Thanks for the reminder. I've been rather busy lately and haven't had time to do much on WP, but I will endeavour to get the review done some time over the next few days. My apologies for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as a preliminary I've run the checklinks tool and as you can see, the article currently has some problematic links. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue my comments on the review page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was needing help writing up an article to avoid COI. I don't know if this is the right place to contact you. The article has already been written up, I could send you what I have. It is in relation to a Canadian coalition of non-profit organizations called Voices-Voix. Either way, it would be helpful to be pointed in the right direction. If you could reply to taljou42@gmail.com that would be great. Thanks for your time!
Talia
Raiseyourvoice2011 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think the article is a very interesting crime story; it was very well-edited and well-balanced. Absolutely it should be nominated as a Good Article on Wiki. STSC (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck, sorry to inform you about this but some family issues have come up over the weekend that look like chewing up a considerable amount of my free time over the next couple of weeks. I'm not at all sure I will be able to find time to complete the GA review I started. In fact, I am probably going to have to travel interstate to sort some of this out, and may not have access to a PC at all. I can't absolutely guarantee that I will be able to return to it when I come back either, as there may still be issues to sort out. You may want to relist the article for GA if you don't want to wait. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article Manila hostage crisis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Manila hostage crisis for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell(talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I just wanted to remind you that the review has been on hold five days now. You've made enormous improvements since the nomination, but there's still a little more it needs before it makes GA status. I don't mind keeping it open a little longer than usual, if you still want to work on it. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 21:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've closed it as not passing, for now. If you get the remaining issues fixed and want to renominate the article, please let me know, and I'll take up where I left off. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I've been reviewing GA nominations, and I came across Amina Bokhary controversy, which you nominated. I see that it's been waiting for about a month and a half. I am willing to review this nomination... but if you would prefer I didn't, then I can let someone else do it. I'll understand either way; just let me know if you'd like me to review the article or not. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 00:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will review it. – Quadell(talk) 12:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mindbender.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kellyhi! 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article Amina Bokhary controversy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Amina Bokhary controversy for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell(talk) 19:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deryck Chan. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page. Message added 02:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Thanks for all the work you did in making Amina Bokhary controversy a certified "Good Article"! The article has passed, and it was good to work with you.
For your helpful attitude toward LibAndJustice. Thank you I dream of horsesIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Deryck Chan. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page. Message added 22:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
List of oldest universities in continuous operation[edit]
In many cases the country links are to well-known countries which WP:OVERLINK recommends against linking. As for the rest, look at the title of the article. It's a list of universities. The links to universities are the key element of the article. How would a reader use this article? Either they'd just be wanting to know the oldest universities anywhere, or they'd be wanting to know the oldest universities in a particular country. They're not there to find out about the country; the country is their starting point. They've come to find out about that country's oldest universities. The country links are not relevant here and distract attention from the university links (which of course will all contain a link to the country they're located in, if anyone really wants more info). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion is divided on whether it's better for the sake of a consistent appearance to link all elements in a table even if that constitutes overlinking. Personally I don't think that a consistent appearance is important enough to trump WP:OVERLINK, but there's room for honest disagreement on that. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck, recently you said you would collaborate with me on the Harris Media LLC article I attempted to write if I gained more credible references. I believe I have found a couple of credible articles and was wondering if you could look them over to see if they are worthy of my topic, and if not, why not?
Thanks for the help. Also, I am a new to this interface so I'm not sure if you can access the previous article or if you need me to leave them linked here. Thanks again. LibandJustice (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deryck, I have made some edits and changes to the article you restored for me on my subpage. Could you look it over and tell me if I am headed in the right direction?
Deryck, you mentioned that I shouldn't cite Facebook. However, the information about the Rick Scott work is cited in a Facebook research study and there really isn't any other reference that would support my claims. Should I just get rid of the Rick Scott Case Study paragraph entirely or is there some better way to cite this document?
