User talk:Darkwind/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

CrossFit copyvio

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

In which myself and the other discussion participant interact badly with one another

I think that if you had actually read the article, you would have done what I did, do Google timed searches, and then you would have seen that most of the badly written flowery praise phrases are, indeed, copied from CrossFit's material. I hope that material like this, badly written fluffery, would be a signal to editors that something is wrong with the article. Encouraging CrossFit to keep sending sock puppets to Wikipedia to maintain this article in its current copyright violating, badly written state is not of benefit to Wikipedia readers, or, really, to CrossFit. The company is notable enough to have a well-written, properly sourced article; however, as long as their sock army of single purpose accounts is encouraged to maintain their copyrighted press releases praising the company in ridiculous language, this article will not benefit Wikipedia readers or anyone. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)) Really? If you found places where the article's wording was copied from, why didn't you link to them? The page you provided was only the source of one paragraph of the article, as I previously pointed out on the article's talk page. If you have more URLs for me (or another admin or copyright clerk) to look at, I/we would be happy to do so. If you don't have URLs where the wording was copied from, you should not be using the CP process. From WP:CPI: If you suspect that a page contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you can't be sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the page's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the page version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.) This means the onus of proving a copyright violation rests with the person reporting the violation, not the admin or clerk who handles the report. I used a perfectly good automated tool to analyze the article after I removed the violating paragraph, and no further violations were found. No, the article isn't very good, but I have no reason to suspect it is materially in violation of copyright. Furthermore, the instructions at WP:CPI ask you to try removing the violating material yourself, before adding the article to the extensive backlog at WP:CP. I don't see any evidence that you've tried rewriting even a portion of the article before you pushed the problem off on the copyright clerks and admins at CP. Also, you do realize you put the material that actually was a copyright violation *back in* when you reverted me, don't you? This is approaching WP:POINTy behavior. If you just think it's too promotional and you haven't actually got any other sources to prove a copyright violation, then nominate it for deletion, clean it up yourself, or leave it tagged with {{advert}} and let someone else get to it. Do not misuse a process like WP:CP to effectively hide the article. CP has a 3 MONTH backlog, and adding to that backlog because you don't like the writing of the article is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst. —Darkwind (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Also, I see that Nyttend, a much more experienced admin than I am, also noted on your talk page today that they did not find any significant copyright violations in the article either. I expect, if I weren't already involved in the situation, I would be warning you for disruptive editing about now. TWO DIFFERENT ADMINS have told you the article is clean of copyvio, and you still restored the tag. I think you've made your POINT. —Darkwind (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC) In other words, blah blah blah blah blah, admins know better than regular editors? I did rewrite it, you know. Most of the cruft is taken from youtube videos, and I pointed that out on the talk page. Scold scold scold scold scold. The sources are on the article talk page. It's copied from articles and youtube videos. You want to go ahead and source plant families, while I spend hours and hours listing all of the pages the article is copied from? Probably not. The article is a copyvio. Your software is not very good. My friend ran it through her educational plagiarism detection software and it got a higher score than the last student she flunked. I ran multiple sentences through Google, sourcing prior to the first appearance of the phrase in the article, and the article stinks with copied crap from press releases. This crap does not belong on Wikipedia. It is a copyright violation. No one misused the copyvio process, but the sock puppet SPA copyright violating soapboxing CrossFit corporation. The article has been rewritten. Point point point point point. You removed a single paragraph and left copied phrase after phrase after phrase, and now you're saying I'm pointy for restoring the copyvio when one exists? Hardly. I recently found a plant article with an article title misspelled for years and years on Wikipedia. My skills are better spent correcting plant article errors, where this single misspelling was copied repeatedly through Wikipedia mirrors for 7 years creating 1000s of google hits. I rewrote this article without the fancruft. You chose not to bother with the rewrite. Whatever time you waste, it's yours. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)) You misunderstand. I'm not trying to say admins are better, just more experienced (broadly speaking). I could probably have used the phrase "more experienced editor" and gotten the same point across. I'm certainly not saying that *I'm* any better at any particular thing than you are, and I'm sorry if it came across that way, but I'm definitely more experienced. As for your behavior, you are overreacting to this entire situation. That much is clear. You get angry at me for calling the copyvio resolved when you hadn't provided any additional evidence beyond the one link? Now you've provided some additional links on the article talk page, which is great, but instead of saying "oh, here, have some more evidence", you go off on some kind of disjointed rant about corporations and sock puppetry. Please take a moment to step back and breathe. You'll notice I didn't respond the instant you posted this; I took some time to think about what I was saying and write a careful, rational response. I have even apologized for the way I sounded. I think you could benefit from trying the same thing. You have now provided several additional links, which may be helpful, and someone will review them shortly. It might even be me, although I think I'm more ready to just wash my hands of this whole thing and let the people at ANI take care of it. Also, what rewrite? You have made three edits to the article: first, you tagged it with {{advert}}, then you blanked the whole page when inserting the copyvio notice, then you put back the copyvio notice I removed. Which of those is a rewrite that "[I] chose not to bother with"? Did you put a draft somewhere in your userspace or a sandbox that I'm not seeing? Blanking the page is not "rewr[iting] this article without the fancruft". At any rate, I'm done with this whole thing, so unless you have a meaningful answer to the previous paragraph, such as the location of a rewrite of the article that should be considered for implementation, I won't have any further responses for you on this matter. —Darkwind (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Did you know that copyvio notices come with a link to a rewrite temp page? [[1]] And, no, admins are not broadly more experienced than other editors, so stop going there. This might as well be your last response, since you can't be bothered with anything I've written, and you don't appear to know anything about rewriting copyvio. Go ahead, you add sources to plant family articles, and get rid of things like 7 year old misspellings. Because, after all, nothing is more important than keeping a good relationship with a single purpose account who pleads for a copyvio to be kept. Also, you might want to check the images in the articles; they have a unique problem that I'm sure isn't all that common among Wikipedia images. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Please note that I wasn't intending to say that the article was free of copyright infringements — I suspect that it did have some. Rather, I'm guessing that AfadsBad provided the wrong URL as the source page; that's why I asked that he return and retag it. Meanwhile, AfadsBad observed that the template's documentation instructs users to replace the page's entire contents with the copyvio template, and that's completely correct: Template:Copyvio/doc says If a text page is a likely copyright violation, replace the text with the following and provides a link to the template. I don't know how someone decided that this was a good idea, but AfadsBad was not the person at fault: it's whoever added the "replace" bit to the documentation. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your change. Please see Template talk:Copyviocore#Manual blanking versus auto-hiding and Template talk:Copyviocore#auto-hiding of text (July 2010). Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

• Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

• WikiProject report: Australian Roads

• Featured content: Under the sea

• News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

• In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Native American boarding schools move

Hey—I judge the consensus at Talk:American Indian boarding schools/Archives/2023/June#Requested move to be much closer to "no consensus" than in favor. Why did you go ahead with the move even with the given opposition?  czar ♔ 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I read the various comments as follows:

Opposing any move at all	Opposing "Indian" by itself	Support "American Indian"
Uyvsdi Til Eulenspiegel	In ictu oculi bd2412 BDD (later did not object to "American Indian") SmokeyJoe (later did not object to "American Indian")	AjaxSmack 168.12.253.66 Necrothesp Cúchullain

There were only two people completely opposed to any move at all, from their stated arguments. Four of the other opposes were solely based on confusion with India. Two of those did not comment about "American Indian" at all (Iio and bd2412). A further two of the opposes specifically did not object to "American Indian" (BDD and SmokeyJoe).

Given the amount of support for "American Indian", if one assumes that as the consensus title, then Iio and bd2412's arguments no longer apply, and the remainder comes down to only two firm opposes vs. six for support or "no objection". If you see it differently, please let me know. —Darkwind (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That table is tricky and I don't exactly agree with the middle column's breakdown (which I'd split half for and half against). Anyway, I don't see a clear consensus. I don't even necessarily disagree with the move—this phrase is used most and would be its common name, just making good on procedure and I wanted to check in with you. Thanks for taking the time to explain.  czar ♔ 01:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• While not a consensus, I see a rough consensus. See Wikipedia:Rough consensus. It was a good close.

  The question of "Native American" vs "American Indian" may not have been fully thrashed out. It would be reasonable to initiate a new discussion on moving back, if good reasons could be presented. In the event of a no consensus outcome, the original title should prevail by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's how that rough consensus proposed guideline works, which wouldn't read as a simple up/down but as the general feeling—in this case, mixed. I don't think the consensus, even if rough, was to overturn the title. czar ♔ 14:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I really think you need to revisit your "decision" on how votes or counted. If not this can be appealed. There was NO PROPOSAL to make the move you made. When people vote OPPOSE it means the current title NATIVE AMERICAN is best, and keep it at that title. They rejected the proposal INDIAN, some indeed pointed out that AMERICAN INDIAN would at least be better than INDIAN but that in no way shape or form means they feel it is better than NATIVE AMERICAN or that they are giving you a "green light" to go ahead and move the article from NATIVE AMERICAN to AMERICAN INDIAN. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "no proposal" to move the article to "American Indian...". Several people suggested "American Indian..." as a destination for the move [2]. The outcome of a discussion does not have to have been proposed by the original nominator to be a valid decision -- this happens at AfD all the time when it ends up being a merge or incubate as opposed to delete.

I've already explained my reasoning above. In the future, if you think the closure of a requested move was in error, please file at Wikipedia:Move review instead of moving the page back, especially if you think it was a contentious discussion. I'm not going to move war over this, but I'll open the MR myself. —Darkwind (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the close, and Til was way out of line by move warring. Darkwind, you should move the page back pending the outcome of the move review, which should have been Til's next course of action.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifa World cup qualification

Thanks for fast action in protecting the page.188.67.255.230 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong notice

202.43.188.10 (talk) I think you send wrong notice, I do not change anything in your mentioned article regarding 'apartments'. —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone using your IP address made this change to the article The Apartment - Design Your Destiny about two hours ago. If more than one computer connects to the Internet using this IP address, it is possible someone else made the unhelpful edit. To avoid future confusion, you can always register for an account. —Darkwind (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

declined submission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eightysix (Andras Vleminckx)

I've deleted almost everything out of my article and kept it to very simple facts, being a record producer and the referenced credits list. I personally think that having reached a #1 billboard is notable, also the artists I've worked with are definitely notable. Please let me know if everything is okay now? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrasvleminckx (talk • contribs) 21:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Plan B, Obfuscation

Hi, The task of drafting ANI for EW is straightforward when the D in BRD is simply non-existent. What is the most efficient way to deal with that form of disruption when one gives the appearance of engaging in "D" without really articulating an argument? It's a house of mirrors over at Sci consensus. Questions are repackaged and fired back at the asker; the IP engages in bad behaviors perversely just accuses us of doing those behaviors; words that look like reasons are packaged and delivered but are cognitively ungrippable.

Messy. Prepping good ANIs for this form of disruption is not fun and very time consuming.

Advice how to deal? DNFT comes to mind but tell that to everyone. There's also the approach of non-engaging and going for ANI when the IP again restores their text, but thjat will explode into messy he-said she-said as to whether (A) there was discussion at all, (B) if it meant anything, (C) if it was enough..... yawn. Any admins who stay awake for the show are likely to tell us all to stuff it, or worse, likely to misunderstand the he-said/she-said with result being that IP gets to carve notch in gun handle when some undeserving third party ed is also take down at ANI as collateral damage.

Help? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

For trying to get the article content issue straightened out, DRN can be a good place to start, because an uninvolved editor can informally mediate a discussion there about the article content, and the volunteer mediator generally won't tolerate any misdirection crap. If you can tell the specific subject of the disagreement (e.g. reliability of sources, or original research, or a fringe theory), there are subject-specific noticeboards that can help sort out the matter. If the editor continues to edit in violation of a consensus formed at DRN or an editing noticeboard, they can be blocked for disruptive editing. Formal mediation is also an eventual option.

If the other editor refuses to participate in any kind of content dispute resolution and continues to edit tendentiously, you may need more help with their conduct vs. the article's content -- often that takes place at ANI, but if the edit warring is fairly cut-and-dry you can also use ANEW. You could also open an RFCU instead of posting to ANI, but there are prerequisites. You probably know the last step in a conduct dispute - arbitration.

