User talk:K6ka/Archives/2014/February

Orthodox Presbytarian Church

Hi there, you reverted one of 78.31.47.43 (talk)'s edits on Orthodox Presbyterian Church for " 'unexplained content removal' " which was removal of Citation needed tags I had placed there to avert an edit war (or rather stop one that was gaining steam, I shouldn't have edited WP while angry).

Is there any chance you could spare a minute to have a look at the discussion on the talk page and help the two of us work out why we're working at cross purposes? Thanks in advance SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism

hey its me sorry about the vandalism on the thing about pesticides -westonman172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westonman172 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I did make a request for rollback permission at the same time I asked for reviewer permission. It was not acted on for several days after the reviewer permission was granted. I noticed on the policy page that rollback permission may be deferred to see how one performs after getting reviewer permission. I rarely use it. The main reason I applied for it was because the real-time changes scroll was hanging up, apparently because I did not have a permission, even though I had used it for several months. Getting reviewer permission solved that problem so I withdrew the rollback request. Also, the administrator saw a couple of complaints, from vandals or perhaps one or two careless editors on my talk page. Maybe a mistake even was shown. The administrator cautioned me to be careful because of this. Frankly, I could not see that it was necessary since I had thousands of reversions with only a few complaints or mistakes - quickly corrected. I thought discretion was indicated on my part, however, and simply wrote something to the effect that I would be sure to exercise care and then after several days withdrew the pending rollback request. I know that Huggle would be more efficient, but for the time being I will stay with Twinkle and real-time changes and put a little more time between my reviewer permission and another rollback request. Donner60 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

• Traffic report: Six strikes out

• WikiProject report: Special report: Contesting contests

• News and notes: Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions

• Arbitration report: Kafziel case closed; Kww admonished by motion

• Recent research: Translation assignments, weasel words, and Wikipedia's content in its later years

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

lissette garcia

I know you reverted the article. I am actually Lissette Garcia and realized some things on there were missing and I wanted to add it. I also wanted to add a picture, it's been deleted from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssttgar003 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are generally forbidden to write autobiographies about yourself on Wikipedia. You also didn't cite any sources, which is why I reverted it. The images you linked to didn't even exist. K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Your question was answered at the help desk here. K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed

That you left a barnstar on my talk page, but forgot to leave the abuse! Much appreciated! Cheers -Jim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs)

The rusty chocolate starfish Barnstar

This is a new one on me. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh... I didn't post that one. Some IP address posted that (impersonating me) - and it was kinda inappropriate, so I removed it. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It did seem a little strange and I had never seen it before. On the other hand, I thought perhaps it had some meaning I didn't get. It is hard to understand why people spend time on something like that and vandalism in general, although we know many are probably kids. Anyway, you do good work and I thank you for that. Donner60 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, K6ka. You have new messages at This lousy T-shirt's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Economy of Canada

I guess altering vandalism doesn't count. Keep up the good work! 68.58.117.199 (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Unsourced content on Suspekt

Hi

In the "Suspekt" article i wrote that one of the statements was an april fools. there isnt really any other source for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.223.93 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't have a source, then there's no reason why Wikipedia should have that. Since it's not backed up by anything, Wikipedia shouldn't have it. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Positive usage

See also in wiktionary https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shit_yeah. This is derived term of "shit".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcakes22 (talk • contribs)

We'll let the administrators decide. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I'm crazy

The headline says everything. Mew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NyanCatRules (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Seven Dwarfs Mine Train

Hello! I wanted to ask you how do you know that the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train opened as you said; YESTERDAY??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.140.153 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Something translated using Google Translate

Now you listen to me, I do not bullies on Wikipedia and ask the question why you indiscriminately roll back my changes, I do not blame I do not know the English language, and you could translate what I wrote to you in Google perevodcheke.--Гривусинус (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This. Your behaviour is not acceptable and if someone rolls back your changes, you should respond politely instead of just saying "You can just Google Translate my post!" K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. Have a great day and good luck in your anti-vandalims efforts! :) --Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs) (Report a Vandal)} 03:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

• In the media: WikiVIP; Art Feminism; Medical articles; PR manipulation; Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Technology report: Left with no choice

• News and notes: WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups

• Featured content: Space selfie

• Traffic report: Sports Day

• WikiProject report: Game Time in Russia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for the Barnstar! Nice fighting the vandalism with you today. Rmosler | ● 22:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks // Vandalism is so 1980s.