I was thinking of 1 October, but there is a WMUK event that day. How about 8 October? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for attending to the calendar page here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up a request at Wikipedia:Geonotice now. The wikimediauk-l discussion has been a little bit unfriendly to meetup notices. I have asked for 10 days coverage, and some regions of England rather than the whole UK. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see below you have already done something about it. I'll now revert myself at Wikipedia:Geonotice so as not to cause duplication; and let's discuss this. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted author/sociologist/journalist Konrad Bercovici was my grandfather. There is a page up on Wiki that is painfully thin/sketchy considering everything he was known for and accomplished in life. Including 50 published books, 1000s of award-winning short stories, screenplays for Chaplin, work for the Nation and NY Times, for the founding of Israel...just an endless list. I am working on a collection of some of his unpublished work about people he knew...including Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Modigliani...and the proposal is basically a good Wiki page with lots of info on his life, quotes, sources, lists of published and unpublished work, review quotes, etc.
But the whole Wiki rules are pretty daunting in terms of formatting it for them. I would really like to find somebody to help get this up and running. As I am a writer, it is basically written...just need to get it up. Especially since there is a lot of interest in his work lately...Columbia U wants his papers... as well as in my mother;s work, painter and poet Mirel Bercovici who passed away this past December. And I want to keep the family legacy alive...
Please let me know if this is the kind of project you can become involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrmc (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here was my confusion. As I read Monty845's statement which I endorsed It is saying that your vote should not be removed if you have a non-election related, non-indef block. I supported it because I read it as allowing editors with standard short term blocks to vote. So it seemed to me that it was on your side if you were saying that you think that blocked users should be allowed to vote. Then I read your vote a couple sections above. With that as context I'm assuming that your opposition is that it doesn't go far enough and that you think even indef blocked users (except socks) should be allowed to vote. Is that about right?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the two notes for Cambridge. Go ahead and fix the coords if that's not the area you're looking for. I did alter it once I put it up but for some reason either the Toolserver or Google isn't updating [1] (on my machine, at the very least). So it is is covering Cambridge. I just am not familiar with the UK and how far you'd like it to reach. Killiondude (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all your help on the project. Can I invite you to join our project participant page? [2]Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, here are some more ways you can help. Either way, your opinion's valued! Thanks! LoriLee (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Deryck Chan/Archive 12! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Stdlib.h[edit]
Hey! Noticed you restricted the Liverpool Geonotice to, I think Liverpool? I'm new at this. Anyway, I just wanted to say that most of the sign-ups we have for that meetup are actually from surrounding areas like the West Midlands, rather than from the area themselves. Any chance we can make it slightly bigger again? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Geonotice has had a request of mine for 72 hours now (for Cambridge on Saturday). Any ideas about what next? Charles Matthews (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think need to set another global block to the IP range of 125.37.0.0/16 again[edit]
The IP users of range 125.37.0.0/16 and 117.11.0.0/16 did a lot of vandalism at last year, and a one year global block was applied to those IP users. Now (after a year), I found that the above IP users did the vandalism again with the same method after its blockage has been expired. So I'd like to make a request of another global block of that 2 ranges of IP address (Or permamently blocked them. If not, at least 5 years global block is needed I think.). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asamae2 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deryck, I can see you're busy, but if you have a few minutes please update these, which no one has done since about the start of the month. Most of those running are for past events, as are some requests. There aren't actually that many. Thanks! All the best for the holidays - Adoration of the Shepherds (Le Nain) is my card to everyone. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck, thanks for stepping in. Do you have any suggestions for how they should work this out? Only one of the parties is engaging the issue on the talk page. I've pointed to DR, but I don't know if that is the proper way to go--I usually solve disputes by simply blocking everyone I don't agree with. (Honestop, if you're reading this, this is a joke.) Your help is appreciated! Drmies (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL Drmies, and yes I'am involved :) Responded. HonestopL 1:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Deryck, I just read the talk page--thank you so much for stepping in and helping achieve consensus. I think you're doing a great job there. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda new to this editing thing but there was an error on the Natalie Buchanan page. romances John McBain is supposed to be "2010-2011, 2012 to present" not "2010-2012". I saw it was locked and I am unable to correct it. Thanks:)
Choylyn 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Deryck, I answered the requests. I had to decline both of them because I do not think there is enough disruption at the moment to justify protecting either of them. Acalamari 22:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. :) Acalamari 23:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot mate. But i dont know how to Edit my page now. can u tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsA-92 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am ClaudiBalaguer/Capsot and I think you remember me, but well just in case... you kindly translated my statement during the elections and we exchanged a few (nice) words. I hope you are doing fine and spent a good holiday season. I just wanted to let you know that the French National Library just edited many documents concerning Chinese culture and you, or your friends in the Cantonese and Chinese wikipedias, might have some interest in it, here goes the link:[3]]. I guess there are many other valuable things about China and I hope this will prove interesting for you and your wikipedia(s). Have a wonderful 2012, may all your fondest wishes come true. Take care, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted or merged aviation incident articles[edit]