I'll also take a look at the talk page and article history if I have time today, otherwise it'll be tomorrow. If there's anything egregious going on, there may be something I can do immediately -- but it's more likely to need a wider discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit war at Fractional Reserve Banking

Hello Darkwind. FYI, we now have an IP on Fractional reserve banking who is continuing the edit warring initiated by User:Riessgo, whom you blocked recently. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Given that I definitely had autoblock enabled when I blocked Reissgo (which is supposed to prevent blocked editors from logging out of their account to edit anonymously), I doubt the IP address is him, although I can understand why it would look suspicious. The content the anonymous editor is warring over is different from that which Reissgo was, also. However, this can't continue, so I have temporarily protected the article. —Darkwind (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

• News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin

• Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri

• WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology

• Featured content: That's a lot of pictures

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes

• Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Block notices

Hi, I was just wondering, is it normal to replace the entire content of a talk page with an indef block notice, rather than adding the notice to the start or end? Are there guidelines on when to replace and when not to? Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject User Warnings suggests that it's best to replace talk page contents for indefinitely blocked users, which is why TW offers the option. I don't suppose it makes a material difference one way or the other. —Darkwind (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thx ^_^ Benboy00 (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

My block

First of all I want to make clear that I understand your decision is based on your subjective view and that you did only what you considered is right, after all you are a moderator and I am just another user on Wikipedia. However I would appreciate if you could elaborate and explain something to me. First, you blocked me for alleged edit-warring when truth to be said I didn't really break any rules (technically) although I understand you do not really need to go over three edits to be sanctioned. However, the thing is the issue on Boro Primorac was already settled when you blocked me, I never broke 3RR (unlike the other user in question) and I was never ever engaged in any edit-war since my presence on Wikipedia 2 years ago. So I am wondering is there any way I can ask for a second opinion from either you or someone else because you warning (and blocking) me on something I believe I was not guilty of and what was quite harsh. Also the reason why I did not appeal the block is because it was relatively short period so I decided not to since there was great possibility it would expire anyway until it gets addressed. So is there any way to appeal your warning and especially you adding me on on this list. Especially as it is clear now that I was completely in the right when reverting (back to the original version) the said user who was the actual initiator of the conflict and who broke the 3RR. Regards.Shokatz (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't think you did anything wrong is concerning to me; edit warring is disruptive to the project and is never allowed regardless of the subject matter. The fact that you were repeatedly restoring content related to a sensitive topic area (a person's Balkans-related ethnicity) just makes it worse. Please note the following sentence from the policy on edit warring:

'Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version [of an article] is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".'

An editor is never "completely in the right" when repeatedly restoring a previous version of an article over the objections (or edits) of another editor.

Further, you actually did violate 3RR with these four edits: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Just because the fourth edit was different doesn't mean it isn't a revert since it still undid the work of another editor. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Doesn't matter that you added a reference, it still broke 3RR.

Finally, second opinion on what? Your block has already expired, and it's perfectly valid to warn you about the Balkans-related rules when you've been argumentative in that area. Even if you hadn't been edit warring, your ad hominem sarcasm and allegations of non-neutrality are sufficient cause to formally remind you to work civilly with other editors, most especially in subject areas where disagreements have already caused significant disruption to the encylopedia.

If you really think I made an error in judgement, you're welcome to open a discussion thread at the administrator's noticeboard so other editors (including admins) can take a look at the situation. —Darkwind (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By this logic any revert of disruptive editing on "Balkan related articles" can be interpreted as edit-warring. The other user started the entire charade by changing the article to an unsourced and completely new non-consensus version. Our discussion and differences on other article talk pages are completely irrelevant for the issue. But obviously it is your subjective opinion and I have no intention to discuss it with you since you have your own view and you made your own judgement, and that's that. I am convinced I did not break the 3RR, the fourth edit was added after the reported incident and it included a reference which ended the entire charade which started by the other person following me on that same article. Blocking and putting me on some warning list for trying to revert disruptive editing by other aggressive user is IMO unfair and unjustifiably harsh. In any case I thank you for answering...I will surely open a discussion at WP:AN. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Given your comments above, you probably won't read this, but I think I see where some of the confusion might be.

• It doesn't matter who "started it". If someone makes a change you don't like, revert it. If they put it back in again, do not revert them a second time. Open a thread on the talk page, open a dispute resolution thread, make a post at ANI, do whatever you want except reverting them over and over. It's that easy to avoid an edit war.
• One revert is generally not a problem, even in articles subject to ARBMAC (except for the very rare page that is under a 0RR), and is almost never interpreted as an edit war. However, you reverted the exact same material three times - that's the difference. You could have stopped after reverting him once, and taken the issue elsewhere for dispute resolution, a third opinion, or even admin intervention, but you didn't. You edit warred instead.
• There is no "after the incident" in an edit war situation. Your fourth edit was within 24 hours of your first revert, and removed material inserted by another editor within the same 24 hour period, making it a clear 3RR violation. Even though you added a reference.
• Your discussion and arguments on other Balkans-related pages and topics are very relevant to your behavior on Balkans-related pages, which Boro Primorac clearly is.

Taken together, your behavior on Balkans-related pages paints a picture suggesting that you are emotionally invested in this topic area. This kind of thing is exactly why the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions are in place. It's a topic area where it's very easy to get into very heated arguments and disputes, so it's very important that all editors in that area remember this and exemplify the best of behavior. Even if you don't agree with my actions in your case, I'm sure you can agree that your edits (and his) on the Boro Primorac article were hardly "best behavior". —Darkwind (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to see "A second opinion please" at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought I may have hinted that but yes, stating directly: I would say that it indeed wasn't "my best behavior" and how I usually act. I was definitely very annoyed by the other user who IMO followed me there and instigated this whole thing. This is why I have elaborated so much on WP:AN3, telling what I believe was the entire background of the story. I was pretty much convinced (and still am) that by reverting what I saw as disruptive editing certainly does not constitute a 3RR. Also, although I am participating about 2 years on Wikipedia I don't really have much experience with ANI or any other mediation project pages so this was just another step in my learning process of how Wiki works and I appreciate that, I will certainly incorporate what I learned from this experience into my future way of how I "operate". And one last thing, I don't resent you anything....I mean I just want to make that clear one more time, this wasn't the intention why I contacted you here or anything similar. I was also genuinely interested in your POV and what made you make the decision you made which ultimately can help me to see where I went wrong and to correct myself, and asking for a "second opinion" enforced that even more. You did what you thought/think what was right and that was that. It is me who certainly carries some of the blame for all this, I should have reacted in a more calm and assertive manner....which I usually do. Sorry for this little rant but I thought I should get that "off my chest". Cheers. ;) Shokatz (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Bill Whittle