Hi K6ka, thanks for the cookies and introducing me to Twinkle. I need to read the stuff but it looks good to me at 1st sight. I was indeed sort of following ClueBot, cherrypicking IPs from CB's hitlist to look for as yet undetected vandalist acts by those nasty IPs. And that is one question: can I "dump" (i.e. link to) vandalised article versions somewhere (after I removed the vanadalist text(s) manually) that can help as "false negatives" for any bot development/ tuning, especially if they (the vandalised articles) are older than, say, 1 day? I must say, some vandalist acts are hilarious some just puberal others plain insulting or destructive (none are appropriate, though). School's shared computers might be a problem. I will try to remember to "warn" IPs on their talk page after I undid their vandalism, or what I interpreted as such. I really have to do that? 'Cause that doubles the work, no? I mean if i am not sure it was vandalism sure, but many cases of this morning were just blatant vandalism cases? These people probably even have fun with their "warning"? Do I need to "suggest" IPs (or users) to be blocked, somewhere, or is the system scanning continuously for IPs or users with a level 3 or 4 edit warning? Thanks :-) Poepkop (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle has all the features you need. You can revert edits using the rollback links Twinkle provides, or by the "Restore this Version" link. Once you perform rollback using Twinkle, it will automatically open up the vandal's talk page, where you can warn them using the "TW" drop-down menu by the Search bar and click on "Warn". You can report vandals after they have received a level 4/4im warning by opening up the "TW" menu and selecting "ARV". This will allow you to report the vandal to WP:AIV. Once they've been reported, an administrator will be over to block the user eventually.

Warning vandals is important because some vandals think that nobody will notice their work, and giving them a warning usually tells most vandals that their nonconstructive edits are not appreciated and they'll usually stop. If they continue, give them stronger and sterner warnings. Once they reach their final warning and continue to vandalize, report them so they can be blocked. Warnings also help in case you made a mistake. The Level 1 warning helps, as it lets the editor know how to contact you to inform you of your mistake. So never underestimate the power that warnings have!

I'm not sure what you mean by "link to vandalized article versions". Do you mean providing a direct link to a particular revision of an article? All revisions of an article are stored, and they can be found in the page history, accessed via the "History" tab on the top of the page.

If you have any more questions, please reply below. K6ka (talk | contribs) 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, " providing a direct link to a particular revision of an article" is what I meant :-) Those are older (but the current) revisions (more then 24 hrs) that have remained unnoticed for vandalism by ClueBot NG (or any bot for that matter). I have to see if I register for helping CB's database I guess I can record them there, or should I report such pages directly to one of the live people mentioned at CB's Userpage?

2 More things: (1) How to warn vandalising IP Users of which the act of vandalism was performed days/weeks/months ago but remained undetected? If the damage was done in say, December, do I warn them on their Talkpage under February or December? How do I know that some IP was in December 2013 the same computer as in February 2014 (regarding floating IPs)?

(2) Some "cleverer" vandalists seem to blank their user talk page from vandalism warnings (one or two occasions past 48 hrs). Should I treat this as vandalism and roll back to the latest version including those warnings? Because it appeared to me that the warning level-counting had started from 0 again, i.e. in the blanked version this user had 3 vandalism warnings and the next would thus have been level 4, but he blanked at quickly after receiving level 3; followed by yet another CB vandalism warning on the b lanked Userpage at only level 1 again (it was all on the same day, I should have noted these 2 IPs or usernames). But then, is this effective? Does blanking my Userpage from all vandalism warnings confuse ClueBot to give off a level 1 warning instead of the deserved level 4 warning that he/she deserved? Is blanking your own user page allowed at all, except for archiving purposes? Cheers Poepkop (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "unnoticed vandalism". ClueBot NG is programmed to follow these rules:

• User Whitelist - If an edit made by a user that is in a whitelist is classified as vandalism, the edit is not reverted.
• Edit Count - If a user has more than a threshold number of edits, and fewer than a threshold percentage of warnings, the edit is not reverted.
• 1RR - The same user/page combination is not reverted more than once per day, unless the page is on the angry revert list.

