User talk:Rhododendrites/2015d

Your views are being disregarded, even though you were in the majority. I quoted you right here. In short, Flytr35 deleted a who bunch of stuff in this major vandalism. It wasn't just 1 or 2 things (content dispute), but a lot (vandalism). First off, while I agree that none for the sources are ok for, say, a legal analysis (since apparently none of them are lawyers, not even Watts, who did very well in one big case, pro se), they all still qualify as advocates, as you and I agreed when discussing this. Moreover, the fact Flyte35 deletes a bunch of stuff and pretends he's deleting only the Watts source is disturbing. Your presence is requested right here.96.59.135.156 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@96.59.135.156: It looks like you may have misread my comments. I didn't endorse adding the source. I endorsed the use of an amicus brief for a recommendations-style section (as opposed to using it for neutral purposes), but qualified that by saying it should come from a reliable source. At the end of my comment I even said "I frankly don't know about Watts". That's why I thought you should take it to WP:RSN. My perspective on the matter hasn't changed, so I'm sorry I can't help you. As an aside, it may have been a coincidence but two people from the same geographic area making the same points and presenting themselves as separate people always looks fishy. It may be coincidence, but there's no faster way to kill one side of an argument than to discover its proponents were "socking". One way to avoid this kind of suspicion is to register a username. Just a heads up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for the heads up, however, I do not approve of a lot that Wikipedia stands for and has done, and I refuse to sign up for an account. I am not endorsing any one of the sources above the other (Watts, Collinge, Investopedia, Mocker, or the many others which I have edited), and so, I don't see any conflict of interest. (But, even were one to exist, it would be moot, as I attempt to cite multiple sources, which are valid, reliable, and not misquoted, and properly attributed). I would like to point out one disturbing thing: In this reply here, I replied to Flyte35, on the talk page, but, in order to keep other editors in the loop, I went to the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying section to reply, but someone made that section inaccessible to unregistered editors. If I were "bad" (as some of the comments in that section seem to imply), I would register an account under a 'fake' name --in order to edit on this "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard") --a 'sock puppet,' as your community calls it. But I chose not to do that. Not only is it wrong to prohibit me from editing and replying to the the discussion on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying, but also, the deletion of a HUGE section of stuff, and not just the Watts citation (although, I agree, that is the main source in question) is a chief reason why myself and numerous others refuse to register an account! In fact one registered editor, who was previously involved in the College Education edits, said in this edit here that he is disgusted with Wikipedia (and, by the way, I am NOT ElKevbo, and I won't even address whether I am Watts, Collinge, Mockler, or an Investopedia editor). If we have all these complaints (myself, the 71... anonymous editor, ElKevbo, and many others, - just look around), then guess what? Maybe the problem is not with us, but rather with Wikipedia! That being said, my edits (whether or not I am biased, lack a neutral point of view, have a conflict of interest, etc.) stand on their own merit, as they should. I think that ALL of Flyte35's edits should be reversed, and not just the Watts deletion, but ALL of them. But, as I've been stopped from discussing this on the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I have done all I can do.96.59.146.211 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that abstaining from registering a username on principle, while understandable, does you a disservice. Some of the sorts of things you're having trouble with are things that are largely only problems for anonymous users. As far as editing the reliable sources noticeboard, only pages (rather than individual sections) can be protected, and it looks like this one didn't have anything to do with you. Specifically, there was an anonymous user edit warring to remove someone else's comments. When an anonymous user edits disruptively, the IP can be blocked (just like a username), but when that user hops to different IPs, the only real fix is to "semi-protect" the page for a shortish period of time (in this case it looks like it will be unprotected tomorrow, at which point you should be able to edit it again). The quasi-open editing model of Wikipedia invites rampant abuse of the system. In order for it to work at all, restrictions on that openness have to be put in place from time to time -- but conscious of the fact that any such impediments should only be as needed and should be removed as soon as not needed.