Hi. I talked with you earlier this month about edits to Bill Whittle at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The anonymous editor reverted my edits again and I'm not sure its worth reverting since it'll just be changed back. The main issue is that none of the existing sources describe him as a neoconservitive (they specifically describe him as a conservative or "center right" political commentator) and the editor doesn't think the neocon claim needs a source (""Center right" is meaningless. Explain to me why he isn't a neocon. Is he an interventionist? Check. Does he support the global War on Terror? Check."). The article doesn't appear to mention Whittle's stance on either subject. Doesn't this go against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or am I misunderstanding the policy? 72.74.214.62 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, BLP as well as other Wikipedia policies require that any challenged material be directly supported by a source when reinserting that material. I've semi-protected the page and posted on the talk page of the article in hopes of encouraging a discussion. Please let me know if you need any further help. —Darkwind (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

At it again

Hey, Darkwind! A week ago, you blocked User:76.173.164.122 for a series of acts of vandalism involving changing dates and other numbers in a couple of TV related articles, the fourth such block he/she has had for the same thing since early September. They came off the block today, and went right back to it, vandalizing two articles. The edits were reverted quickly, but this is clearly someone with an grudge who has no interest in stopping, so I thought I'd give you a heads up! --Drmargi (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked again for a month this time, let's see if it makes any difference. —Darkwind (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We can but hope. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNSOURCED

Please clarify how adding unsourced content even after repeated warning takes the shape of content dispute? Thanks. Sohambanerjee1998 08:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor is adding content to an article which you object to, ergo, content dispute. More importantly, it is not vandalism, because it appears to be a good faith effort to improve the article (see WP:VAND, third paragraph of the introduction) and as such is inappropriate to be reported at WP:AIV. An edit that does not comply with policy is not automatically vandalism. The edits you reported by SanamTeriKasam (t c) at AIV might not be compliant with WP:V, but they don't seem to be in bad faith or deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia -- which are required elements for an edit to be "vandalism". If it's not vandalism or spam, it doesn't get handled at AIV. —Darkwind (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

So how to solve it, he does not talk even after being at the receiving end of 3 Warnings, messes up articles which are pretty tiring-some to fix, does not has a mindset to discuss. I think adding unsourced content to articles repeatedly after warnings without discussion particularly when his edits are generating so much controversy. I understand that anyone can make a mistake but if he is willing to learn he will discuss it with fellow editors, which he in this case does'n't. If you look a bit more in his talk, I gave him one only warning, then two last warning as I was not willing to make an editor face a block. Had it been my intention I could have clicked the ARV button on my TW long ago. Thanks. Sohambanerjee1998 04:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

First, you might try talking to him directly instead of leaving template warnings - a lot of editors will respond to a customized message much better. For example, you could say "When you add X information to Y article, you need to cite a source because I don't think that information is correct." Be specific, and he might respond. You can also open a thread on the article's talk page and then post on his talk asking him to discuss it with you there. Don't be surprised when someone doesn't open a dialogue with you if all you've done is leave them template messages.

Second, if you have exhausted all available avenues and the editor still refuses to talk with you, the appropriate forum to report him is WP:ANI. Adding well-meaning content, even unsourced, is not considered vandalism. It might be disruptive editing, but it's still not vandalism.

The only reason I declined your report at AIV is because it was not an appropriate report for that page, not because I thought his edits were correct. The point of AIV is for admins to be able to make a snap judgement on whether to immediately block an editor who may be maliciously disrupting the project through their edits. The edits must be obvious vandalism, such as profanity, gibberish, clearly incorrect changes to data (like changing an article to say the moon is 2km from Earth), nonsense or irrelevant statements ("John loves Susie!", "Billy was here") and so on. If there is a case there which makes me wonder whether or not I would have reverted the same edit, then it's automatically not appropriate for AIV, because it's something that the community must have the chance to discuss before action is taken. ANI is a more appropriate forum for that, because it allows other editors to weigh in on how to resolve the situation, ideally without having to block the editor in question. I hope that clarifies things. —Darkwind (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my first ARV on Twinkle so was a bit nervous, plus I am against having editors blocked. I will follow the steps you've shown. Thanks . Sohambanerjee1998 05:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Chriv77

Could you possibly extend the block to prevent talk page editing? User blanked their talk page then added "still not blocked". Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing block notices is allowed, and generally talk page access should only be revoked in "extreme cases of abuse", like abusing {{unblock}}. Generally if that happens, the admin handling the unblock(s) will take care of it, but let me know if he starts to be abusive on his talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Your warning

I have replied to you on my talkpage.

Some user came on article just to fix grammar. His ego was hurt because I expanded section and I had to add/change text. Some of his grammar got removed with text. So he got angry. Is the '19th century' section in this version so incomprehensible that it deserve wiping out half of the section? And if this info is not related to the incident, why so many so news sources suddenly started reporting about it? Abhi (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not split the discussion; I will reply to you there. —Darkwind (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Rancalred

I am unclear as to what prompted you to modify this block. After repeated clueless requests for unblock I revoked their talk page and referred the matter to WP:BASC. However I don't see anything in your block modification or your talk page comments that indicate what set off this sudden turn of events. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry -- it was a UTRS request. I keep forgetting to put the UTRS info in the block log. If you have a UTRS account, the request is here. I figured there's no harm in letting him try the second chance, since his request was written considerably more maturely than his previous contributions (not every word was capitalized!) and it's quite easy to re-revoke his talk page access if he starts going off with the {{unblock}}s again. —Darkwind (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you think he really needs to go through BASC instead, I can quite easily revert and send him an email as such. Up to you. —Darkwind (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I thinkwe can leave it as is for the moment. It would be a refreshing change from his past behavior if he was able to actually prove he could make positive contributions. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Quiet praise

...For the nice usage of words here and the effort taken. Not many editors would have this much patience. Well done. Wifione ^Message 14:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

Your refusal to interfere in the case in question caused me surprise. The Partido da Imprensa Golpista article has been under attack almost since its creation, either through IPs, either through single-purpose accounts or editors without historical contributions to it. This fellow appeared like a bolt out of the blue, removing reliable sources and inserting his own partisan political POV to the text - all this without any prior discussion. The current case is very characteristic, because the editor is not a newbie (he has been editing since 2009), and even having never shown any interest in this topic, he has suddenly decided to impose his point of view, and even threaten me in my Talk page.