If ClueBot NG (sometimes abbreviated as CBNG, if it helps) doesn't revert an edit that's clearly vandalism, it's most likely one of the three factors listed above. The best you can do is to revert those edits. The only time you report an edit is when it's a false positive, when the bot classifies an edit that wasn't vandalism. More information on false positives here.

It actually is okay for users to blank and remove warnings from their talk page (unless specified, such as an unblock-declined notice). I was told this here. You can revert those edits if the user changed the text of the comments on their talk page (such as changing CBNG's warning to "Hello, and welcome to Wickedpedia. This is not a message letting you not know that one of more of your awesome edits have not been reverted (done) by a piece of shit known as ClueFucker".) See WP:OWNTALK for details.

When in doubt, just check the page history of the talk page and look for any previous warnings that were given on the same day (popups can help with this). If they do have a previous warning, take off from the last warning given (i.e. if the last warning they got was a level 3 warning, give them a level 4 warning, or report them if they have a level 4 warning). If the last warning they got was a level 4 warning, and then they blanked and CBNG or another user gave them a level 1 warning, you can just report them, and explain that they had blanked their talk page and that they had received a level 4 warning.

If you have any more questions, do not hesitate to ask! K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just asking t.t.

I was just asking how to make a barnstar, you should have read what I wrote before giving me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banmeplznow (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In your previous comment, you called me a retard. Your editing history show that you are here to vandalize and disrupt the peace, and I frankly doubt you are here to honestly give out barnstars. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

Hello. I noticed that you performed a rollback on this edit (revert diff). Please note that rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism. In this case, you were reverting an edit that 1. Was not vandalism, 2. Was performed by a bot that was only trying to do its job and 3. The sandboxes are not permanent storage space for your articles. Bots will regularly clean the sandboxes and you should not revert them. Please only use rollback for appropriate means. K6ka (talk | contribs) 04:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was on Sandbox with the intention of making my own test edits, not reverting vandalism. I knew that the bots were there to clean the Sandbox and did not think that their edits were vandalism. On occasion, I see users (myself included) using rollback feature to do a self revert. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 04:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your barnstar

Omygosh, did I not notice your barnstar? Thanks for giving me it, in any case! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, K6ka. You have new messages at DamianZaremba's talk page.
Message added 01:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits to history of SF Street Artist Program

I understand how Wikipedia works. I know you want newspaper and document sources. However, when someone misrepresents the true history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program because they rely only on old newspaper articles which are inaccurate and incomplete and the person who actually lived the history and was a major leader of the movement during 1971-1973 isn't even mentioned until the 1974 history then you are doing an injustice to me. I deliberately allowed myself to be arrested in 1971 and 1972 in order to challenge the constitutionality of the San Francisco Peddler Laws and to establish the Street Artist Program. For you not to allow a major participant in the historical event to give their personal account of what happened is like telling jews who lived through the Holocaust that their eyewitness accounts can not be included in the history of the Holocaust because they don't have newspaper articles or other documents to authenticate their accounts. I have hundreds of old newspaper articles and documents which support the edits I made. However, not every substantial person or event which played a major role in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program had a newspaper article written about them. Is Wikipedia going to refuse to allow those people and events to be included in the history simply because there was no newspaper article about them? I resent you telling me that a newspaper reporter writing a newspaper article about something I was personally involved in is a more reliable source of what actually occurred than myself. As a result of living through and participating in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I became the historian of the Street Artist Program. I resent you implying that the newspaper reporter who wrote an article is more reliable and unbiased than the person who actually lived through the events. There were many newspaper articles that falsely reported what was actually occurring at the time. I encourage you to do more research on this subject and I suggest that you begin with the SF Arts Commission Street Artist Program's webpage which has a short history about the founders of the SF Street Artist Program. If you would like any information about the history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I will be glad to provide you with that information. However, in the meantime, if you are going to delete my edit of this article every time I repost it until I provide some sort of written documentation then it will take a lot of time and effort on my part to provide you with some written documentation but I will do it because I am not going to allow wikipedia to post a false history of the creation of the SF Street Artists Program that leaves out my involvement as a major leader in the movement in 1971-1973 as well as some of the other people who were involved and some events just because they weren't reported in an old newspaper article.