The practice has always been to remove them from any templates, not replace them with either a link to an airport or aircraft article. The templates are for incidents only with a dedicated wikipedia article. Just like this page[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft]. If you have any comments, post here. I'll keep an eye out.- William 23:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Deryck C. 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
I think all I did was a bit of housekeeping for the page - but thanks for the barnstar! Deryck C. 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I've merged (and reworded) content from Incentive sites to Incentive program. Judging by the small size of the resultant page subsection, the AFD result was certainly correct. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was an AfD on the other name, its probably best to leave that up as a redirect, is it not? The "Domestic Containment" schtick is pretty clearly OR or a non-notable neologism, I'm probably just going to get that deboned out of there and point the direction towards the underlying "encyclopedic topic" for someone else. I'll also make sure the orphan tag is fixed. I'm at the coast with no books, so I'm pretty much stuffed in terms of being able to add real content at the moment... Nor is this really my topic of interest, although I do know there is a huge literature on the topic. Carrite (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood. Yes, there should be a redirect from "Domestic containment," for sure. I'm about done with that piece for the time being. It's quite a mess, actually, blowing it up as OR to clear the building site is starting to look like it would have been the best play. Live and learn. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: An WP:OR title alone is not a valid reason for deletion. If you have a better alternative, move the article. Deryck C. 08:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your first comment, I have responded at [[Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for WP:Identifiability]]. I am avoiding saying anything else at the moment, hoping you'll reconsider without further technical analysis on my part, but please consider that it is unusual to make a closing that only one editor supported. Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hence I closed the AfD as "no consensus" rather than "keep". Unfortunately only 2 editors in the debate (you and CMBJ) made any attempt at analysing the sources, and came to opposite conclusions - hence I also said if anyone can read the Persian, they're free to start another AfD. Thanks for putting up the proposal at WP:VP; I'll respond further there. Deryck C. 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another question: will your opinion be any different if there is an article about Paramount Intersection on the Persian Wikipedia? Deryck C. 10:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the article Kick (2012 film) as a result of the deletion discussion. User:Arunsingh16 recreated the article 3 says later.[5] I took it upon myself to redirect it, but he reverted twice now. He appears to unaware that the article was properly deleted per discussion. So I just tagged it for a WP:CSD#G-4 speedy. Could you check ip on it please? I have suggested to the recreator that discussion with you before DRV would be the process. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Deryck & Michael, I just wish to highlight that the article is worthy enough to be kept and not deleted. There are dozens of articles for upcoming movies and as a matter of fact there is a whole category for such articles Category:Upcoming films. Article is properly referenced and news (non-speculative) published in national newspaper has been cited. As Michael correctly mentioned on my talkpage that I perhaps did not read the AfD discussion before creating the article; however that does not dilute the significance of the upcoming movie. Please reconsider. Thanks AKS (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If circumstances surrounding this planed film have radically changed in the last 3 days, then a recreation is worth a consideration, and yes... we DO have occasional articles on unmade films, but those were proven to have had such persistant and enduring coverage that consensus at AFD allowed them as the rare exceptions that are sometimes allowed to WP:NFF. Your version relies on only two sources... and two does not equate to "persistant and enduring". Might I suggest usefication for continued work? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Not sure if you want to keep the discussion here, so I made a copy of this message and cross-post. Please let me know where you want to continue. The ISP isn't the strongest indicator of who's editing who as one person could easily connect to multiple networks. I've seen quite a number of sockpuppeteers on multiple ranges and ISPs. I tend to rely more on location than ISP. A really good example of a sockpuppeteer who I know, Vote (X) for Change uses quite a number of IPs from varying ISPs (Talk Talk, Virgin Media, BT, etc.). But you can tell it's them due to the behavior and location. Secondly, there are some gaps in the editing between the IPs, this increases the possibility that they are the same person editing behind multiple places. The timing of the edits, the target area, and location strongly suggests connection to each other. It could be meat per the forum post (I was not informed about this beforehand). But judging from the history I've seen along with what Schmucky has stated about the ability to IP hop, past experience with other socks who have similar/somewhat similar behavior and the information from the SPI report, socking looks like a plausible idea to me. Elockid(Talk) 01:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(let's continue here then) I agree that there must be something at least of the order of meatpuppetry going on, although I'd as always urge against calling anything a "sock" unless it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The reason is that socking is indeed a blockable offence regardless of disruption caused. I think blocking parts of Hong Kong for 3 months seems to be a bit over the top?
