User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Tech News: 2014-28

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News updates

• We are looking for contributors to help write a new issue every week. If you would like to help, please contact us.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 3. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 8, and to all Wikipedias on July 10 (calendar).
• CirrusSearch was enabled on July 1 as the primary search method on 36 new wikis, including the Norwegian (no), Portuguese (pt) and Ukrainian (uk) Wikipedias. [1]
• It is now possible to create Atom or RSS feeds for Word of the Day, Word of the Week and similar entries on Wiktionary wikis. [2] [3]
• You can now use a graphical interface to edit TemplateData information on the English (en), French (fr) and Italian (it) Wikipedias. [4] [5]

VisualEditor news

• Saving an edit with VisualEditor will now be much faster. [6] [7]
• You can now add a caption when you add a file to a page with VisualEditor. You can also change the file to a different one and keep the existing caption. [8] [9] [10]
• When you switch to the Edit source tab, you are now asked to keep your changes. You no longer need to find the option in the menus. [11] [12] [13]
• The reference tool that adds empty <ref></ref> tags is now at the bottom of the Cite menu, below references that use templates like {{Cite web}}. [14]
• Context menus will no longer be shown over items that you can edit directly, for example formulæ. [15] [16] [17]

Future software changes

• Starting on July 9, it will be possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. The feature was first scheduled for July 1, but was delayed due to bugs.
• A plan to enable CirrusSearch as the primary search method on the 11 largest Wikimedia wikis has now been prepared. [18]
• If you use references on a page, you will soon always see them at the bottom of the page, even if you forget to add the <references /> tag (or a template). [19] [20]
• Black-and-white XCF images will soon display correctly. [21] [22]
• Description pages of SVG files will soon always show download links for multiple resolutions (example). The links were previously shown only for SVG files in large original resolutions. [23] [24]

Problems

• Between July 2-3, there were problems with loading pages on multiple wikis due to a configuration issue. [25] [26]
• For a few hours on July 1, there were problems with uploading new files on Wikimedia Commons due to a configuration error. [27] [28]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Copy edits

Can you do more copy edits on these pages Nizamabad,Telangana.--Vin09 (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will get back and finish the copyedit presently. Please do let me know if you have any other pages you would like copyedited. You are doing a wonderful job with all the articles you are creating! ciao!!! ````

Thank you very much, definitely I'll work with you. One more page for copyedit - Guntur.--Vin09 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A chance for you to redeem yourself

Hello User:Carriearchdale, I'm User:Sturmgewehr88. It appears that, because of your behavior in the last few months, you are about to be indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia. Because I believe in WP:Good faith, I'm going to spell something out for you: while many editors support indef blocking you, a majority of them are in favor of later unblocking you if you learn from your misdeeds and accept that what you did was wrong. They're not asking you to kiss their ass, just accept responsibility for your actions. I have also volunteered to be your WP:MENTOR after you're unblocked. I look forward to helping you become a better contributing editor to Wikipedia, but you have to take the first step. Also, when you request to be unblocked, please don't sound like a "victim"; you must genuinely regret and repent your past actions, otherwise no admin will unblock you. Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I do thank you for stopping in with your kind offer. I will certainly take it in under advisement. I am and always will fully accountable for my actions. I always have been and I always will be.

Also thanks for the note about the broken user boxes and such. I may be brilliant but I never said I could make a correct user box. I have been renovating on my user page, so please do pardon the dust. There is all kinds of code swirling around over there. I like your signature coding. I am very attract to the different script to write a couple in japanese script! Please do stop back in another time. Have a great evening! Also please see the response to the user who posted a question just above yours.

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Let us all have a spelling lesson!!!

Let us all have a spelling lesson!!!

Okay now, sound out each letter as we spell the big long difficult word!!!

Who can spell it,

who can say it?

If you don't want to to learn a word that most of you do not have a good understanding of, please exit now!!!

And now, very politely, here we go.............................

W H I S T L E B L O W E R

ciao!!! I hope everyone has a wonderful rest of the evening!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You can stop patting yourself on the back. Whistleblowers come with evidence of the malfeasance they're blowing the whistle on. You, however, have presented no evidence whatsoever, just unsupported accusations. You appear to merely be harassing an innocent editor. If you have real evidence of paid editing, then provide it, please. Put up, or shut up. BMK (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

oh, but I already have user bmk!!! I have done my due diligence. Maybe it's just that you are too far down on the FUCKING totem pole that you don't even know about it yet!!!

