User talk:Raeky/Archives/2011/July
Latest comment: 12 years ago by SudoGhost in topic AN/I
 | 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. |
The Signpost: 4 July 2011
- News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject
- Featured content: Two newly promoted portals
- Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin
Minor edit (see also link fixing) of User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For
Hi, since you requested that a note be left on your user talk page regarding all edits to your user subpages, I just wanted to drop a note letting you know that I edited the "See also" section of User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For, or more specifically User:Raeky/User Wikipedian For/doc, to link directly (rather than through a redirect) to the {{User admin since}}, {{User admin somewhere since}}, and {{User bureaucrat since}} templates after they were moved from User:EVula's userspace to the main template namespace following a discussion on User talk:EVula. —Lowellian (reply) 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 11 July 2011
- From the editor: Stepping down
- Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap
- In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting
- WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close
- Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
FP nomination of Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
Hi Raeky. I just wanted to inform you that Les Demoiselles d'Avignon is up for Featured picture again. The nomination can be found here. I am informing you as you have previously participated in a Featured Picture review of this image, here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 July 2011
- In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news
- WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!
- Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual
- Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder
- Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 July 2011
- Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen
- Recent research: Talk page interactions; Wikipedia at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research
- WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion
- Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at Creation–evolution controversy, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. - SudoGhost 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Surely your mistaken, it's a standard vandalism edit on that page, that coutnless IP's and new accounts try to do. I'm confused by your comment above! — raekyt 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTVAND, and take care not to label such edits vandalism in the future. Good-faith removal of what, on first examination, appears to be an NPOV violation on the article is not vandalism, and never will be. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you made the same edit previously doesn't make it not vandalism. Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times. — raekyt 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Using an edit summary is not required, and editors are not required to read through talk page archives to learn if any consensus has been made for any particular section. They are also not required to sift through hundreds of diffs on the article's history to see if the edit is "approved". Essentially vandalism by the English definition of the word is not the same as Wikipedia's definition and usage. Editing against consensus is not vandalism. Just because you don't like the edit doesn't make it vandalism. Just because the editor isn't aware of a particular consensus on a subject and didn't use an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism. Even if they're dead wrong with the edit, it doesn't make it vandalism. Even if intentionally disruptive (which it was not), such an edit is not vandalism. Take care to remember this and to avoid any confusion in the future. Again, read WP:NOTVAND. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can disagree, but I stand behind my assertion that they was vandal edits. — raekyt 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not by Wikipedia's definition. Continued labeling of non-vandal edits as vandalism is disruptive and can lead to blocks. - SudoGhost 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I challenge you to see if any of the other regular editors of that article would consider those vandal edits? — raekyt 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- What other editors believe does not concern me. Vandalism is very specifically spelled out at WP:VAND. That edit did not meet that criteria. Therefore, there is no vandalism. It is no more complicated than that. I don't care that you reverted the edit, what concerns me is that you used an inappropriate label for that edit, when that edit is specifically spelled out at WP:NOTVAND to be not vandalism. That a user with rollback rights does not understand what is and is not vandalism is troubling. Take more care in the future, and be more conservative with your use of the "Rollback (Vandal)" button. There's another button next to it, "Rollback" that works just as well, and doesn't attack the edits of other editors in situations that does not call for it. - SudoGhost 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I obviously didn't use the rollback function, I used TW's functions to do the reversal... they're not the same thing. — raekyt 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say you used the rollback function, nor did I suggest they are the same thing. What I did suggest, is that rollback users are expected to understand which edits are and which edits are not considered vandalism. Again, I strongly implore you to read WP:NOTVAND so that this misunderstanding does not occur again. Thank you. - SudoGhost 13:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I obviously didn't use the rollback function, I used TW's functions to do the reversal... they're not the same thing. — raekyt 13:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- What other editors believe does not concern me. Vandalism is very specifically spelled out at WP:VAND. That edit did not meet that criteria. Therefore, there is no vandalism. It is no more complicated than that. I don't care that you reverted the edit, what concerns me is that you used an inappropriate label for that edit, when that edit is specifically spelled out at WP:NOTVAND to be not vandalism. That a user with rollback rights does not understand what is and is not vandalism is