The default argument that "he was not sufficiently warned" does not hold water, for the simple fact that he isn't a rookie editor - he is an editor who knows perfectly how Wikipedia works, he has acted maliciously, and he had not tried to explain his point of view in the talk page of the article, like others have done before him. The article Partido da Imprensa Golpista is well-documented with trustworthy sources that include the Brazilian main press, scholars from leading universities, international organizations (UNESCO, Reporters Without Borders etc.), and has the same importance as other articles that address similar media phenomena. I hope that it deserves the same care and attention that administrators has dedicated to them.

Sincerely, Al Lemos (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This article IS an attack created by left supporters. The acronym of Partido da Imprensa Golpista (Party of Coup Press, look what a wonderful name) is PIG. I need to say something more? So, it's impossible to develop this article in an unbiased manner due to itself, itself, be a major COI. Even worse when the user acts partially ignoring the interconnections of the subject and putting only the parts that interest you. Worse, when the editor puts to sources, blogs disguised as common sites that are sponsored by leftists, in a grand scheme Bolivarian propaganda. If you want, I can add more sources showing that the Brazilian left will invest heavily in Internet propaganda in 2014 (read, defamation on the internet and use of fakes paid on social networks). Your sources are not reliable, and you join fragmented information to try to justify things (original research). It is merely a personal opinion if I'm interested or not in the article, and that's not the case. I'm reporting your abuse to create an article in the form of a fairy tale. "he is an editor who knows perfectly how Wikipedia works, he has acted maliciously", I can say the same to you, trying to block me and the article instead of rewrite it in a impartial form. The article Partido da Imprensa Golpista is not used by serious people in Brazil, it is just used by radical leftists who try to demoralize their opponents with this offensive term. And the inclusion of this term in Wikipedia was performed precisely to try to expand the use of the term. Rauzaruku (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place for you two to continue your dispute. The reason your reports were declined at AIV is because it was the wrong forum for your complaint(s). AIV is for plain, simple vandalism and spam ONLY. Acceptable reports at AIV include addition of profanity ("f**k wikipedia and my school principal eats s**t" etc.), gibberish ("ijeworiuwnwidfofp" etc.), obvious spam ("go to www.example.com for cheap vi@gara"), page blanking, and so on -- basically, cases that require admin assistance but do not require a discussion or complicated investigation.

Because your report is a dispute about the article's content, the sources being used, each other's behavior, etc., it is not a case that can be handled at AIV. Any incidents more complicated than simple vandalism must be handled in a forum that allows for discussion and consensus. That's why I told you both to take it to WP:ANI if you wanted admin assistance. If you just want outside intervention but don't necessarily require an administrator, you can also try opening a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I didn't tell you to bring your dispute here -- I do not have time, especially this weekend, to intervene in a complicated dispute, but there are plenty of admins around who could probably help you. Please make a report in an appropriate forum if you haven't already. —Darkwind (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks a lot. I've did what you suggested. Rauzaruku (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

• News and notes: Grantmaking season—rumblings in the German-language community

• Traffic report: Your average week ... and a fish

• Featured content: Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia

• Discussion report: More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more

• In the media: The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Elements of the world

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why

1.123.11.104 (talk) 03:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)why did you block me Darkwind???

Your IP address has never been (directly) blocked. If you are referring to your registered user account, I strongly recommend that you log back in and use the {{unblock}} template on your user talk page so another administrator can assist you. Logging out to avoid a block is considered block evasion and will almost certainly make your problem worse. —Darkwind (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Checked sockpuppet tag

Hi Darkwind, I just added Template:Checked sockpuppet to User:UrbanNerd based on the outcome of this closed SPI to which you agreed the editor appeared to be the same person as User:PhilthyBear. Please advise if I have used this template incorrectly or inappropriately. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. {{Checked sockpuppet}} is a shortcut to {{Sockpuppet|<main username>|confirmed}}, which is only for use if CheckUser evidence was used to confirm the case. If you're referring to a case where the block was issued based on behavioral evidence only (edit patterns etc.), use {{Sockpuppet|<main username>|blocked}} instead. I've fixed it. —Darkwind (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. A redlinked category is now applied to the user's page. Should that category now be created as a subcat of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PhilthyBear? Hwy43 (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Order_of_the_Eagle_of_Georgia_and_the_Seamless_Tunic_of_Our_Lord_Jesus_Christ&action=edit&redlink=1

Why did you delete the page? The Order is approved by the ICOC (International commission for orders of chivalry ) !

ICOC REGISTER OF ORDERS OF CHIVALRY Other Institutions of Chivalric character Ancient chivalric institutions, originally founded as orders, subsequently revived by the dynastic successor of the founding authority. http://www.icocregister.org/2002otherinstitutions.htm

--Schneller74 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneller74 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An administrator only deletes articles within the terms of Wikipedia's very specific deletion policy. In that sense, I was only responsible for carrying out the deletion, which had been requested by the Wikipedia community. If you read the deletion discussion for the article, you'll see that the community consensus was that the original order was considered notable for Wikipedia purposes, but we could not locate any reliable sources to establish notability for the 20th-century revival of the order. Just verifying that the order was revived and currently exists is not sufficient to justify having a Wikipedia article on it.

Therefore, the previous article was removed so a new one can be written referring solely to the original 12th-century version, with only a brief mention of the revival. This doesn't seem to have been done yet, but there is no deadline. —Darkwind (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is untrue. Well-known experts, books and registers were called. This was simply ignored. --Schneller74 (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any reliable sources about the 20th-century revival of the order mentioned in that deletion discussion. A registry listing does not establish notability, because it is routine coverage -- just being listed in a registry does not qualify an order for a Wikipedia article. I could probably create an "Order of the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Sealand and His Glorious Noodly Appendage" and get it listed in at least one of those directories.

Please READ this summary of how to prove notability, and then, if you think you can provide sources which meet those requirements, write an article about the order using only those sources as references. Do not include any material not directly supported by those sources. The types of sources that could be used to establish notability include mainstream press coverage about the order (NOT from a press release), fact-checked widely-published books about the (new) order, scholarly articles/papers discussing it, etc. Basically, anything from an organization or author with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that discusses the revival order in-depth (i.e. not just a directory listing) would help.