BE GONE!!!

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't you want me to have a wonderful rest of the evening? BMK (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of you, stop acting childish. Carriearchdale, this section reads more like "I'm getting blocked anyway, YOLO" and violates WP:CIVIL, please don't make this any worse for yourself than it already is. And BMK, you should know better than to poke at her. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As another editor said about Carriearchdale (not me), she exhibits "Scary, vicious, totally insupportable and unconscionable behavior". If someone behaves in that manner, they really should expect to get a tiny bit of their own back every now and then. In any case, I still want to find out if I'm supposed to have wonderful rest of the evening or not -- I won't to able to go to bed until I know. BMK (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that sarcasm made me chuckle. Anyway, I understand your frustration with this behavior, but again that doesn't mean you can turn around and give it back. If it bugs you so much, don't post on her talk page (although if she does this somewhere else, that's a different story. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, and for the record, I have not, nor have I ever received any form of payment or compensation from anyone in any manner, shape, or form regarding my endeavors on Wikipedia. Anyone who states that this is not correct is making false, fraudulent, and libelous accusations, and is a liability to the organization as well as to editors whose sole aim is to contribute in good faith. Thank you to all of you for your support in this unwarranted and unfounded matter by this editor, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daniellagreen: Be careful about using the "L" word ("Libel") as it could be interpreted as a legal threat, which can get you blocked from editing. I don't believe you meant it that way, so, if I am correct, you should make a statement here on the order of "I have no intention of taking legal action," if that is indeed the case. Please take this advice very seriously. BMK (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I have absolutely NO intentions of taking legal action regarding my prior comment, and am only trying to look out for Wikipedia's benefit. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 03:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is your user page so cluttered?

Just curious, but you have like four and a half Babel boxes. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Proposal

• Carriearchdale, pending resolution of that discussion, I have removed your Reviewer and Rollbacker rights. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In your appeal to Jimbo you write:

My name on wikipedia is Carriearchdale and I have been a registered member of wikipedia since 2007 contributing globally across some 35 wikipedias.

However, the SUL report for this account shows that you have contributed to 21 WMF projects. Under what account name did you make contributions to 14 other projects? BMK (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

response My account name is Carriearchdale. Always has been and always will be. Thank you for stopping in to enquire. I do appreciate that. Perhaps maybe you should update all your wikimedia softwares and such. Because I did make an error when I said around 35 global wikis. It is actually 38.

THIRTY EIGHT

global account Statistics: 12961 edits on 38 wikis. Most edits on en.wikipedia.org (12427). Oldest account on en.wikipedia.org (2007-11-21 06:11).

Edits by project:wikipe...metacomm...1/296.3%

Edits by language:en

Other99.8%

See also recent activity, recent edits, global user manager

Local accounts

wiki edits registered groups unified login block

enwiki 12427 2007-11-21 06:11

unified

metawiki 305 2014-01-05 09:39

unified

commonswiki 128 2014-01-06 20:31

unified

simplewiki 29 2014-01-08 05:52

unified

enwiktionary 27 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

frwiki 8 2014-01-06 15:48

unified

wikimania2014wiki 7 2014-02-07 14:06

unified

idwiki 5 2014-01-27 01:34

unified

eswiki 3 2014-06-16 08:01

unified

fiwiki 3 2014-06-16 20:27

unified

wikidatawiki 3 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

zhwiki 3 2014-02-07 05:34

unified

arzwiki 2 2014-02-10 02:16

unified

dewiki 2 2014-01-13 14:33

unified

enwikiversity 2 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

itwiki 2 2014-02-09 00:17

unified

enwikisource 1 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

fawiki 1 2014-06-23 15:25

unified

incubatorwiki 1 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

lawiki 1 2014-02-23 05:42

unified

mediawikiwiki 1 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

arwiki 0 2014-06-12 17:58

unified

enwikibooks 0 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

enwikinews 0 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

enwikiquote 0 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

enwikivoyage 0 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

fjwiki 0 2014-04-18 07:11

unified

loginwiki 0 2014-01-05 09:39

unified

nlwiki 0 2014-06-17 08:59

unified

outreachwiki 0 2014-03-11 08:55

unified

plwiki 0 2014-03-02 20:35

unified

ptwiki 0 2014-03-02 20:35

unified

sourceswiki 0 2014-03-21 20:47

unified

specieswiki 0 2014-01-06 22:13

unified

svwiki 0 2014-03-02 20:34

unified

tawiki 0 2014-02-27 02:54

unified

testwiki 0 2014-04-27 10:43

unified

viwiki 0 2014-03-02 20:34

unified

open-source and released under the CC-BY 3.0 license

Again I do thank you for the inquiry. Plese do stop back in again sometime.

