Good to know you are back. Hope all is well with you. Kind regards, [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] ([[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|talk]]) 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Good to know you are back. Hope all is crap with you. Kind regards, [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]] ([[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|talk]]) 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
: Good afternoon Mr. [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]],
: Good afternoon Mr. [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones]],
All is entirely fine, just another one of those enjoyable busy periods which leave very little time to do any wiki-work at all. They happen at times and cause me to edit very sporadically or even to disappear for some time. It is very pleasant to see that you are still around, and based on the contribution history i can see quite a bit of good work being done. Always a pleasure to see another editor who not only decides to edit for a while, but decides to stay around longer as well. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Excirial,
An enthusiastic, well-intentioned, young user has taken it upon himself to set in place the automatic archiving of my talk page. I know you have it here, run by a bot. He set it for 10 days (!) ... all without asking me, would you believe? (But he did inform me after the event.) Fortunately, I got to the formatting before bot, and altered it to 91 days. Then, in spite of advising him of this, he sneaked back to alter it again to ... "activate the bot" ... so now I have copy in an archive which I would prefer to be restored. Is there a way of doing this automatically? Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones
I must admit i had a good laugh over that Bold action by the other editor as it is clearly well intended but not the most convenient thing to do without some form notice. Thankfully our good friend Cluebot works just like a regular editor, so i reverted its edits which restored the sections it removed. Afterwards i deleted the User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones/Archive 2012 page it created to store the content, to prevent any form of duplicates.
it might be wise to set up some (Manual or otherwise) form of archival though. Right now the talk page is 300Kb in size, which makes loading it slowed. If my own talk page remained in one piece it would result in a 2Mb download every time it is opened, which is of course rather heavy (Especially if an editor works trough a mobile device, or is in a part of the world without broadband access). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Excirial,
Thank you for seeing to that so promptly ... hadn't realised a simple "undo" would have served ... but then I would have missed the part about deleting the archive. My young friend was only being helpful, I know, and as he watches my talk page noticed your actions and immediately removed the archive set-up formatting. I hope he is not too offended, because he is a most obliging person, and has been keen to help in many ways.
Your comments on its size (and his, tonight) are duly noted, and will be acted on. I think a manual archiving method would be more to my requirements, but in the meantime I am ruthlessly "shredding" several sections and other content to reduce the number of bytes – was 323,009 when you looked at it, will soon have it well under 300,000.
Since we started conversing last November, I have followed your pattern of keeping the conversation all together. With a few exceptions, when we both stick to the user page that has the first posting and 'watch' each other – I find most users only post/reply on the other user's page. I have therefore adopted your preferred method, but by using the copy 'n' paste procedure.
My question is regarding the Sinc system that you employ: is it special software? or is it available when I click on [Tools→Sync now] up on the menu toolbar? I am afraid to try. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Griffith-Jones,
The copy and paste system is indeed the most convenient system (for me), since it keeps the flow of conversation quite visible and understandable, while also giving archiving a talk page an actual purpose (After all, what use is there to reading 10 answers posted a month ago without knowing what the question was?).
The "Sync" system i use is all manual work though. i tend to write the reply on my own talk page and then copy that entire section over to the other users talk page, replacing any old copyover (Provided that won't overwrite anything i don't have in my copy). The consistent use of "Sync" is mostly born out of laziness on my side (Similar to using the summary "> R" when i reply to a section). Before the text i wrote would be "Synchronizing section with other user user talk page", but over time that simply got shortened to "Sync", as it is much faster to write. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned all major cases of criticism-removal dating back to August 2008, but not earlier. There are more that happened earlier.
I don't have time to monitor the article. Since the most recent criticism removal was left there for six months until I posted this protection request, you can see that nobody else was watching it either.
Pending-changes level 1 protection would have been a suitable alternative here. Oh well.
Fine. Thank you for considering the request. One question: Is there any way I can convince others to monitor the page, since I don't have time to monitor it myself? One favor: If you could please move this conversation to my talk instead of copying it, it would be much appreciated. I plan to move it back again if I reply, or to WP:RPP's "Declined" section otherwise. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas Unforgettableid,
Most editors on Wikipedia are already monitored trough tools such as WP:Huggle as well as some automated processes (Bots) that check edits for vandalism. The vast majority of the problematic edits are caught that way, yet some may or may not slip trough the net at times. There is no real way to counter this with 100% accuracy, though many people choose to WP:Watchlist an article (There is an RSS feed for the watchlist as well for easy checking) if they intend to check it once in a while.