The other part of the problem I wish to address is the assumption that any IP engaged in such behaviour must be Instantnood. If you look at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive carefully, there were significant gaps in the behavioral chain in what people generally claim is Instantnood between May 2008 and Aug 2009, then Aug 2009 to Jul 2010 (when you first handled the case); and nothing's been conclusive since July 2011 if we take away Schmucky and Oknazevad's purported "WP:DUCK pass" based on only 2 pieces of evidence, namely "showing HK as independent and calling opponents vandals" - seriously, do we think that's adequate evidence to say someone's a sock of Instantnood?
I'm afraid SchmuckyTheCat et al. have very successfully gamed Wikipedia's system to their advantage: a situation has been set up in which they can unrestrictedly revert and denounce any new or anonymous editors who disagree with their views, using Instantnood as an excuse, often without evidence. This is a dangerous situation (and we've been in it for about 2 years now), as Jim Sukwutput (1) and Benlisquare [6] have both pointed out. My request is simple: can we admit that we may have turned away new editors because they've been falsely identified as Instantnood, and stop condemning new and anonymous editors as "socks of Instantnood", because we simply don't have enough technical evidence to do so anymore? Deryck C. 16:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at 203.145.92.0/24, there really only appears to be one person who has been very actively editing for the last 4 months or so. It's also not a very active range before that. Also looking at 113.28.88.0/24, looks like only one editor there for the past 3 months. There only appears to be one person who has ever edited that range.
Regarding the gap in the SPI reports, it doesn't mean that they are not actively editing. For example, this sockpuppeteer. There's some gaps there too. The reason is that I handle the socks as I see them or make requests via IRC. Alternatively some sockpuppeteers are reported directly to AIV (this being not uncommon for reporting socks/block evasion), ANI or AN and handled there. When I look at an SPI report, I also do my own investigation. My stance is, first look at the named accounts/IPs and go from there and get my own evidence. If the evidence provided by the filer is compelling, then I'll take that into account also (kinda mean but there's been many times where there's insufficient and you end up doing the evidence digging yourself). In cases such as Scibaby, though seemingly insufficient, vague evidence is the best evidence to prevent the change of their MO. I also make my comparisons based on the old CU data available.
I agree with you is that there is always a possibility that editors may have been turned away because the really the only true way of confirmation of knowing is to see physically who is the person editing behind the computer. Elockid(Talk) 15:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't merely "a possibility", but a high likelihood. What some of us now call "behavioral evidence that one may be an Instantnood sock" is so vague that anyone sharing similar points of view could be classified as one. Are we, as a community, planning to continue applying such sweeping criteria just to fend ourselves against the possibility of one potentially stale sockpuppeteer? Deryck C. 16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How one considers vague is based on preference. You also have to consider probability when determing the possibility. Take the following factors for example. Consider that there's only about 7 million people in HK. That already eliminates a lot of the possibility. Then you have to consider, how many of those people actually edit Wikipedia or even have edited Wikipedia? Of those people, how many of them edit the same pages? Then consider the timing. Consider their POV, etc. That's a low possibility that you have another person who matches the all that criteria. I wouldn't necessarily call it a high likelihood. Regarding the community view, there's not very many options of identifying people due to the anonymity of the project (it's very easy to contribute, no identification is required to edit.) Elockid(Talk) 03:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little attempt to address your response question by question:
How many of those people actually edit Wikipedia or even have edited Wikipedia? Not enough. (And I say as a member of WMHK.) Maybe there will be more if we stop calling random people reincarnations of Instantnood.
Of those people, how many of them edit the same pages? They're mostly pages of obviously Hong Kong-related topics, so I guess most of them.