ciao!!! I do hope everyone has a great and fabulous evening! Carriearchdale (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit. For the last 17 on the list you don't even have a single edit. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Global Contributions verifies: contributions to 21 projects. BMK (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Why does it matter if she's active on however-many projects? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It matters because she posted an appeal/justification on User talk:Jimbo Wales in which she seriously exaggerated her contributions to WMF projects in order to make herself look better. She wrote:

        My name on wikipedia is Carriearchdale and I have been a registered member of wikipedia since 2007 contributing globally across some 35 wikipedias.'

        This simple sentence is full of false impressions and exaggerations. Her account was made in 2007, but she didn't edit until January 2014, so the implication that she's a long-term editor is false. She is registered on 38 WMF projects but only actually edited on 21 of them, and on 11 of these her edits were simply to create a user page. That means that she's not "contributing globally across 35 [or 38] wikipedias", she's contributing to 10 WMF projects, and on four of those ten she's only got edits to a couple of articles. In truth, she's only contributed any significant edits to en.wiki, Commons, simplywiki, en.wiktionary and meta.

        Now people contribute what they can when they can, everyone can do as much or as little as they like, so contributing 12,980 edits is a good thing (if they are good edits -- the AN/I seems to be showing that many of them are not). What's wrong is exaggerating your contributions in order to make yourself look better so that your unsupported allegations of another user being a paid editor might have a chance of being taken seriously. That's why it matters, not in the abstract, but because of how she presented herself. BMK (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

        • I saw this on ANI a little while after I asked, so sorry that you had to explain here too. Also it's good that you put this up at Jimbo's talk page and ANI. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

more retaliatory battleground behaviour from User:Beyond My Ken

here=[29]

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... it's "battleground behavior" when I move a comment I posted from the wrong place and put it in the right place? BMK (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's battleground behavior when you say/do something to instigate a conflict. What she said wasn't right, but that doesn't give you the right to do something you know is just as wrong. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh Geez Louise, get fucking real, dude, your account is named after two deadly Nazi weapons, and you're lecturing me about this crap? Get over yourself - and I suggest you withdraw your offer to mentor Carriearchdale, you're clearly not qualified to do so, she'd eat you alive. BMK (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? For one, "Sturmgewehr" is a generic word, and any weapon is "deadly". And yes I am lecturing you, because you're violating these policies. And I find that unlikely. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Beyond My Ken can be brash at times but as a whole he is generally spot on when it comes to policy. I do not see a problem with what he said, it is a little more forward than what I would have said, but as a whole he is correct when describing recent behavior, especially considering the discussion at ANI. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: All I have to say is that if I'd only chastised Carriearchdale, I wouldn't have received this "brash" comment. I have no wish to escalate things with him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: This edit to me is extremely borderline, and if you do have an issue, I suggest taking it up with Beyond My Ken directly, but I do see where you have an issue. If both of you are amiable to it, I'd be happy to mediate. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Solarra: Other than it being dickish, I don't have an issue with it, and will walk away and let User:Carriearchdale revert him. It was this edit that offends me, but again I'd prefer to walk away. Thanks for the offer though. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@S88: You need to get your facts straight -- I did not make that original edit, someone else did, I merely reverted you - but the other editor's change was accurate, and you need to give Carriearchdale the chance to make her own decisions, neither you nor I can make them for her. BMK (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm backing away - you might want to consider doing so as well. BMK (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I never said you made the original edit, I said you reverted me, after I restored the page to its original version, and left a dickish edit summary, which I could care less about. And what do you mean "you might want to consider doing so as well"? Was "I don't have an issue with it, and will walk away and let User:Carriearchdale revert him" not straightforward enough of my intentions? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

need more edits on that page, has many issues, please correct them based on copy-edit tag. Vin09 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes Vin09, I will try to get back there today to finish. Thanks for the note. Please have a good day!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Carriearchdale, I've been wondering. Why do you tell people to "govern [themselves] accordingly"? According to what? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: It is to this link [30], but I'm not sure what the point of it is. Piguy101 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing based on community discussion here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that you received an offer to be mentored by one of the commenters at the ANI discussion. If I were in your current position, I might very seriously consider indicating whether you would be willing to accept such an offer. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

my newest most favourite quote on wikipedia ever

"I will say it again. I liked Carrie. I really don't want to spend the time to look into the story that has everyone so worked up, but if I did, I might still think she had points. I am a rational person, so if she was getting in the way of the project I would not see that as a good thing, but I am not sure I am so thrilled with the implied threat that if I spoke up for her, that would mean that I was a bad guy too. But in a way, I am not much value to Wikipedia, because I couldn't contribute much without attracting buzz saws, so the implied threat has little to do with me be honest in my opinions, and has more to do with the aggressive community being at homeostasis.Bob the goodwin (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I perused a lot of the stuff on Carrie. She definitely got on the wrong side of the crowd, but my sense is that the project didn't care if she was right, and mostly didn't want a trouble maker. It feels like the project is just fine with hidden paid editors, and there are probably a ton of them out there, but the project has very little supervision, and does not want anyone taking up oxygen by complaining. That is probably why I failed as well, as I was horrified at the aggressive games that undermined scholarship. I tried to make a case against her as I read the stuff, but it mostly came down to the idea that people wanted her gone, people pulled the plug because there was too much ink. I would mentor Carrie to be different in life, but I think you've all done her a favor by giving her a life again. Wikipedia publishes what the most aggressive person wants. There's a lot of money to be made if you can control the truth. The mob spilled over in their anger, and went after me? Why does so much anger float in this place? I hope I am wrong. I am done being mad, and want friends and not enemies. Go make good edits, and help the project. I can't. Bob the goodwin (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)"

Tech News: 2014-29

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 10. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 15, and to all Wikipedias on July 17 (calendar).
• It is now possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. Please go to the username changes page on Meta if you want to rename your account on all wikis. [31] [32]
• You can now read a summary of the Wikimedia technical report for June 2014.
• You can now read the latest issue of the Wikidata newsletter and translate it into your language.

VisualEditor news

• The tool to add templates and citations will now work for templates that include HTML comments or templates in their titles. [33] [34]
• The button to make images full size should now work correctly. [35] [36] [37]
• References will now be shown in the default font size again. [38]

Future software changes

• CirrusSearch will be enabled as the primary search method on the Dutch (nl) and Japanese (ja) Wikipedias on July 14, and on the Polish (pl) and Russian (ru) Wikipedias on July 16. [39]
• The Special:Version page will soon show the exact version of MediaWiki and all extensions installed on your wiki (example). [40] [41]
• It will soon no longer be possible to order printed books of wiki articles via PediaPress. You will still be able to create PDF files. [42]
• Pages that use {{DISPLAYTITLE:''title''}} more than once will soon show a warning. You can use {{DISPLAYTITLE:''title''|noerror}} to hide it. [43] [44]
• Pages that have the list of references added automatically will soon be added to a tracking category. Administrators will be able to configure the name of the category on their wikis. [45] [46]
• Administrators will soon be able to easily merge histories of two pages using Special:MergeHistory. [47] [48]
• Administrators will soon see links to delete files on Special:ListFiles. [49]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

notification to all interested wikipedia users

At the present time I have not yet made a decision as whether to place an unblock request here at the english wikipedia. MY decision is still pending based on several factors.