Other than not registering an account, if I may offer some unsolicited advice, I think what's doing you the most disservice is your rhetorical approach. You'll find that many people are very sensitive to perceived misrepresentations (of anything -- sources, editors, edits...) and of making disputes about other editors rather than about content (except in those rare cases where it really is about the editor). I'm thinking in particular of calling the removal of content "vandalism" and misrepresenting (in good faith / accidentally, I'm sure) what I had said. It makes it hard for some people to take the substance of your complaint seriously.

I stand by my original evaluation of Flyte35's removals. I think your best course of action would be to "drop the stick" concerning the personal disagreement with Flyte35 and to make a clear case for why Watts is a reliable source and his recommendation significant enough to include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for making such a harsh statements, such as above, where I said: section to reply, but someone made that section inaccessible to unregistered editors. -- Or even harsher, where I told this to Flyte35: ["...since the main page blocked me from editing. So much for "honest discussion!"" I did not know that the "semi-protection status" was related to someone else. (That was very short-sighted and illogical of me to assume it was because of me, seeing as there are numerous other edit wars going on, besides my own!) As I've said before, Watts, Collinge, Investopedia, and even Mockler (who was only mentioned once in an independent source, but a big source, the NY Times) are all valid and legitimate advocates. If you go back to the talk page, you'll see that I show ALL of them were cited numerous times in other publications not their own, and furthermore that I quoted them and cited the source correctly. While Watts' statement was a little different than Collinge's and Mockler's, it matters not: all 3 of them were valid statements, and they also supported their contention that loan forgiveness was good. I will apologize to Flyte35 for my brash complaint regarding the semi-protection, but, as I've said before, if you read the talk page, you'll see ALL the sources are reliable sources, and not merely "some yahoo mentioned only on his/her own blog." If these three sources (Watts, Collinge, Mockler) had not been cited anywhere but their own blogs, you'd have a case, but they were cited multiple times, and thus very valid. I'd like to know why you would hold them to any higher standard. Lastly, however, I see registered editors being treated with less respect than I am experiencing, so I respectfully dissent from your assessment. But thank you for your good faith suggestion.96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyte35 brought up a nuance that i'd missed earlier, the difference between Bankruptcy and loan forgiveness on his talk page, and further discussed in talk on the article. Other nuances were discussed, and as you're familiar with the subject, but biased towards neither one of us, I invite you to help us resolve our dispute.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll say it again: your patience and kindness (this time I'm talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnism (3rd nomination)) is an inspiration. You defuse unpleasantness and make a great first impression for WP. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with FourViolas! Your tone is consistently welcoming, helpful and convivial, and you always take the time to assist patiently and generously. You have an admirable skill for pointing out areas of improvements in an even-tempered manner and for encouraging others to take responsibility and resolve to do better. On the few occasions I turned to you for advice, your guidance enabled me to do the right thing with renewed confidence.
For that, and everything else you do in support of our encyclopaedia, thank you!

With kind regards;

Patrick ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 09:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@FourViolas and Pdebee: Sincere thanks for these kind words. I tend to think dogged civility is a pretty effective approach to Wikipedia discourse -- effective on the level of the individual discussion but also on the macro level in terms of impact on the community, countervailing some of the unfortunate trends facing the site. Thanks again. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear,

