Link [http://www.paperclip.org.uk/newspaperarchive.com%20scam.htm Link [http://newspaper-archive.pissedconsumer.com/company-charged-vastly-more-than-expected-for-one-time-search-20111125277183.html Link
They also have hundreds of non resolved complaints with the Better Business Bureau.
My edit was to warn people so they don't get ripped off from the company. Is there any way to edit their page showing this company for what they are so more people don't get ripped off? Isn't Wikipedia interested in the truth? By allowing them to promote their company with out also showing the truth, you are basically making them appear to be reputable. Since they have a public page it should include both the good and the bad of the company? Shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyingpoet (talk • contribs) 12:25, 11 September 2012
- Hello Adyingpoet. The reason I removed your edit was because you added a very serious accusation to the article without any proof. Since it seems that you do in fact have proof of these accusations, I would recommend that you add a "Controversy" section to the article and write about it there, but remember to cite sources, otherwise it will probably be removed again. Regards, Cgtdk (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
HuH?
Can you please explain why you got involved and reverted my undoing? Are you familiar with the problem and/or are you aware that the "plot" which I deleted is a COPYVIO, copyright violation? I don't understand why you would revert this! Instead-of the edit-war, why doesn't someone just FIX IT! so that it is not in violation? I have no choice but to delete it again because it IS a COPYVIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.29.229 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
PERM
Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but WP:PERM being an essentially admin area, it rarely, if ever, requires comments from non-admins, especially from users like yourself who are still learning the ropes. If ever you need help or advice with anything, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was disruptive. I was just trying to help. --Cgtdk (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Not really disruptive, but just unnecessary. Admins have all the tools they need to do the required research. Also, this is the English Wikipedia and where sensitivities often run high here, a great degree of tact and diplomacy is required in all comments anywhere :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter
Hey Cgt. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Page Curation newsletter - closing up!
Hey all :).
We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.
However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.
Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
November 2012
Hello, I'm Xtcy3. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Patrick Star, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, --Ecstacy Xtcy3 02:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Har en barnstar!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| I noticed that you've done a fair amount of vandalism reversion lately. Have a barnstar for your efforts! Sophus Bie (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. It's nice to know that one's work is appreciated. :) --Cgtdk (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Have a great afternoon! Sophus Bie (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a newsletter
Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.
In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Message from 24.74.78.153
Hey I'm the one who edited the new sincerity page. my edit wasn't exactly encyclopedic, but the message was true, i'm critical of the older male my little pony fans as a fandom, and especially as an example of new sincerity, bronies reek of self-aggrandizing irony. i'm not sure i'm the right person to remove the section from the page, but i don't think it should be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.78.153 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Your contribution was obviously vandalism and certainly irrelevant. However, if you do not think the section should be included in the article—and you wish to contribute seriously—feel free to voice your opinion by writing on the article's talk page. --Cgtdk (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- i'm just gonna say sure, vandalism. but not irrelevant. if bronies aren't an example of new sincerity it's not irrelevant for me to point that out. rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.78.153 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations from STiki!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
|
|
|
Congratulations, Cgtdk! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC) |
proposed deletion of Elaine Turner...
Hi, Thanks for the feedback. I've added citations. Are these acceptable and how to I remove the "proposed deletion" messages from the Elaine Turner page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkrieger22 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Message
sorry but how do I leave a note on your talk page? Myinput2 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is this where I'm supposed to leave a note? Sorry I'm very new to this... steep learning curve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myinput2 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are not supposed to create a new section for every new message. Think of sections on talk pages like threads in a forum. It's alright to be new, and yes, Wikipedia's learning curve is steep, but once you get it it's easy. Remember to sign your comments by writing ~~~~~ after your message. I have moved your new message into the existing “Message” section. --Cgtdk (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The website is fact-based and done from a neutral point of view. It is intended to inform rather than promote. People will be looking for more info on him. Myinput2 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- That may very well be, but the article you wrote is very promotional. Try looking at other biographies to get an idea of what an encyclopedic biography should look like. --Cgtdk (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
How do I make it appear more neutral? The obvious is adding something negative about him... so do I have to go in search for something negative to write about him? Another person who will be running for election has a site all about himself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Pimm and the big difference is there is some negative as well. So if I find something negative will it be okay and is that the only way? Myinput2 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Or after looking at others, is it just that I have to format things differently? Myinput2 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that there has to be something negative, it's the way the article is written. The big difference between Pat Pimm and your article, is not that there is something negative in Pat Pimm's article, it's that your article is clearly written as an advertisement. If you cannot see that your article is promotional, perhaps it would be best to wait for someone else to write the article—if he is notable at all, that is. --01:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
maybe it's best if it's removed for now and then I'll rethink things, rework things, or get someone else to write something up. The learning curve seems a little steep right now anyway... a tad discouraging. I think I have to read through a bunch more of the tutorials first anyway. Myinput2 (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC) I reread it... don't know what I was thinking. I see your point. I removed the sales pitch and left the facts only. Myinput2 (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hand-coding
Hey all :).
I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).
You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyes
wikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).
If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Julian Porteous
Gosh! That was quick. Give me a chance, Cgtdk!
This article will hopefully have material gathered from a variety of sources, together with references correctly cited, and an image which I have permission to use. Please be patient - I am an experience Wikipedia contributor and this is the latest of a whole series of biographies (see my User page).
Best wishes, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Quick? The article had been published for almost two hours. --Cgtdk (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- The point I was really making was it normally takes (even the best editor) a matter of some days to get a half-decent article knocked into shape, to include material from a variety of sources – together with correct punctuation, style, links, citations, etc, etc. I think you a little bit premature in judging an article from the very first edit, before anyone (including myself) had had a chance to do anything to improve the article. Regards, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's not like I proposed it speedily deleted. You have a whole week to insert just one single source. That shouldn't be an issue. --Cgtdk (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it won't be a problem. But perhaps you can just clarify for me – has policy changed in the last year or so? I've begun many articles (nmainly biographies), but not in the last year or so. I've been on an extended Wikibreak, I suppose! Sounds like the policy re use of references and citations has been tightened up in that time. Possibly with good reason. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- All biographies of living people must be sourced. Such biographies created after March 18 2010 can be proposed deleted via PROD BLP. See: Wikipedia:PROD BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgtdk (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 December 2012
- No, it won't be a problem. But perhaps you can just clarify for me – has policy changed in the last year or so? I've begun many articles (nmainly biographies), but not in the last year or so. I've been on an extended Wikibreak, I suppose! Sounds like the policy re use of references and citations has been tightened up in that time. Possibly with good reason. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it's not like I proposed it speedily deleted. You have a whole week to insert just one single source. That shouldn't be an issue. --Cgtdk (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- The point I was really making was it normally takes (even the best editor) a matter of some days to get a half-decent article knocked into shape, to include material from a variety of sources – together with correct punctuation, style, links, citations, etc, etc. I think you a little bit premature in judging an article from the very first edit, before anyone (including myself) had had a chance to do anything to improve the article. Regards, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |