Robert9673

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Robert9673, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Katr67 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Um

Can you explain why you are putting {{afdanons}} on like 30 AfDs? We normally don't put it up unless there's a influx of SPAs. Tim Song (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful to new editors to have a guideline on how to participate in an AfD. Robert9673 (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea, since it makes the daily log nearly unreadable. AFAIK, we don't have many newcomers !voting in most AfDs anyway, so the templates are unnecessary most of the time. If there's an AfD in which a lot of new editors !voted, then we can put that up on that AfD. Tim Song (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it would be helpful. I'm sorry that my helpful edits didn't really help anyone. Robert9673 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, really. I'm taking them down, if that's okay with you? Tim Song (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Robert9673 (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. That template should be used when there is evidence of on- or off-wiki canvassing. If you add it, put a reference to the location of the canvassing in the edit summary or on the AFD talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

{{afdanons}} could probably be programmed so that it doesn't display on the daily log, if it's a problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for creation

Are you trying to propose that all new articles must go through WP:Articles for creation? You could give it a go, but I can't see it gaining consensus. Although Wikipedia has a lot of bureaucracy, new rules that restrict content creation are rarely popular. A formal vetting of all articles before creation would be an even heavier burden than that faced by the WP:NPP and would discourage editors from contributing even more than the New pages patrol already does. Fences&Windows 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am proposing that. Wikipedia:Articles for creation have been a success. If it weren’t, the community would have never accepted it. Despite the heavy burden of reviewing the articles, it has prevented the drama level of potentially deleted articles and prods. Many editors come to the AfC to create articles. It has never discouraged editors from contributing. Don't be afraid of failure. Work hard and the work will pay off.

Besides, it would give the editors of WP:NPP an easier time to check the created articles as all of them have been reviewed before creation. Robert9673 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd missed that you proposed this at WP Talk:AfD, I'd only seen your comments at WP Talk:Notability. You need to frame your proposals better. Starting with "AfD is complete nonsense" was only ever going to go down like a lead balloon, and to propose not allowing article creation about an event for a month was always going to be too extreme to gain support. You're right that AfD is a mess, but if you want to get a major change made to how Wikipedia operates you need to present the case better. What your proposal means in practice is to replace the WP:NPP with WP:AfC, and have the assessment of new articles as an absolute gatekeeper rather than as a volunteer service - no article could be seen by readers until a NPP editor has given it the OK via WP:AfC. This would delay the appearance of new articles, especially when backlogs formed as they inevitably would. But it wouldn't stop controversies like that over the Colorado Balloon Boy as that easily passes WP:AfC/WP:NPP criteria, unless you want the creation of every article to be debated, which is unfeasible. Fences&Windows 22:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a complete mess, which is why I closed that embarrassing proposal. I definitely do need to learn to frame my proposals better. Thanks for your advice. Robert9673 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. Most of the problems of new articles come from new editors. Established editors can mostly be trusted to create new articles and don't need someone standing over their shoulder; the NPP is enough of a gauntlet to run without insisting that they go through AfC. A relatively simple change would be to direct brand new users who want to create an article to AfC, but allow anyone who is autoconfirmed to create an article. This proposal has a greater chance of gaining approval than your original suggestion, and may benefit the encyclopedia by separating article creations by total newbies out of the WP:NPP into the arms of the more sympathetic AfC. Fences&Windows 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Why didn't I think of that? Do you want to start the proposal since it was entirely your idea? Robert9673 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds quite similar to what is being suggested here. You might like to review that discussion, although it seems it might have dried up now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits on Wikipedia:Articles for creation