I want to add my page like this link http://www.mymacaronrecipe.com/macaron-day-2013/ in to reference. But i couldnt put 37. article on References. How can i done this ? please dont remove and help me about put my webpage link too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdoganci (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mdoganci: Wikipedia has relatively strict guidelines for what kinds of sources can be used and what kinds of links can be included. Typically, the source should be a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not a blog or commercial site. References are also only for supporting content in the article, not to serve as a directory of relevant sites. Perhaps I don't understand what you're asking, but Wikipedia is not a good place to promote a blog, no matter how good it is. It may be ok to include a link to the official Macaron Day website, but even then probably not because it doesn't provide an encyclopedic resource to readers. Sorry I can't be of more help. If you have other questions, feel free to ask here. There is also a place called WP:TEAHOUSE which exists specifically for new Wikipedia users to ask questions like this. They may be able to help more than I. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Wikipedia account was previously granted a user right called "course instructor" by the Wiki Education Foundation. That right enabled you to create a course page through the EducationProgram MediaWiki extension. Starting in fall 2015, the Wiki Education Foundation has discontinued its use of this extension. Going forward, users should create course pages through the Wiki Education Foundation website. That application is more user-friendly, and any content is automatically mirrored to Wikipedia. To prevent confusion, we'll be removing your "course instructor" user right, as it is not needed with the new system. This is simply a notification of the technical change to your account. No action is needed from you at this time.

If you plan on teaching with Wikipedia for the fall 2015 term, please email me (helainewikiedu.org) for instructions how to create your next course page using our new system. --Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk), sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

More information Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic ...

Sunday August 2, 1-7pm: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Brooklyn's Prospect Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday August 2 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP) (also on meetup.com) 1pm–7pm - come by any time! @ Bartel-Pritchard Square entrance (Prospect Park West and 15th St), immediately on the lawn to your left as you walk through the lovely lotus columns. Subway: ​ to 15th Street – Prospect Park (IND Culver Line) We hope to see you there! --Pharos (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC) (Bonus event: WikiWednesday Salon @ Babycastles - Wednedsay, August 19)

Close

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello Rhododendrites. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sheldon Hall (film historian), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not overly promotional, and the list of publications might constitute a claim of basic importance. PROD already in place, if not AFD might be indicated instead. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Thanks for the heads up. The reason I [still] see it as appropriate for CSD is because the entire article is effectively a copy/pasted CV with a single line of [unsourced] prose ("Sheldon Hall is a film historian based in the Humanities department of Sheffield Hallam University.") By the same logic, every academic could paste their CV and have an article for seven days while AfD runs its course. One of those things that, to me, makes sense for CSD or PROD, but is harder to tackle at AfD. ...For what it's worth :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rhododendrites. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

hello

i have seen you deleted some IM clients from the page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients&action=history

would you mind if i reorganise the page so that they are still present ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.6.243.149 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@2.6.243.149: Hi there. Thanks for the message. The reason I removed InTouch Messenger and Freelab Messenger from Comparison of instant messaging clients wasn't about organization, I'm afraid. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, distinguishes itself from other kinds of reference works and web content. Its lists are therefore "encyclopedic lists" and, while the standards vary somewhat, the typical inclusion criteria is that the addition has its own Wikipedia article and that there are reliable sources which establish its belonging on the list. In this case, the latter is easy, but both of the articles were previously deleted. In other words, lists on Wikipedia are very rarely e.g. a comparison of all instant messaging clients but rather a comparison of those which are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. So the first thing to do would be to create the articles. I've left a message on your user talk page which contains some links that will help you to get started if that's something you'd like to do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

to what i have seen when that listings were added the article the listing was referring to was also present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.60.126.129 (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@90.60.126.129: It does look like they did at one point exist but have since been deleted. Freelab went through a process called WP:PROD in which someone suggests that a subject doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for "notability" and if nobody contests it, it's deleted after a week. InTouch went through the WP:AFD process through which people discuss whether an article should be kept or deleted over the course of a week or until consensus emerges. A record of that discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InTouch Messenger. I wasn't involved in either one, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, it seems I puffed on the John Cyril Porte page, what did I not do?80.229.34.113 (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@80.229.34.113: Hmm. Upon taking a second look it wasn't as clearly "puffery" (I like the verb form, by the way :) ) as I originally thought. Puffery includes inserting "peacock terms" that don't add anything encyclopedic but just serve to praise/promote. For example, "highly influential," "famous", "world renowned", "a defining figure", and so on. In this case, it's clear I was too quick to act as I'm now not entirely sure "widely publicized" in this context isn't appropriate. Sorry about that and thanks for leaving a message. I've restored your edit and will leave it to those who edit the article more actively than I do (they may still remove it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for filling out the form and registering at Newspapers.com. Because of vacation timing at Newspapers.com, it will be a couple of weeks before your account is activated. Sorry for the delay. And thanks for letting me know about the typo in the Wikipedia email message. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Thanks for the update. No worries re: delay. There's nothing pressing I'm looking to use it for -- just a good resource to have access to in general. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You should have full access now. HazelAB (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Since you participated in an earlier discussion on the same issue on the same page, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RFC: “Common selection criteria” ambiguity. If you choose to reply to this notice, please do so on my Talk page. (Don’t worry, my IP address is static.) Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the heads up — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.