I am not abusing my talk page access by replying to a message left me by Vin09. Contrary to what andythegrump has so prematurely posted on the ANI, I merely asked to editor Vin09 to contact me via the email link on the left to "Please email me any help requests" Nothing was stated in my message left here to Vin09 about anything to do with advising him how to proceed with any matters here at english wikipedia. please govern yourselves accordingly, and as always I hope everyone will have a quite fantastic evening. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—LucasThoms 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Since of course I cannot at present respond at ANI, I will leave any responses or comment here on my talk page. ciao!!! 00:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If it becomes critically necessary, I can ferry comments over for you. —LucasThoms 00:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Lucas Thoms. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to john carter post at ANI, I would say that equating his verbose and evilly creative attempts at translation of the actual meaning of the exact statement I typed in message to vin09, "Please email me any help requests by clicking email user in the left column of the talk page here," with intention of what statement meant would be impossible. It is quite difficult to understand how user john carter knows exactly what meant when I typed those nineteen words. How about keeping all the casting of aspersions to a minimum this time!!! To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Being that it is customary to notify any user/editor whose wikipedia name is brought up at ANI, I would request that some neutral party notify Vin09 that his wikipedia name has been mentioned at ANI, if that has not already been done. ciao111 Carriearchdale (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There is little if any way you could actually be of any "help" on wikipedia articles while blocked without basically violating the block and effectively attempting to skirt the block. You could reasonably have used fewer words to say "I'm blocked ask someone who isn't. I honestly can see no reasnon for you to request an e-mail on content while blocked except to circumvent the block or maybe being unwilling to say those fewer words.John Carter (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Being that it is customary to notify any user/editor whose wikipedia name is brought up at ANI, I would request that some neutral party notify Vin09 that his wikipedia name has been mentioned at ANI, if that has not already been done. ciao111 Carriearchdale (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make a notice, and post at the ANI that user BeyondMyKen had just for at least the second time vandalized the Carrierarchdale user page by changing the information in the user box which lists the true and actually date I registered with wikipedia. beyondmyken changed the correct year date from 2007 to 2014. That edit was malicious, disruptive, and just continues to show the batleground and retaliatory actions of user beyonmyken towards Carriearchdale. Please see this diff if you wish to verify what I have typed here. [50]

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's directed at me, I decline. I offered to help you figure out this current ANI case, not to be a proxy for the dispute between you and BMK. —LucasThoms 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't, but no problem, thanks for your help Lucas Thoms ciao!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt he'll do it again. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The basics about contributing

"Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Everyone is encouraged to copyedit articles, and add content if they have knowledge of or are willing to do the necessary research to improve the topic at hand."

diff [51]

external reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Carriearchdale/Niotso

User:Carriearchdale/Niotso, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Carriearchdale/Niotso and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Carriearchdale/Niotso during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you are unable to respond due to your block, any critical comments you have I can convey for you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Solarra for the note. I believe at this time it would be the best thing to say that I have no comment at this particular time. May I ask you Solarra, to either post, or tell me how long such a "discussion" is customarily run before closing it? Thanks for your time. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

See WP:AFD for specifics, but generally discussions involving deletion are allowed to continue from 7 days from when they are opened. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

attempts to ask questions

A simple question. Did you copy-paste the article from the source I linked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

notification of current fact

Name : Carriearchdale

Registered : 21 November 2007

diff [52]

external reference - https://tools.wmflabs.org/quentinv57-tools/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Carriearchdale

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• User:Carriearchdale, according to Template:User Wikipedian For, the template is supposed to be set to the day your account was created, not your first edit, so anyone changing this template on your user page to anything else is wrong. Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Sturmgewehr88. I hope you have a wonderful evening!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

notification to self for the record

"Wikipedia is the product of thousands of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess, or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help. Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem that you can fix, do so. Everyone is encouraged to copyedit articles, and add content if they have knowledge of or are willing to do the necessary research to improve the topic at hand."

diff [53]

external reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia

baseless allegations in my opinion

from ANI - "Probably not as it would be easier to just dust off another sleeper account registered in 2007 and begin again anew. Hence the rather bizarre insistence that she has been around for seven years. She could be the greatest sock-master Wikipedia has ever seen, but unprovable since it's a sly move done over many years (seriously this goes deeper). I find that more believable than a user that doesn't do a test edit in seven years after registering an account. Froggerlaura ribbit11:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)"

from ANI - "Um, given that it is blatant copy-paste plagiarism of this [92] (not a copyvio, as it is public domain), I think that deletion might be advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06 pm, Today (UTC−4)"

end of quotes from ANI ciao!!! update Carriearchdale (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Pls have a look at this page, Guntur Coast, I suggested merge, can you take any action.--Vin09 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vin09, Thanks for the note. Please email me any help requests by clicking email user in the left column of the talk page here. Have a quite exquisite evening!!!

ciao Carriearchdale (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate a deleted comment: Vin09, Carrie has been blocked indefinitely for several reasons. She cannot take action, as that would be block evasion. I don't know if there is any policy against emailing her, however. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There most definitely is not a policy against emailing her. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not know about the user was blocked. I didn't do any mailing, I use only wiki.--Vin09 (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: It's ok. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Carrie, I wanted to share a little info with you on your user talk page use and give you appropriate notice. Generally speaking, I'm probably the most liberal minded when it comes to how someone uses their talk page when blocked. I've been in more than couple shouting matches defending user's rights in these cases. Still, there are some practical limitations you should be aware of. As long as the talk is more or less Wiki related, isn't soapboxing or violating WP:POLEMIC, etc., I'm pretty easy to get along with, with one caveat, that the idea is eventually the user will be unblocked, so the talk page use serves a purpose, to allow communication, working on future goals and/or articles, mentoring, etc. I find it very useful for that.

You are indef blocked. At some point you need to decide if you are going to seek an unblock or not. If you don't, then the generosity in using the talk page is somewhat diminished, because it isn't serving the above goal. The same holds true with email, to a lesser degree. If an editor has decided that they are not going to seek an unblock, or not seek one in a reasonable period, then use of the talk page falls under greater scrutiny. There is no hard and fast rule, but to me, once a few weeks or a month has passed and they are using the talk page regularly but have no intention of getting unblocked, then I have to at least reconsider the use. Of course, if they go away and come back 6 months later to ask, use isn't even an issue, as you weren't using the talk page.

The same is true of proxy editing, ie: asking others to make edits on your behalf. This is against policy as it is a means to bypass the block. We usually tolerate a small amount of this with temporarily blocked editors, if they are asking to fix small mistakes on articles they work on, as this improves the encyclopedia and the goal isn't really to bypass anything. Indef blocked editors, however, usually aren't afforded the same exemptions. Whether the proxy editing is via email or on the talk page is irrelevant, it is still against policy, so just be aware of that.

In short, soon you will need to either ask for an unblock, or expect talk page and email to get revoked if you continue the way you have. Some of the material you have posted borders on WP:POLEMIC violations, as we don't allow lists of quotes from "enemies" and such. In my singular opinion, the activities you have engaged in since being blocked have not been beneficial towards an eventual unblock. I'm fine with whatever you decide, but out of fairness, I wanted to give you fair and final warning of the repercussions of your choices. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping in and leaving a note! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther and Nick-D look at examples of electronic media Op-ed: TomStar81 on the shot heard around the world

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

references

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

.

notice regarding postings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Carriearchdale/Niotso

Having read the comments by the user/editors at the page listed above, I was really quite appalled by most of the comments there so, I will mention no specific user/editor name in my comment. A few postings there are taking quite a gigantic leap by using words such as plagiarism and non-attribution.

I have works and writings that I have personally created all over the internet. I will leave my statement at that, since I am sure what I state here will really make no difference. Anyone that has some concrete evidence that I have plagiarized something, please take no offense, but please put up, or shut up about it. Casting aspersions onto a person or a member of wikipedia with no evidence is what I describe as a baseless allegation.

I mean really people, if this whole extended affair is some attempt to upset me or something, it doesn't. That draft was sitting in there minding its own business, waiting to be reworked. I hope all of you user/editors are also policing all other draft articles sitting in user spaces, because if you are not applying policy to all user/editors across the board, that could be seen as possibly continuing to strike out against one editor in a retaliatory manner for perhaps some other reason. I will end my statement at that for today. I do hope everyone will have a safe and fruitful weekend.

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't speak for this case and have no opinion on the deletion itself (I didn't look at it), but I can from experience as an administrator: When an editor is blocked, it is common to dig around their area to make sure there aren't copyright vios, or polemic stuff, etc. You aren't being singled out in that respect, it is standard operating procedure to poke around a bit. The same is true with edit histories. Admin generally have tools and methods for doing all this fairly expeditiously as this is core to what the community expects from us, ie: act on their behalf. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Dennis Brown. What you are describing in your paragraph may at first look somewhat plausible. But if sny poster/user/editor that posted there has some evidence of the bad acts that they are alledging, they really should support their baseless allegation with some iron clad proof of wrong-doing. Perhaps I am not aware of the procedure you use in such a discussion. Are accusations by some poster there just accepted as fact? I can count to 20 or 28 whatever the number is, but please be aware Dennis Brown, "you" or "WP" or whoever can line up 100, 200, or 350 persons to mark a vote down, but whatever the outcome of the discussion, it does not mean I a not telling the truth. I stand by everything I have said. Posters can just keep on posting, and casting aspersions that I am "dishonest, deceitful, deceptive..." you can fill in the the other hate speech that billows in and around wikipedia. I am sure you probably read over some or most of it. The truth is the truth, and some people around wikipedia cannot handle the truth, and they instead go around making baseless allegations, accusations without merit, and just pure mistruths for whatever their reason. I have been surprised that during this ANI some posters, and even some admins are questioning others at the ANI regarding issues that have come up there. Maybe wikipedia has a small chance of turning itself around, I do hope so.