Then consider the timing. Consider their POV, etc. Yes, the timing is called evening Hong Kong time. The IP's POV is shared by me, and indeed a significant proportion if not the majority of Hong Kong. There's no born and bred Hong Kong editor who agrees with SchmuckyTheCat et al. with regards to their editorial POV.
I think the main reason you, along with other checkusers and admins involved in the case, "wouldn't necessarily call it a high likelihood", is that most of you don't understand the situation of Hong Kong, and what the general lifestyle and common views of Hong Kong people actually are. There are "not very many options of identifying people due to the anonymity of the project" is precisely what I'm trying to argue with, and the implication is that rather than accurately tracking down Instantnood reincarnations, we've set on ourselves on a course on which we hit too many false-positives, and POV-pushing editors like SchmuckyTheCat are all but too willing to exploit that to their advantage. Deryck C. 11:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to what HKers edit, looking at wider ranges (/16), a large bulk of contributions are not on HK related pages. These are just a few 203.198.0.0/16, 112.118.0.0/16, 203.218.0.0/16 or 116.49.0.0/16. Some people miss this but you can check further contributions by clicking "Next set" at the lower left corner. This is what I'm trying to get at, not everybody from a city edits the same pages. From this, I don't think common views and lifestyles are the main reason for "similar pages". There's a diverse amount of editors it seems. Elockid (Alternate)(Talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at using the range contributions - surely that means there are likely to be many different people behind the IP ranges, given that each of them have a slightly different flavour of page choice outside the Hong Kong topic area? Deryck C. 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm saying that there isn't a preference to just edit HK related pages. Elockid (Alternate)(Talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a preference to just edit HK related pages either, but most of them will make an edit or two on HK related pages at some point. Anyway, what's the implication of that for a checkuser? Deryck C. 00:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon the long waiting times, it's midterms for me here. But, the point that I am getting at is that while every place has their own unique qualities that define them, from observation, people do generally tend to edit their personal interests which often times have little or no relation to the beliefs, attitudes, culture, etc. (just the basic relations) of where they are editing from. From observations at hand, I don't see how HK is really any different from how other people around the world are editing. But most of them will make an edit or two on HK related pages at some point. This is going under the assumption that the person who's edited article subjects A is also the same person who edits article subjects B. It's common thinking to categorize based on similar characteristics and tendencies. So, isn't there a greater likelihood that they are different people then? Is there any evidence that suggests that people who are editing different subjects are the same person? Elockid (Alternate)(Talk) 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, hope you're doing well in your mid-terms. I think the answer to the questions is "we don't know whether that means there's a bigger or smaller likelihood that they're the same person". Since we don't have (statistically) significant evidence on who's the same person as who, it's far better to deal with each potentially different person separately, using sanctions (or encouragements, for that matter!) appropriate to one's own action, rather than making a shaky accusation of sockpuppetry. Deryck C. 18:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think really the big issue here is the threshold of similarity, the community's being the duck test, and the lack of counter evidence. There's not much counter evidence that people consider compelling with the main reasons from the accused being that "I'm not them or I have no clue who I you're talking about" or similar reasons. Without counter evidence it's hard to disprove the accusation. Elockid(Talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're now back to square one. The whole problem is that the duck test's threshold has gone so low that any anon or new editor geolocated to HK holding the same POV will "pass". With a threshold so low, it's hard to present counter-evidence. The problem is not a lack of counter-evidence; it is the low amount of supportive evidence required. Deryck C. 21:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that the threshold is so low. Each person leaves a "fingerprint". Like a real fingerprint, it's distinguishable. The range contribs further seem to support that HKers are editing diverse fields and not just editing HK topics. Based on similarities from other cases, there's a likelihood that they are the same person. I don't feel that the view of HKers is a strong counter argument per the range contribs and using that in comparison with other sock cases around the world, I don't see any evidence to support that HKers are highly active in HK related topics. It's not just "any editor", it looks like one person is responsible based on where the other IPs are editing . If it really is a group, it looks like they're quite a small minority. The reason why I bring up counter evidence is that the location and the POV is already compelling evidence by itself. There is no compelling evidence to prove otherwise. From personal experience and perhaps the community view, often times the accused sock with at least some credible evidence is really sock. Elockid(Talk) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, the "community view" on threshold just sounds stupidly low to me, but as with many other things on Wikipedia I guess I just have to drop the stick and just keep watching for future cases. Deryck C. 