troubling. Take more care in the future, and be more conservative with your use of the "Rollback (Vandal)" button. There's another button next to it, "Rollback" that works just as well, and doesn't attack the edits of other editors in situations that does not call for it. - SudoGhost 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I challenge you to see if any of the other regular editors of that article would consider those vandal edits? — raekyt 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not by Wikipedia's definition. Continued labeling of non-vandal edits as vandalism is disruptive and can lead to blocks. - SudoGhost 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can disagree, but I stand behind my assertion that they was vandal edits. — raekyt 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Using an edit summary is not required, and editors are not required to read through talk page archives to learn if any consensus has been made for any particular section. They are also not required to sift through hundreds of diffs on the article's history to see if the edit is "approved". Essentially vandalism by the English definition of the word is not the same as Wikipedia's definition and usage. Editing against consensus is not vandalism. Just because you don't like the edit doesn't make it vandalism. Just because the editor isn't aware of a particular consensus on a subject and didn't use an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism. Even if they're dead wrong with the edit, it doesn't make it vandalism. Even if intentionally disruptive (which it was not), such an edit is not vandalism. Take care to remember this and to avoid any confusion in the future. Again, read WP:NOTVAND. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you made the same edit previously doesn't make it not vandalism. Random new accounts and IP's making the edit without an edit summery is essentially vandalism, specifically if the edit is against consensus and been reverted numerous times. — raekyt 12:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:NOTVAND, and take care not to label such edits vandalism in the future. Good-faith removal of what, on first examination, appears to be an NPOV violation on the article is not vandalism, and never will be. Thank you. - SudoGhost 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Quite frankly for dealing with these POV edits, it's clicking the vandal edit is an easy one click solution, that happens occasionally, [1] [2], quite possibly isn't the absolute correct procedure, but after-all not everything has to be followed to the letter (WP:IAR). When dealing with articles that have a HUGE amount of POV and disruptive editing, like this one in particular, providing lengthy or precise reversal reasons isn't always time-efficient. And TBH, these POV edits are vandalism in my book, even if it doesn't follow WP:VAND to the letter. You should also read WP:UCS. — raekyt 13:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:IAR doesn't apply when your actions bite good-faith editors, and refraining from incorrectly calling edits vandalism neither improves nor maintains Wikipedia. THAT is common sense. Period. There's another button right next to the vandal one that doesn't have this issue, so time-efficiency is no excuse. I trust this will not be an issue in the future. - SudoGhost 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- They was clearly not good faith edits, they was POV pushing edits, likely the same editor that has been POV pushing on that article for ages ago and has been banned multiple times, likely also of violating the sockpuppet rules. Your edit, is likely under good faith, I'm not going to accuse you of POV pushing, but the edits I reversed, i firmly think are NOT good faith edits. 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's done is done, but it does not matter what you think. If it is not vandalism, do not mark it as such. Period. - SudoGhost 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree on the issue. — raekyt 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can then also agree that continued mislabeling of edits will warrant revisiting your ability to use the rollback feature, if an understanding of the definition of vandalism is such an issue. - SudoGhost 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can then also agree that disruptive behavior can lead to blocks. Continuous incorrect labeling of edits as vandalism is disruptive. It puts editors on the defensive, stifling discussion and causing problems where there would otherwise be none. There is no reason to do so, simply use the non-vandal twinkle button if it does not meet WP:VAND's definition of vandalism. That's all I'm asking. Thank you. - SudoGhost 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can then also agree that continued mislabeling of edits will warrant revisiting your ability to use the rollback feature, if an understanding of the definition of vandalism is such an issue. - SudoGhost 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can agree to disagree on the issue. — raekyt 14:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- What's done is done, but it does not matter what you think. If it is not vandalism, do not mark it as such. Period. - SudoGhost 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- They was clearly not good faith edits, they was POV pushing edits, likely the same editor that has been POV pushing on that article for ages ago and has been banned multiple times, likely also of violating the sockpuppet rules. Your edit, is likely under good faith, I'm not going to accuse you of POV pushing, but the edits I reversed, i firmly think are NOT good faith edits. 14:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:IAR doesn't apply when your actions bite good-faith editors, and refraining from incorrectly calling edits vandalism neither improves nor maintains Wikipedia. THAT is common sense. Period. There's another button right next to the vandal one that doesn't have this issue, so time-efficiency is no excuse. I trust this will not be an issue in the future. - SudoGhost 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Mushroom Observer Uploader offline
Yesterday I want to use your great Mushroom Observer Uploader but if I opened the URL only a site with the message "Site Suspended - This site has stepped out for a bit" appears. Could you fix the problem or give me an alternative URL to a working version of your tool? --Ak ccm (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 16:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)