Protection of a page is not the solution in this case. Suppose you stumbled on this article as a non-user and saw a flaw; in that case you couldn't correct it if it were semi-protected. Also, protections are kept to a minimum since Wikipedia is supposed to be open and editable, so long term protections such as a year are only handed out in very rare cases.
As for the discussion - i always keep a copy of it on my talk page for future reference, and i keep them in sync between talk pages if replies occur. So if you have a reply you can simply overwrite the discussion with the copy and the reply. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Note that i always keep a full copy on my own talk - the hatnote is mostly if people wish for me to use talkback templates or reply on my own talk only.[reply]
Please check this page again, you shortened my protection, while telling the log you were extending it. Did you miss I set the expiry in April of 2013 by chance? Courcelles05:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice catch, and entirely correct. I was already wondering why there was a 1-day semi protection as it seemed so incredibly short in this case - The 2013 kind of explains that though. I reset the protection back to its old 2013 expiry as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)06:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no worries, I really didn't care how long the page was protected for, but just the incongruence in the lgo entry made me ask. Sadly, I doubt the candalism on this page will die down anytime soon... Courcelles06:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyover from another talk page - posted in this revision
Hiyas there Smallman12q,
Yesterday i came across the article Mechanical Aptitude, which is currently being worked on as part of the Industrial Psychology course for which you are listed as one of the ambassadors. The article needed a histmerge (which is now fixed), but afterwards i noticed that the " Wiesen Test of Mechanical Aptitude" section is almost entirely a literal word-for-word copy of the source. I didn't have the time to do a complete check, but a few Google searches on the rest of the content makes me suspect it is mostly minor rewording from other sources.
I'm afraid i lack sufficient editing time lately, so if i were to action this with a comment to the users or similar i'd be very likely to miss the response for some time. Any chance you could have a look? Thanks in advance! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I have notified the students about this issue via the talk page for the article. I trust they will address the problem promptly. Much appreciated. Mjtagler (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking
If you arbitrarily block a multi-use IP adress again, then the full range of WP sanctions may be deployed against you. You should always try to resolve disputes using the Talk page first. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas 212.121.210.45. As the article history and your own contributions display you were in overstepping the bounds of WP:3RR. A warning was issued, but even so the reverts continued without any attempts on your side to discuss on the talk page and as of such a block was issued. I see that your recent contributions include edits to a talk page, so i am glad you are now actively editing them. In case you believe the block is "arbitrarily" do feel free to report this to WP:ANIExcirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I will of course endeavour to comply with WP good practice, as you do. Good examples such as yours will hopefully help me to raise the bar on my own work. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Borshch
Hello Excirial,
I have never misused my Wikipedia account. On Tuesday I mentioned to a friend that my article is being judged unfairly but did not ask her to edit or contribute. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines I assume good faith, and did not accuse Sionk of meatpuppetry or collusion because she voted a few hours apart on the same day with Carrite.
I also assume that none of the voters except me have read any of the "Further reading" sources or Borshch's biography in Who's Who in American Art, and yet they rush to delete.
I'll believe you on your word that you did not intend for this entire sock puppetry situation to happen, which is also the reason why only the three new accounts are blocked. The accusation itself should not be to odd though, as you were the only editor arguing to keep the article, while all of a sudden three new accounts pop up out of nowhere and head straight to the article in question. As you might imagine this is very strange behavior for new editors and thus suggest that something fishy is going on here. In this case a checkuser indeed confirmed that all three accounts were related, hence the blocks that were issued.
All article's marked for deletion are publically listed on WP:AFD, so its not that odd that two longer-term editors involve themselves sometime after each other. If it puts your mind at ease: i intersected Carrite and Sionk contributions, and besides being having quite high edit counts they have little to no on-wiki dealings with one another.