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not a 'baseless allegation' that the text in your draft is to a large extent identical to material posted on the Niotso Wiki. It is a self-evident fact, that anyone can verify. You are of course free to provide an explanation for this - I suggest you do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I will not be answering any questions from persons who are making baseless allegations against me. But for the sake of civility andythegrump, maybe you should try thinking in a positive manner, and then use the assume good faith concept heralded around wikipeda, and try to imagine some scenario where you are actually mistaken, and there is a perfectly good reason that the draft article in userspace here, and the one posted over at the spot you listed had a lot of the same info, and were similar in nature. andythegrump, have you ever been wrong?

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Carriearchdale, did you copy an article from another wiki and save it here? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it was copied onto Wikipedia by Carriearchdale from the Niotso wiki is beyond dispute. Observe the Duplication Detector results comparing the last version of the page on the Niotso wiki and the first version of the page on Wikipedia. The last edit to the original source was 28 November 2013. The material was copied verbatim onto Wikipedia on 6 February 2014 with only minor changes, e.g. "we" → "they" and "is" → "was". The fact that the original source has a public domain license and regardless of who had contributed to it (at least 2 people), failure to credit it as the source is plagiarism. The motivation behind the failure to credit is another issue. Many inexperienced and even some experienced editors do not realise that all text copied onto Wikipedia must be credited to its original source. (Note that the Duplication Detector will not work if/when the WP page is deleted, although administrators can still compare the two urls manually.). Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In the "References" section is a link to the article that was obviously copied. Do we know what her intention was? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

No, only that with her next edit, one minute later, she removed the link [54] with the edit summary "copyedit" and never restored it. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Note also that it was not copied into user space. It was created directly as an article and later userfied by an administrator [55]. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"But if sny poster/user/editor that posted there has some evidence of the bad acts that they are alledging, they really should support their baseless allegation with some iron clad proof of wrong-doing."

I find that highly ironic. Have you even at this late stage emailed ArbCom with the evidence for the allegations you have been making against another editor? Your continued misrepresentation of that issue off wiki would suggest not. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Well then.. May the laws of copyright have mercy on her soul. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing do with copyright laws. It was simply a violation of Wikipedia policy on attribution, albeit something that many editors are unaware of. If it remains on Wikipedia (in any space), the problem can be easily rectified by simply acknowledging that the text was copied and from where. In fact, I have just done so. It's needed as long as the page is still on WP. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, well, well I must say I missed this discussion when it occurred, but I will make a few comments about what several different persons stated in their post or asked.

"Note also that it was not copied into user space. It was created directly as an article and later userfied by an administrator" by voceditenore

Being created directly as an article usually means a person would use the article wizard to create an article. Another way of course is to use the AFC process. Please check your sources more closely. The work was in fact copied in my user space by the dear departed Cindy lady. I don't recall her exact wiki name but I believe I read where she passed while at a wiki conference in Berlin. Her loss was a hard blow to wikipedia. I believe she was a well loved wikipedian.

"The fact that the original source has a public domain license and regardless of who had contributed to it (at least 2 people), failure to credit it as the source is plagiarism." by voceditenore

This is not a fact, but a supposition, "an idea or theory that you believe is true even though you do not have proof." by some uninformed individual. I suppose the person who wrote this might be able to hypothesize, and try to come to some probable conclusion, if they had all the facts regarding the works being discussed. They don't have all the facts. If I thought the facts might matter, I might decide to include them here, but alas, I believe the die has already been cast, so I will just leave that statement as is for the time being.

POINT OF FACT - I could most likely not be found guilty in any court, witch hunt, or tribunal of plagiarizing myself. Well maybe at sometime back in history where persons had no hope of defending themselves against any charge. Henry VIII and all his wives come to mind, maybe the Salem witch trials, or even please pardon the term nazi germany.