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)William J. Clark February 17, 20142601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

...Your wall of text makes this impossible for me to read and understand. Please try to simplify your points. I reverted your edit because it lacked clearly defined sources. Read WP:CITE on how to cite your material on Wikipedia. Your edit also removed a large portion of content, namely the categories. Also, check to see that your edit is "verifiable, notable, and written in a neutral point of view." These three policies are generally referred to as the three "pillars" of Wikipedia (in almost other words, if you forget everything else, remember these three things). Also, judging by what you said, it seems that your information is based on personal accounts and experience. Wikipedia cannot accept original research and is against our policies.

Please do not re-add without coming to a consensus on the article talk page, or else you may violate the three-revert-rule. K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

James Michael Egbert Collins

Im sorry to embarrass you but James Collins' full name is infact: James Michael Egbert Collins... it says it on his birth certificate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.185.143 (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A little biology quiz

DUDE, did you study biology... you should know the DNA sequences of the void ball of orgin. 216.165.249.56 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I know that. But what you put in the article is gibberish at first sight. And anyways, you don't put stuff in random places in the article like that, especially something like that. K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

my post

Mark my words and let it be known in history, my addition to the article Left Wing Terrorism is true and accurate. I added "Obama" to see also, the history books in the future will confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.49.74 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what does Obama have to do with "Left Wing Terrorism"? K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"The history books in the future will confirm". What? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not predict things. We are not meteorologists or psychopaths either. K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

lambert

I disagree with your edit of my edit. Please explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.49.3 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your additions didn't adhere to our neutral point of view policy, so I removed it. Please re-write it so it does not bring shame nor praise on a subject. Wikipedia is here to report, not take sides.

You may want to read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia before editing. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not read your 5 pillars of anything... this is why you get no donations. I have edited it again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.49.3 (talk • contribs) 22:01 20 February 2014

Excuse me? We are not here to make money. We're here to build an encyclopedia. And thus we have some policies that all editors are asked to follow. The Five Pillars is the bare minimum. Harsh attitude is not permitted here on Wikipedia either. K6ka (talk | contribs) 22:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome =)

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm always happy to revert vandalism, though with how quickly you thanked me for the edit, I expect that I beat you to it by a few seconds tops. Oh well, you know you're doing something right when the vandals start targeting your userpage, eh? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

STiki question

Hey, I had a question about STiki and it wasn't answered yet in #wikipedia-en on IRC (I'm impatient :P). Does STiki not work on Linux? On Wikipedia:STiki it says "Windows, OS X", but it's a .jar file so I would expect it to work on Linux too. Upon launching it (through terminal (java -jar stiki.jar), I saw it was executing Wine, yet I see no reason for a jar file to have to be loaded using a Windows Program Loader like Wine. :S If you don't know, that's fine, but since you suggested it to me, I figured you'd be a good person to ask! ^_^ Also, unrelated question, can I steal some of the bullet points off of your talk page's edit notice to use on mine? :3 --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure, I haven't used Linux or Mac OS yet. I'm not sure why Wine is trying to run a .jar file, but that's beyond me, unfortunately.

And yes, feel free to steal any of the source code off my user pages. After all, I stole most of them myself >:) K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. :D and yay for stealing things :D --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 04:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also you have two different bullets telling people to sign their posts on your editnotice. Just thought I'd point it out. :P --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 04:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's deliberate. Unsigned comments always drive me absolutely nuts (it's such a simple concept, signing your posts!). Thank God we have SineBot, at least. K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

• News and notes: Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge

• Technology report: ULS Comeback

• WikiProject report: Countering Systemic Bias

• Featured content: Holotype

• Traffic report: Chilly Valentines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

What did u find wrong in my modification in Barasat Kalikrishna Girls' High School! I know very well what I wrote was true! so my dear friend would u please reply me to ranganzaman@ovi.com . :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranganzaman (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page about that. You failed to provide a valid source for your edit, so according to the verifiability policy, I was allowed to remove it. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Against our Will does argue a logical fallacy. Read what she says.