As for the article itself i fear i have to agree with the others involved in the deletion discussion. While there are a lot of sources they are mostly trivial mentions, images or pages that otherwise don't pass the reliable source criteria. In fact it is not the amount of mentions that cover notability, it is the quality of those sources. One or two good quality article's from - for example - renowned newspapers or scientific publications are worth more then 30 trivial mentions. In fact it only takes one or two sources to pass WP:42, and that is all that is needed. Yet if it cannot pass this criteria an article is removed, as it wouldn't pass the inclusion criteria. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have not entered into any edit wars simply every day we have logged in to find someone has changed our links and sources and removed our text we have simply added back our details and links. The links to this site are in our forum and we guide people here. they then come back to us and state the links and information have been removed and another body named vlcak.co.uk have removed our details and placed theirs in there is no war however the people who keep making changes are in relation to vlcak.co.uk and have nothing to do with our GB club we understand this is a free site but it is unfair that representatives of the vlcak.co.uk feel the need to do this every day we find our links gone and changes made! we simple add ours back to the list and then the next day its gone! or within the hour ? we may have to remove our links directing members to this page as the actions of representatives of vlcak.co.uk are behaving in this manner. can we protect this page? or should we just state to our members that the page can not be accredited and remove our links to your site?
You many not repeatedly make the same changes over and over again. Please use the article's talk page (here) to discuss your dispute with the other editors. Kuru(talk)11:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we only re added our link that was removed by the other group. Are we just to leave the removal of our source and links if this is a site where everyone is equal why can someone else remove our links everyday? and yet if we re add them this is wrong ? It is not making the same changes it is re adding our links that representatives of vlcak.co.uk keep deleting everyday. THE PAGE IS BEING DESTROYED BY THESE PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE THEIR IP ADDRESSES WHY DO YOU NOT STOP THIS? We only re add our link and source each time we are told it has been removed!
And in turn you are removing the link of the other party as well - Somehow a Kettle comes to mind for me. Having said that, i see that currently both sites are in the external sources section of the article, so that should be entirely fine. However, constant reverting or executing the same edits falls under edit warring, which is a definite no-go (This goes for both parties involved).
As for how to deal with this: In case this keeps repeating itself, drop the other editor a note on their talk page asking why they are removing the link and see what and if they respond - With some luck that will be sufficient to handle the issue. If the other party keeps removing the link after a message or two and refuses to discuss it further drop me a note and i will look into it. However, this is a two way street, so no replacing their link either. Ergo: Both links seems to be fine for the article, so it should be fine to leave both in the article. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Excirial
I dont know where to contact you as you state on my talk to contact you if they make changes again and bingo today the lady from bulgaria has changed our link to hers it is rediculous that she persists and although we agree we have each time she makes the changes changed it back this time we have waited for you to take action. If she has had the warning then since her warning she has done this twice and still no ban please can we keep our link on czechoslovakian wolfdog page we find it so time consuming coming back every day to see her undo is there anything you can do? again I am so sorry to write here I didnt know what else to do to ask for help and we have refrained from doing the undo ourself because its becoming cat and mouse games (User talk:csvgb talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csvgb (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you did find the right place to leave a message. Before anything else, thanks for not reverting the edit straight back when you saw it, as this is what causes edit wars to keep going on and on. For the moment i re-added the link to the article which means that both http://www.vlcak.co.uk/ and http://www.czechoslovakianvlcak.co.uk/ are in the article. In turn this means that there should be no reason to remove either link anymore, as both are already in the article.
For now i am going to assume that the other editor simply wanted the vlcak link in, and simply replaced the other link while doing so. I will keep an eye on the article for a while (IE: watchlist it), and see if this status quo remains in place. If the other editor simply removes the link again i'll have a word with them and see why they keep removing it. If this keeps going on regardless it will simply be an edit war / vandalism and ill deal with that as required. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had added a mango uncle link on alphonso mangoes page not because I wish to market their website but these fruits are in a great demand all over and people actually search for it on google on how to procure it. I completed that page with one link that i knew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.51 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two clear problems with this link. First and foremost it is not compliant with the external link policy as it is little more then a webshop for selling products - those type of links are never, ever to be included in an article. Second concern is that a link such as Many mango lovers crave for Ratnagiri Alphonso mangoes worldwide and search for them all over, luckily their search ends here.. above link gives the procurement procedure in detail is clearly promotional. It could have just as well stated "Click here and get your credit card to buy the most delicious fruit on the planet" as it would be more or less the same. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