I reverted the changes. We don't have a "consensus" process for reviewing articles - thankfully AfC is not AfD (yet). It's supposed to be read by new editors (mostly IPs). So we want it to be personal, short, and as easy to understand as possible. No need to put all those information in there. Similarly, there is little point including a link to all accepted submissions - if the article was accepted, we always notify the creator anyway. I think you have a lot of interesting ideas, but relatively little experience in the WP processes. Why not spend some time in AfD, AfC, and NPP, and see firsthand how things are working in practice? Tim Song (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So when it reaches 100 pending submissions, then it will be bureaucratic or will all the reviewers just give up? Anyway, I think the concept of AfC is interesting. I have done it before in the past and got some of mine declined due to lack of references. And some were accepted. I like the AfC tag on the talk page that is associated when an article is accepted. The AfC tag on the talk page shows other articles that it was somewhat special after going through collaboration and being accepted. All articles should be like this. But I guess I just have to wait until AfC is bureaucratic. Then Wikipedia can finally achieve its goal of collaboration among editors. Robert9673 (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about - a single reviewer can decide whether to accept or decline an article. If there is a large backlog, the solution would be to streamline the process by removing bureaucracy, not the other way around. As always, collaboration happens after the move into mainspace, when other editors can do whatever they want to the article. AfC is supposed to ensure a minimal level of quality (notability, verifiability, basic WP:NOT issues), not an AfD-duplicate (And even then we sometimes fail (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants. All of the articles in there were created by AfC). There is no way a single reviewer, for instance, can decide accurately whether an article on the Colorado balloon incident runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS or not. Heck, after 191kbs of debate with 186 !votes, we still have no consensus on that. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't AfC just recruit more reviewers if there were a lot of submissions? It would be more like AfD if there were more submissions. Robert9673 (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I liked some of your ideas although I do tend to agree that fewer instructions would be clearer than more instructions. Can I ask, do you intend to join our WikiProject? You might like to help review some articles first and then you would have a clearer idea of how best to help. Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should do a survey among new editors to see what they think instead of just assuming what's best in their interest. I might want to see firsthand how things are working in practice like Tim Song recommended. But joining it seems really boring. Maybe if we all participated in deciding whether it should or not be created. Then I would join. What if I as the single reviewer make mistakes? Wikipedia sorely needs more experience in collaboration. The AfD is a mess. No one collaborates there. It's more of who is right and who is wrong. If we have strong collaboration, it would be very fast in creating articles since everyone is able to work together. We have neglected articles on Wikipedia due to lack of collaboration. No one knows "how to work together". So they ignore the article and the article suffers. Robert9673 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert9673 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You can't ban innocent editors. You should assume good faith.

Decline reason:

We do assume good faith. You, however, demonstrated bad faith by abusing multiple accounts, so no assumption of good faith is either necessary or possible. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert9673 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't use multiple accounts. I never had. All you did was accused an innocent editor. You just assume that just because a user has the same IP address, you ban them altogether. How is that assuming good faith?

Decline reason:

Per the checker above. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert9673 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

But this doesn't answer my question. I am simply an innocent editor that happened to be there at the wrong time. Why don't you just unblock me?

Decline reason:

You used the "innocent editor" argument as well as casting aspersions on CheckUsers earlier this month as User:Esthertaffet (see [1] and [2]). We're not fooled. MuZemike 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jpgordon is a user with access to the CheckUser tool, which uses the underlying IP info to help determine if someone is socking. If he says you're socking, chances are very good it's true. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Liao is stale. So how are these two accounts similar? Robert9673 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can't use the CheckUser unless there is large evidence. Robert9673 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser is not for fishing. So you aren't assuming good faith. Robert9673 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a 100% certain checkuser match. I've triple-checked. You're caught. Bye. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robert9673 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Any ordinary editor would use the "innocent editor" argument because it's valid. And anyway, you still blocked an innocent editor. So what you are saying is invalid.

Decline reason:

You're caught. Further abuse of this template will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 03:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia administrators are the ones who are abusive. I haven't even abused the template. You haven't given me a valid argument of why I was blocked or banned. Robert9673 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We are not to blame for your selective reading skills or truthless denials. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 03:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have selective reading skills or truthless denials. I don't know what you are talking about. Robert9673 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me you are. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain? Robert9673 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your writing style matches the prior account noted by MuZemike above, and your behavior post-block matches the same precisely - you regard CU evidence (which at its weakest is still rather compelling) and cast aspersions on the CUs, whom I'm pretty certain would have their tools revoked if they violated the trust of the community if they ran checks without strong enough behavioral and edit-style evidence (which, in this case, there certainly appears to be enough to sustain a check). When the Checkuser declines your block because he sees you socking via technical evidence, you immediately resort to ad-hominem attacks against their integrity and cast useless aspersions on their motives. The fact you see *nothing* at all wrong about the behavior tells me that you either have selective reading skills or are denying the truth of information we already know as true via technical, behavioral, and literal evidence. Now do yourself a favor, stop acting imbecilic, and drop the argument. None of us are buying it, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone but yourself buying it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 10:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)