All men do not keep all women in their so called place with conscious intimidation thru a threat of rape. To argue that point is a sweeping broad generalization that should be noted as such.98.81.157.102 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)me

As we've all mentioned, it violates our neutral point of view policy. Do not re-add without consensus. K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Re

Thankx for the message on my talkpg and for the contributions in general. 37.46.38.253 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, K6ka. You have new messages at Bennettfyffest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennettfyffest (talk • contribs) 23:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, K6ka. You have new messages at D A Patriarche's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tnx! D A Patriarche (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Uganda. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Sorry for the template, hope this helps. Both the named editor and the IP were vandalizing and it got into a bit of a mess! Cheers. DBaK (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Simple oversight. Glad that you corrected it. I don't appreciate the template though - a personally written message would've been better. K6ka (talk | contribs) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose you saw the bit that said "sorry about the template" above though? You got a template with a nice personally-written message too. I would have though that was a win-win! I am well aware of WP:DTTR but also of WP:TTR. And I'm quite impressed with bits of DTTR such as "They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." That "they" was me. Which, of course, we have both now undermined with this discussion ... I think I might go and make tea now. :) Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

K6ka, maybe you could send DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered a {{Uw-dttr}}. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and you forgot to sign! Oh brother, you might want to re-opt in to SineBot so it'll sign when you forget. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-Aggrandizing Edits and the Street Artists Program Article

I noticed that you previously weighed in on the Street Artists Program of San Francisco article's talk page. That article seems like it is spinning out of control from the self-aggrandizing, un-sourced, and clumsy edits of a very persistent individual who may also be running a sock puppet scheme. We really need some help and possibly some page protections for that article which was recently rewritten by a DYK Editor. Are you interested or have any suggestions?James Carroll (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. Not this article again. I wish I could just forget about it...

Dropped in with my comment. I'm not exactly an experienced editor (I'm experienced in vandalism-fighting and in topics that I am interested in, and this is unfortunately not one of them), so I can only do so much. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

truth verses vandalism

the fact of the matter here is that my wife worked for these jokers for the first half of last year - and "clash magazine ltd" went bankrupt owing a lot of people (not least the british taxpayer) a huge amount of money

how can a entity like this be allowed to continue unchallenged?

why are you allowing wiki - supposedly an encyclopaedia - to be used for marketing purposes - and not warn others of the dangers of doing business?

i know you think you're doing the right thing - but you're so wrong

i don't really know how wiki works on this level - but i'm very happy to discuss this via mail richard.turner10@luckyfrog.co.uk

thanks 213.42.223.2 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't discuss things on e-mail. You can discuss it on this talk page.

Your edit was reverted because 1. It wasn't supported by a valid citation, 2. It wasn't written in neutral point of view, and 3. By your explanation that would be an example of original research, which Wikipedia doesn't accept.

Before editing, you might want to check out the Introduction to Wikipedia, read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and, if you still have questions, ask it in the Teahouse, where friendly and experienced editors will answer you. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

help

wikipage subcommissural organ can you help me with the references? if you notice some references are more than once but the wikipage assume that they are difference and they atribute a new number. do you see that in the page? it is hapening with the book that I put in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCULneuro (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations are pretty simple, really. If you have one source and it is used only once in the article, just wrap it with <ref></ref> tags. For example - <ref>http://www.awesomesite.com/</ref>. If the same source is used more than once in the article, do something like this:

Will had initially stated that Jon Bon Jovi was an amazing artist.<ref name="enter a name that other editors will recognize here">http://www.awesomesite.com/</ref>.

...a couple of paragraphs later...

Alyssa did not appear at Jon Bon Jovi's birthday party despite being invited.<ref name="enter a name that other editors will recognize here" />

In other words, this will allow you to add the same footnote to different parts of the article. The most important thing is that one of those "ref name" tags have the citation. Once one of them has it, you can just type <ref name="name of reference" /> and the footnote will appear in both places where you put the tags.

Sorry if I'm not being very clear here...you can play around in the sandbox. I've done an example in my own sandbox if it helps. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

• Forum: Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

• Featured content: Odin salutes you

• WikiProject report: Racking brains with neuroscience

• Special report: Diary of a protester: Wikimedian perishes in Ukrainian unrest

• News and notes: Wikimedia chapters and communities challenge Commons' URAA policy

• Traffic report: Snow big deal

• Recent research: CSCW '14 retrospective; the impact of SOPA on deletionism

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Carla yusko page

You put my page on automatic deletion. I was trying to do something sweet that nobody else in the world will see. Be nice. Give it a day. Bradyab12 :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradyab12 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

From the article...

Hey snobby wiki editor people please don't delete this for maybe day or so. The facts say she should see it first.

So you called me snobby, created an article that doesn't come close to meeting our notability policy, and a message was left on your talk page explaining why it was tagged for deletion. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)