Mahitgar (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. Thanks for this this. It gave me a nice chuckle. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted some of information at Wikipedia from me and several links. It wasn't spam as you send in a message, for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall this fact: The Australian mall company Westfield launched an online mall (and later a mobile app) with 150 stores, 3,000 brands and over 1 million products.[citation needed]

- from the article http://www.malls.com/news/analytics/the-future-of-the-shopping-mall.shtml

Please, restore it and be careful with edits, it's result of others people work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balakirev (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Balakirev: Hi there and thanks for the message. Malls.com is a b2b/commercial project that is not clear about where it gets its information. It looks to either aggregate data from around the web, collect user-generated content, and/or sells profiles to mall managers/owners. In any case, it's neither a secondary source with a reputation for fact-checking/accuracy nor an official primary site. Add to that that it's primary commercial aim, selling the ability to add information without editorial oversight, and it doesn't meet standards for reliable sources on Wikipedia.

It looks like the only edits you've made at all have been to insert links to malls.com. New accounts replacing deadlinks with lower quality references and adding external links to lower quality sites raises red flags -- when that appears to be the only purpose of the account, it's almost always going to be a spammer. If that's not the case, I apologize, and would be happy to talk more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.173.59 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

More information Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC ...

Wednesday August 19, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our evening "WikiWednesday" salon and knowledge-sharing workshop by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. We also hope for the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming editathons, and other outreach activities. After the main meeting, pizza and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday August 19 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles, 137 West 14th Street Featuring a keynote talk this month to be determined! We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Close

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A discussion that might interest you has been started at talk:moral panic. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this the hint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.216.27.206 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hint? Sent what? Since I can only see edits you've made with this IP address, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NRP and I were talking and we both think that you'd make an awesome admin. (It was NRP's idea since he first suggested it.) To be honest, I keep thinking that you already are one. So what do you say - interested in a WP:RfA? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79 and NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks very much for this. I've replied by email. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums]
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On 27 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Shrouded Horizon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Operation Shrouded Horizon was an 18-month international law enforcement investigation into an online forum described as "a cyber hornet's nest of criminal hackers"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Shrouded Horizon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As there are already discussions concerning the matter, I do not feel the need to voice my concerns. If you can explain to me how Julius Evola can somehow both be an anti-fascist that died in 1974 and someone with "beliefs inspired by or reminiscent of fascism or Nazism" and that this is relevant enough to be in the introduction I will se where you are coming from. Bandaideditor (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you changed it now and think your edit is fair. Thank you for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandaideditor (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bandaieditor: Thanks for the message. It seems while you were typing this I was typing this at Talk:Julius Evola. To be clear, I don't disagree with you (and in hindsight I probably didn't need to leave that message on your talk page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Read in sourced article title "according to Wikileaks documents" There is no verification of fact that leaked text is authentic.

P.S. Btw, I do not care about marginalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.1 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:WikiLeaks. I hope you'll take my second post there as constructive criticism even if it is kind of negating. Not trying to give you a hard time or push some agenda here -- it's just how Wikipedia works (i.e. not edit warring, discussing first, going by what reliable sources say, arguing against reliable sources through other reliable sources rather than editor opinion, etc.). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)