I expect, if you choose to find such sources and write an article, all you will be left with is an article about the historic order from the 12th century. That was the whole point of deleting the article in the first place, so that such an article could be written. The Wikipedia community, as represented by those who participated in that discussion, made the determination that the 20th-century version is simply not notable in Wikipedia terms. If you think I'm wrong -- all you have to do is prove it by writing an article which cites the types of sources I describe above. —Darkwind (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

• Traffic report: 200 miles in 200 years

• In the media: Rand Paul plagiarizes Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Sex and drug tourism—Wikivoyage's soft underbelly?

• Featured content: Wrestling with featured content

• Recent research: User influence on site policies: Wikipedia vs. Facebook vs. Youtube

• WikiProject report: Special: Lessons from the dead and dying

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Page protection at Scott Tipton

I appreciate your very fair response to the edit war at Scott Tipton and the way you handled another editor's block request. I might have responded sooner on his/her talk page or at the BLP's talk, rather than only commenting in the edit log. So I've responded there now and expect it will be useful moving forward. I'd welcome your thoughts. Thanks. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

One thing I noticed based on your message there to Tiller54 is that you're missing a crucial aspect of WP:V – dead links are still valid sources, because we assume good faith and thus assume that the sources said what the editor inserting them claimed. See the 5th paragraph of the introduction to Wikipedia:Link rot:

"Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." (emphasis in original)

That being said, BLP does require information to be verifiable, so at some point if we can no longer verify the information, it may indeed need removal. Before you do remove BLP content because of dead links, I would suggest posting (probably on the article's talk page) about what methods you tried to recover/repair the dead link (see the rest of the link rot page for suggestions). That way, people will be less likely to accuse you of trying to POV-edit and use the dead links as an excuse (I make no such accusation here, but I've seen it happen before). (edit conflict) —Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your points are all well taken. Thank you for your counsel. But even if the deadlinks are repaired, we're still left with a section on plans without actions. X said he planned to do a,b,c, in 2009. But no update on what, if anything, X actually did on a,b,c. Can X's statement about "plans", 3 years ago, still be encyclopedic, without any updates?

Example: Three years ago, John said he planned to pop the question to Jane. Is that encyclopedic, without including whether or not he actually did? Or without including Jane's answer? Or without including if they actually got married? Three years later, is the plan alone still relevant without the results?

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SPECULATION, it seems that it doesn't merit inclusion without the updates. Plans being just speculation. But again, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this final question. Thanks again. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I have now said on my talk page and yours, my objection was that you removed properly sourced information on the grounds that the the information was out of date and then that the links were dead. Instead of looking to repair the links or update the section, you just deleted the information. That would be like, to continue your analogy, rather than looking to find out if John had asked Jane to marry him, whether she said yes or not, and if they got married, you just removed the entire thing. As you made no mention at the time of the links being dead, I assumed that you had also found the archived/correct links, but that did not explain why you did not attempt to update the information rather than just deleting it. I should have been clearer in the point I was trying to make and also could have started the process of updating the section. Here, for example, is an easily-found link detailing what happened to the attempt to bring in a version of Jessica's Law: it died in the legislature. Tiller54 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• As I asked on your talk page and mine: The real question is: Why are you monitoring my talk page?! Did you not notice that I had not posted that response on your talk page, where you would be most likely to find it - IF I had intended for you to see it? Did it not even occur to you to question why you could have only seen it on mine? I find it remarkable that with all your incessant flitting from article to article to article, you're also monitoring my page?! You're clearly unfamiliar with WP:LETITGO. I seriously suggest you review it.

While it may well be uncivil to say, stalking is also uncivil. So you seriously need to find a better use for your time. Not to mention, my comment regarding your hypocrisy, since you challenged it before, now seems prescient. Because this is exactly what you accused me of doing. Why did you delete a sourced poll? If you felt it was "unscientific" as you claimed - which you did entirely arbitrarily and without a source, I would note - why didn't you just replace it with another supporting poll, whose methodology you had no problem with? Why would you just delete the whole thing? "Lazy" maybe? To further loosely quote: "What I did object to was you removing properly sourced information on the grounds that it was unscientific." Curious how we've come full circle, isn't it? Not to mention all of this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. Is chasing IPs all over the project your thing now? Engaging in edit wars over several articles - before finally posting this? Yet you think you're in the position to criticize other editors for doing exactly as you have done? Incredible. There are apparently no mirrors in your glass house. Needless to say, we're done here. But you're free to have the last word. Since one of us should practice what we preach, it's likely to be me. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. First of all, I wasn't "monitoring" your talk page. After several days, you hadn't replied on my talk page, so I looked to see if you'd replied on Darkwind's, which you hadn't, or on yours, which you had. And yeah, you accused me of making other people's edits, so of course I replied to correct you. That you spend your time pretending I've made other people's edits in the hopes that I would deny it speaks volumes.

"Why did you delete a sourced poll? If you felt it was "unscientific" as you claimed" Why? Because it's an open access Voodoo poll with only 37 respondents. It's a poll asking people who they'd vote for for Governor of Alaska and anyone can vote in it. I don't live in the US, let alone Alaska, and I can vote in it. That's why it's unscientific.

"why didn't you just replace it with another supporting poll, whose methodology you had no problem with? Why would you just delete the whole thing? Lazy maybe?" I would, if a new poll of the race was released, like I did when the two previous polls of the race were released. But no more exist. I can't pull one out of thin air.

"Not to mention all of this." Yeah, I removed incorrect and misleading phrases from articles that I regularly contribute to. As did another editor. That IP address kept adding in that Governors were running for second "and final" terms when they could have run for third, or fourth terms. Hence why I asked him not to.

"you think you're in the position to criticize other editors for doing exactly as you have done?" Except I don't. You have now accused me of making other people's edits and have totally misrepresented edits that I have made. I suggest you look up WP:DONTLIE. It's only 2 words, I'm sure even you couldn't misunderstand it. Goodbye. Tiller54 (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

How sad your life is

I don't really care that you people refused to allow an appropriate edit to the Knockout entry. I just think it is hilarious that your life is so pathetic that the only way you can feel important us by censoring Wikipedia. Yeah, Darkwind. You and your friends sure are powerful people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.74.203 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

AIV report on Fogrodnik

Thanks for your answer, I'd really like to know what I should do in such cases when editors refuse to communicate and carry on with their disruptive behavior. <rant>Sometimes I have the feeling that new editors are coddled on the expense of the older ones who are expected to clean up after them without complaining.</rant> --Jaellee (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't complain -- it looks like that user may indeed be editing disruptively. You did the right thing by trying to talk to him first, and them requesting assistance when that failed. The thing is, disruptive editing isn't vandalism, so it doesn't get reported at ANI. There are a variety of places you can report disruptive editing, depending on the exact nature of the problem: WP:ANI is for general misbehavior (and probably where I'd recommend you bring this case), WP:ANEW is for edit warring, WP:BLPN is for biography-specific problems, and so on.