22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, that's community consensus for ya. Elockid(Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal experience of winning an old edit war back without any resistance 5 years after dropping the stick tells me it's not a bad move. Had I gone down the other route I would've been blocked like Instantnood, rather than hanging around here gnoming various admin duties and arguing for what I believe. Deryck C. 22:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could I appeal the requested protection of Thomas Eisfeld. I'm not the original submitter and would like also requested it be protected. There have been 100 edits over the past two hours. Most are either pure vandalism or new editors reversing each other. There needs to be a time out so people can cool down for a bit. Bgwhite (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reason why you decline the request, really, but understand me as well. Do you think that the pages I requested for protection deserve this? Charlie's Angels, Mexico (disambiguation), Christopher Plummer and many other are protected a cause of him. Do you really believe that pages that no one edits like The Tick-related stuff deserve this? That other editors, or I, have to clean-up his crap or that living persons like Meryl Streep or Koichi Sakamoto deserve BLP violations, or that Wikipedia deserve demands by the affected people? What would happen if no one detects him, the clear case was yesterday when six pages had vandalism for three hours, the next time how many time Wikipedia will have vandalism. I'm not requesting indefinite protections, I'm requesting short ones, like one month-three months. I already show you how persistentis this user. Protecting is not a solution but there is no other thing to do. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!See terms and conditions. 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't any rolling count so you just have to count them yourself but here's a link to where the information can be found. Since you're an auto confirmed user you can add the link to the citation and update if you so wish. MrDerperson (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would be something worth mentioning about the mechanics of dominion and saying something like:
In order to damage the enemy crystal you need to hold more points than the enemy team. If the points held are equal no damage is done.
As well as mentioning that dominion has 5 capture points, as well as possibly adding a picture of the map if there is one available. MrDerperson (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
League of Legends dominion map/link to more useful information?[edit]
I'm not sure exactly where this fits in the other edits I've suggested, but I think it would be useful to include this in the talk of the new items and other things dominion specific. Or maybe we could link the information in about the various items in league of legends in dominion.
Also I think it would be fun to edit in things about the item lists and have the description/stats/ect about items and display information relative to if it's available in classic, or dominion.
I feel that there should be more words around the store section in terms of how mechanically how it works. There should be some mention of what the difference between RP and IP and what each one does. So something like:
RP is more focused around explicit benefits to the game (skins for champions, buying champions, boosts to XP or IP generation) while IP is more of the implicit benefits (runes and champions)
I've closed the deletion discussion; please go ahead and merge the 2 articles. Deryck C. 12:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All information from Brilliant 10 diamond has been merged to the Yair Shimansky article. A History merge template has been placed on the Yair Shimansky article, requesting a history merge of Brilliant 10 diamond to the Yair Shimansky article. Thank you for the notification. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why did you re-listed this AfD? I think that three delete !votes (including the nomination) were sufficient enough to provide a consensus, and, while numbers do not count, the only keep vote I can see is based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an invalid reason to keep an article. Till I Go Home (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re "the use of it as a geographical term is also unheard of within the said islands" [7] - While I agree that personal experiences are important, we don't normally rely solely upon personal experiences of lay people. The sources provided in the article, submitted in the AfD discussion, and submitted in the DRV did show that the term is well-defined, and is used from within and outside of the ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link concerning the HK wikimania bid is dead. It seems to be pointing to a wikipedia page... perhaps it ought to be pointing to the WM page we've been working on? --Ohconfucius¡digame! 03:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on the document – too many things to correct! --Ohconfucius¡digame! 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deryck:
Since the decision to keep the Jay Jason entry, I have continued to put in more references and justification of statements made in the entry. I wonder if any of the issues that are mentioned at the top of the article have been resolved, and if you might give me any feedback about what I have tried to do with this entry. Your comments and those of others have been most helpful.--Jaytribute516 22:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytribute516 (talk • contribs)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Manila hostage crisis for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. All information from Brilliant 10 diamond has been merged to the Yair Shimansky article. A History merge template has been placed on the Yair Shimansky article, requesting a history merge of Brilliant 10 diamond to the Yair Shimansky article. Thank you for the notification. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
