This is an archive of past discussions with User:Valfontis. 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 main page.
It's my WikiBirthday, and just like in real life, I like to throw myself a party. Everyone have some cake! Gluten-free, free range, and organic. Valfontis (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't find any free-range cakes, so I hope you like chocolate. Happy Birthday! Ten years, yikes! — Gorthian (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I love chocolate. And congrats to the long-lost @ZabMilenko: and @Little Mountain 5: and to @Finetooth: for today's featured article (and 100,000 edits, geeze louise!). Valfontis (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy birthday. Chocolate is great. I can take no credit for today's featured article, however. The credit goes to Little Mountain 5. Thank you for inviting me to your party. Finetooth (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! I'd sing to you, but I'm not sure that would pass WP:FU. YBG (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
How did I miss this? Happy WikiBirthday! Geez, I'll be 10 as well this August! Thanks for forging that path. --Esprqii (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am already notified that ds applies to the Occupy article so if you want to write me up for spam at WP:AE go ahead. However, many places encourage pointers to threads, provided one is not just pining favorable audience, which I'm not (see contribs). That makes my note at the refuge article WP:APPNOTE, and when TPG allows deletion of WP:SPAM such pointers are not what it is talking about. Don't revert others talk page remarks, but you're welcome to request self revert. In this case, I respectfully decline. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to "write you up", whatever that means. Feel free to tell me "don't" and what I'm welcome to do or not do though. As an admin with 10 years experience on the wiki, clearly I need to review some of the guidelines. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
<edit conflict>
Oh, I see you are an admin. At WP:SPAM the nutshell bubble provies
This page in a nutshell Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. Do not disrupt Wikipedia with spam. If you find spam, please remove or rewrite the content.
Abundant RSs are talking about the revitalized Sagebrush Rebellion. The Occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge article currently omits almost all coverage of that core purpose of the event. I was hoping to attract attention from watchers of many related pages across the spectrum. I expect the conversation will continue and turn into an RFC, and then I'll be posting RFC pointers at these same pages. Before I do so, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain the logical reasoning with which you applied the text of WP:SPAM to my attempt at bringing multiple viewpoints and more editors to formulate a stronger and better consensus on article improvement? Would you have time to do that please? I don't plan to RFC the topic for a couple of days at least. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in taking this further. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I respect that, and I'm not upset. But I don't like throwing good effort after bad, so this is intended as courtesy and FYI only, I have asked about all this by reporting myself for spam at ANI. I'm neither requesting nor objecting to your participation, whatever you prefer would be welcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Help regarding NPOV/Edit War dispute
I have posted to the NPOV and the Administrators/3RR Noticeboards regarding my encounter with an editor, User:Kintetsubuffalo (KB), regarding Koshare Indian Dancers and Koshare Indian Museum. The 3RR posting was archived with no response whatsoever, and I assume the NPOV posting is about to have the same fate. In other words the silence is deafening.
Granted that the topic of these articles is obscure, which is one of my points, there are several articles that should be merged. If there are only two editors there has to be some admin input to break the tie. There have been editor comments that we need to work it out without warring. For me, this is not possible because KB basically responded to my edits with personal insults, including when I said "assume good faith". I am perplexed because he is obviously a prolific and knowledgeable editor. I can only assume the problem is that he is an Eagle Scout, and I have had the audacity to edit a scouting article without permission.
His claim is that I am pushing a POV. If so, it is academic expertise. I do not claim expertise, I hope it shows in the quality of my citations and writing. My edits generally remain because I only contribute to articles I know something about. (Example: Washington Redskins name controversy)
For me, the issue is simple, having read a book for my own purposes I found that it made reference to the Koshare by name, so did not think there was any way to avoid including a clear summary of the book in the Koshare article. KB reverted that edit three times, and that is how it remains. If there is no other input I will restore the edit and likely be accused of starting another round of edit warring?
@FriendlyFred: Sorry there have been issues with the article. You will need to look elsewhere for help as I am quite busy in real life right now. Perhaps some of my talk page watchers will take a look. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