The benefit to using these correct forums is that the community, by discussion, can implement other "sanctions" besides just a plain block. For example, an editor can be topic banned after discussion at ANI. One decision might be to topic-ban the editor from modifying infoboxes, or topic-ban him from football -- and if he violates a topic ban, then he'd have to be blocked. That way, the problem is corrected but he's still given the opportunity to edit constructively in other areas of the project. —Darkwind (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI - My Comments Regarding External Links, Red Links, etc.

Your point was taken and I thank you for your tips. However, I wonder if your interpretation of red links is mistaken. The page you pointed me to states:

"Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article..."

I note that the links I added were to substantive pages which have no direct equivalent within Wikipedia. I further note that the articles in question are not listed on your user page under "Articles I plan on creating".

It goes without saying that where a Wikipedia page exists on a subject, one should link to that page rather than an external site on the same topic. Even if the Wikipedia page is of lower quality than an external source, it is incumbent on the conscientious Wikipedia editor to improve that page rather than simply linking to an external source. I take your point in that regard and wholeheartedly agree with you. If I inadvertently linked to an external source where a Wikipedia page was available, I apologize for doing so.

That being said, we all have a limited amount of time to spend editing Wikipedia, and it might never be possible to create Wikipedia page about every case decided by the Canadian courts. Until an internal page is available, it is my position that Wikipedia is improved by limited use of relevant external links where no analogous page exists on Wikipedia itself.

Wikipedia's rules regarding external links generally are not as inflexible as you suggest. The page you sent me to reads as follows:

Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.

It is my position that a limited number of relevant external links are not only helpful but necessary in order for Wikipedia to be informative as opposed to misleading. This is particularly the case in the legal field where a single leading case might not provide a complete and up-to-date understanding of the law. For example, Wikipedia has a page on the Askov case but no page on the Morin case, even though Morin significantly refined the law and is arguably the most relevant authority today under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Any website which provides its users with a summary of Askov but fails to so much as link to Morin is actually doing a great disservice by misleading its readers. Clearly, the inclusion of such a link (as opposed to a dead-end "red link") is "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense".

Unfortunately, there are countless instances on Wikipedia where relevant and necessary information is simply missing. Ideally, many of these gaps can eventually be filled by diligent editors such as yourself. Practically speaking, however, there will always be external sources which contain information that Wikipedia doesn't. Where this is the case, I maintain that the limited placement of relevant external links is "justifiable according to (Wikipedia's) guideline and common sense". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.54.230 (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2013‎ PST

First, you're talking to the wrong editor. It was User:Singularity42 who wrote you the thorough explanation of the problem with your edits. I just saw you inserting links into the body of an article and removed them, because of WP:ELPOINTS number #2:

"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1] Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable."

The footnote 1 reads:

"Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful. Other exceptions include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia."

If you believe that the page you're linking to supplies information to support the statement/sentence in the Wikipedia article, use <ref> tags to use it as a reference -- although, again, we already have preferred ways to refer to Canadian court cases, which is CanLII. Continually inserting links to your own website, disregarding ELPOINTS#2, makes it look like you're just trying to generate page views, and not actually improve the article. —Darkwind (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

---

I already sent the same message to Singularity42, just thought I'd send a copy to you also, just for your information and so you understand my position. The last thing I want to do is to spam Wikipedia. I maintain that the links in question are not only useful, but necessary in order for the page to present a complete picture of the relevant law. CanLII links are useful for those who want to delve into a case, but many not be as helpful to a lay reader who simply wants the meaning and effect of the case distilled for their convenience. The links I added are designed to make the law accessible to readers, and to complement the purpose of Wikipedia.

I will wait for a response from Singularity42 before attempting any further edits to the page. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.54.230 (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Modify problem

hi: I modified the page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itsu but you always told me that my recent edits do not conform to wiki policies and reverted the page as previous. I don't know what the problem is! I just help a client of mine modifying his wiki page,all the content and picture are legal. Could you tell me where the problem is as soon as possible, and if you can tell in Chinese that would be great. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsoho (talk • contribs) 13:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How to modify?

hi: Thanks for reply. As you say:You should not be editing a Wikipedia article on behalf of a client. It means I can't modify this page at all? or do I have another way to modify this page? I saw the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest,it seems that if I write my name and purpose under the bottom of the page,and it could be OK? This is my first time modify the wiki page,please tell me more,I'll very appreciate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsoho (talk • contribs) 13:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are replying to the wrong editor. User:McGeddon is the one who is talking with you on your page. Please reply there. —Darkwind (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you forget?

On AN/3RR, you say you blocked User:Johnny Squeaky, yet he's posting away ... ES&L 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I had to take action from my admin account, which I'll likely get in trouble for. I'll assume you had technical or family issues to tend to ... and take my lumps if they come ES&L 02:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave a note in the block log. I have no problem with it. (and yes, it was a minor emergency that pulled me away) —Darkwind (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Damn. Yes, I must have overlooked actually doing the block, and my attention was called elsewhere right afterward. —Darkwind (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

• News and notes: Alleged "outing" of editor's personal information leads to Wikipedia ban

• Traffic report: Danse Macabre

• Featured content: Five years of work leads to 63-article featured topic

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Accessibility

• Arbitration report: Ebionites 3 case closed

• Discussion report: Sockpuppet investigations, VisualEditor, Wikidata's birthday, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in keeping the HBC AIV helperbots alive. I haven't been particularly active lately however I will get around to messaging you to assist with moving my instance to Labs (seeing as yours is working perfectly). Sincerely, — JamesR ^(talk) 23:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason mine seems to be working so well is largely because I have a 20-minute cron set to kill and restart it, which is an incredibly kludgy workaround to the log-out problem. That being said, I'm happy to help. —Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello would you mind clearing the backlog over at WP:AIV, it's very backlogged at the moment. You're the recent admin on. ///EuroCarGT 02:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. —Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Malik Allahyar Khan