"I find that highly ironic. Have you even at this late stage emailed ArbCom with the evidence for the allegations you have been making against another editor? Your continued misrepresentation of that issue off wiki would suggest not." by harry the dog

As I have stated previously, I turned over any and all info regarding the possibility of Daniellagreen doing paid editing with non-disclosure, that had been given to me by another person over to one of my trusted advisors. I have no possession of the evidence or info any longer, and I have moved forward. I really do not know yet the outcome of anything my trusted advisor has done, or will do with anything he now has in his possession regarding that matter. My trusted advisor is a well informed, and responsible person, that as I understand is going to be handling the matter at the corporate level.

As I have stated here previously my decision on whether or not to appeal the ban imposed here is pending at this place in time.

End of statement for today. Please feel free to discuss if you like, or even ask questions, but remember I will not be answering questions from persons who are making baseless allegations here. I hope everyone has a bright and fantastic Sunday!!!

Not gonna comment on any part of that (because I have no opinion on it), other than the fact that you're blocked, not banned. See here for the difference. I wouldn't point it out, but it's been a source of a bit of confusion (i.e. the talk page abuse issue). Ciao! Yeah, I'll leave the ciao'ing to you. It's not right for me.—LucasThoms 04:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"As I have stated previously, I turned over any and all info regarding the possibility of Daniellagreen doing paid editing with non-disclosure, that had been given to me by another person over to one of my trusted advisors. I have no possession of the evidence or info any longer, and I have moved forward."

You made the accusations. You know what the evidence for them, if any, is. If you want to have any hope of being unblocked you must follow the proper procedures and either send the evidence directly to ArbCom or withdraw the accusations unreservedly and apologise unreservedly. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Public domain

Carrie, in regard to your statement above: ""The fact that the original source has a public domain license and regardless of who had contributed to it (at least 2 people), failure to credit it as the source is plagiarism." by voceditenore. This is not a fact, but a supposition, "an idea or theory that you believe is true even though you do not have proof."

You are mistaken. It has nothing to do with US copyright law in the United States, particularly since our editors are from all over the globe. Our policies are such that all Public Domain text and media must be attributed to the source or they are subject to be deleted. As Wikipedia is a privately owned website, this is a choice the Foundation made some time ago. For our purposes, it is considered the equivalent of plagiarism to do otherwise. Just as we define notability and civility differently here, so too do we define plagiarism in a way that might not reflect normal English usage. There is no such thing as global Public Domain anyway, and we choose to require that non-original PD material be sourced to verify ownership and licensing. Again, the laws of the United States are meaningless here, we have our own policies which are more stringent than the laws in the US. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-30

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 17. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 22, and to all Wikipedias on July 24 (calendar).
• CirrusSearch was removed as the primary search method from Wikimedia Commons and the Spanish (es) Wikipedia due to a high server load. The plan to enable it on the Dutch (nl), Japanese (ja), Polish (pl) and Russian (ru) Wikipedias was also postponed to a later date. [56] [57] [58]
• The tool that stores information about languages (CLDR) was updated to its latest version. You can still help translate language names into your own language so they can be used in the sidebar and other places. [59]
• Translation memory for newly translatable pages should now offer more suggestions. [60] [61]
• A tool to convert MediaWiki pages to LaTeX is now available on Tool Labs. [62]

VisualEditor news

• Tablet users visiting the mobile version of Wikimedia wikis will be able to use a special version of VisualEditor starting on July 31. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu. Feedback is welcome. [63]
• All windows in VisualEditor have now a new design. Main action buttons will always be located in the top bar and will use simple words rather than icons. [64]
• You can now easily open links inside the link editor, for example to see their target. [65]
• Several bugs related to the positioning of the cursor around some items (like images and references) were fixed last week. [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

Future software changes

• It will soon be possible to watch individual discussions in the Topic namespace rather than whole pages for talk pages using Flow. [72]
• You can give comments about the new version of Winter, a proposal to have a fixed toolbar at the top of wiki pages. [73]
• An IRC meeting to organize Pywikibot bugs will take place from July 24 to July 27 on the channel #pywikibot on freenode. [74]
• A request for comments on how to improve MediaWiki API was re-started on MediaWiki.org. Your feedback is welcome.

Problems

• Mailing lists were broken for about 16 hours between July 14 and July 15 due to a server problem. [75]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Biography feedback requested

Your input is requested about an RFC regarding Donald Trump. Here is a link directly to that RFC. The lead of that biography currently says, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial." The RFC proposes to insert the words "or false" at the end of that sentence. Thank you in advance for participating. If you have the time, there is a second RFC at that talk page which proposes to instead add the words "or hyperbolic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

July 2018

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1343.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)