Hello, most of the information provided here that I have removed was spurious and incorrect and was entirely unreferenced. If someone wants to readd or add new information please give detailed and reliable references in support. Thank you. 39.54.13.232 (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Hilda Khan

The article is redundant to Malik Allahyar Khan anyway, so I've tagged it for deletion. In the future, please use a more complete edit summary such as "removing unsourced content" to show that your removal/deletion was on purpose. —Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, just saw, thanks. Will do thanks. 39.54.13.232 (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Hilda Khan

Unblock message

Thank you kindly for the correspondence. Every time I have had an issue, the Wiki community responds promptly and it is great!--Soulparadox (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your message on my talk page

YouTube isn't the source I was citing. Dale Martin's lecture series, which Yale University makes available to the public via YouTube, is my source. The source would have been reliable with or without the YouTube link, but it's a lot more useful to the reader with the link. Justification by faith alone (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Darkwind! You're receiving a Brownie because you reviewed 28 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

‎

Regarding Jay Prakash Narayan;s death.

Dear mam,

         Recently I had made some corrections about the death of jayprakash Narayan.

I got that information from the link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o4FxEMrFIs please see that particular link and you will get answer about his death.

Thank you Hemant Patil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.48.192.3 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jumpika025

I give her a nice comments, and I work on believed friends. And... oh, and Darkwind, You don't think I'm put in is not working? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpika025 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3

Hey Darkwind! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

• Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
• Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle ^connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

• Traffic report: Google Doodlebugs bust the block

• Featured content: 1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent

• Special report: FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance

• News and notes: Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it

• WikiProject report: The world of soap operas

• Discussion report: Commas, Draft namespace proposal, education updates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Krishna Singh Thakur‎

FYI: This user has not only recreated their promotional user page after you deleted it, they have now added additional promotion and contact info to their talk page. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted again. —Darkwind (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A10 Speedy of Helicopter Parents and the Media

Helicopter Parents and the Media - it came back. I can't see original. Both were created by new editors that joined apparently only to create that page. Talk page says it is a school project. --DHeyward (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw it was already listed for AfD, so I think it's best to just let that run its course. The article is certainly a great deal larger than the version I deleted as A10. —Darkwind (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sean Harris

I apologize for my use of profanity, but I was the only one who bothered enhancing the Sean Harris' page, listing his films and his television work. It's infuriating, when people edit, not only ruining the format but changing the years (Beware the Night to be specific, as it is slated for 2015 not 2014) and trying to advertise his work on the page. I will continue to uphold his page. Every movie that is on his list can be directly referenced to IMDB, I do not accept the use of his earlier short films because there are no references, no proof and no information that would exonerate such claims. I am going to uphold the site, and will refrain from my profanity. I don't even know who's editing the page, but it's seriously making me angry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternative595 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's called ownership of an article and that's bad. Also, imdb is not a reference because it's user-editable. If something on Wikipedia is making you angry, it's time to logout and go away - your hidden profane comments are not doing you, or this project any favours and should NEVER be included in the article - ever. ES&L 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's theorem

Can you undelete Talk:Cantor's theorem? I think that was the original talk page for the article (I can't find where else it would have gone). Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it has 104 edits. Restored. —Darkwind (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi there! Thanks for letting me know. Will I have to go through a standard contested deletion for this, Skrillex Vinyl Box Set and Skrillex Presents: Free Treats - Volume: 001? A certain user's gone a bit trigger-happy creating pages for every single Skrillex release even when they're blatantly unimportant and lack notability. I'd assumed there would be a speedy deletion tag for this but clearly not! DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you'll either have to try PROD or do a full AFD for those. The existing CSD criteria have consensus because they are situations where (broadly speaking) nobody but the page creator would object to the deletion if it were actually proposed for discussion. Historically, there has always been controversy, or at least extensive discussion, when deciding whether to delete a musical recording by a notable artist -- so there's no CSD criterion for that situation. —Darkwind (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Darkwind. You have new messages at Mattghali's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just added a bit of a reply to you on my (talk) page. Am I doing things right by adding the {{Talkback}} template? Mattghali (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Darkwind. You have new messages at Shrublove's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Post from someone evading their block

This Admin does not provide proper information.

The Kleargear criminal offense contiues to this second and THIS Admin is 100% responsible for MORE public to get ripped off.

This Admin should be deleted.

"Hello 71.19.182.114,

Unblock requests which are blank, nonsensical, are not serious, or contain threats of any sort (including legal threats against other editors) will not be considered. Because it fell into one or more of these categories, your appeal has been closed with no action.

Darkwind English Wikipedia Administrator " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.160.122 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know you were evading your block on the other IP address. It's so helpful when people tell you they're breaking the rules. —Darkwind (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Mahana School

Hi! I'd welcome your assistance ... trying to get a descriptive up for a public school. You've deleted it, I'd like to understand why. Still trying to work through the 'encyclopedia' formats Wiki wants, and now it's gone. Please help rather than hinder progress here - it's a collaborative process, and that takes time. Wiki lists the school on a page, without anything behind the link. This is a problem and looks sloppy on the school's part. PS. I'm secretary of the Mahana School Home & School Association and have 3 kids in the school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassarena (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The article appeared to be promotional in nature, especially because contact information was included. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, and contact information is never a valid part of an encyclopedia article.

If you would like to try writing an article about the school, I suggest two things; first, use articles like San Francisco Waldorf School or Stuart Hall High School as a guideline for what kind of content is acceptable to include. Second, draft your article first and submit it to the "Articles for creation" area for review. That will help avoid situations where the article is deleted before you can work on it. To do so, start here and go through the steps following the instructions on the screen, and on the page where you get two different places where you can put in your article title, use the top one that says "Create new article draft", and continue to follow the instructions. —Darkwind (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Sounds like an easy fix. How do I get the content back so I can work with it? You deleted it before I could copy it?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassarena (talk • contribs) 01:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You can find the existing article you created here. You don't need to go through the article wizard steps I mentioned above. I have moved it to the "Articles for creation" draft area, so you can work on it as long as you need. Remember that you need to cite verifiable, reliable sources for any material you include, and our help pages can help with that. When you're ready for it to be reviewed to become an actual article, click the big green button on the article page and follow the instructions. —Darkwind (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)