User talk:Vermont/Archive 2

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

NPP

Hi Adotchar. We appreciate your enthusiasm but please refrain from tagging articles for now - some maintenance tasks are not suitable for beginners. New Page Patrol requires significant experience, which you don't have yet, but if you have already made at least 200 mainspace edits you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn about keeping pages free of nonsense. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry. I've been on Wikipedia for a while now, about a tenth of how long you've been here for, and I'm really trying to do more anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia. Any incorrect things I do I fix once notified of it. Also, I don't really consider being here for 7 months and over 800 edits a beginner, though I am relatively new to the community. Sorry for any troubles. I'm going to try to fix this. Adotchar (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Help with NPP

Hi, I've seen your comments around, and I take it you want some help getting better at new page patrolling. I recently put together a quiz based on some real-life examples of new pages, and I'm curious as to how you would handle them. Would you care to take a look? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, though I'm having a bit of an issue finding out how I answer the quiz. Can you help? Adotchar (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a space after each entry for your response to the entry. You simply write a brief response, such as, "I would tag a page like this as having no references." or, "I would nominate this page for deletion as providing no context" or "There don't seem to be any problems with this page, so I would mark it as patrolled and move on." My idea in making the quiz was to get people looking at actual examples and thinking through what, if anything should be done with them. There's a lot of variety in appropriate responses. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will do it at about 5 PM EST Adotchar (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Finished the quiz. Adotchar (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

How did I do? Adotchar (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall, you didn't do too bad.

1. Your response to 1 was adequate. There's a lot more that can be done with this, but that's about all you should feel obligated to do.
2. 2 was perfect.
3. With 3, marking it as a wp:BLPPROD (what you indicated you would do) is good, but WP:A7 also works. BLP Prod is more gentle on the person who contributed the article, whereas A7 can be rather bitey, but in that specific case I think A7 is warranted.
4. I loved your response to 4. The history of that article and that contributor's activities on Wikipedia is a perfect example of the hazards of bitey new page and anti-vandalism work. Moving it to draft is probably the best solution to something like that, especially if you want to take the time and effort to mentor the contributor (which was needed in this case but didn't happen).
5. I'm surprised you would hesitate to mark 5 as patrolled, but perhaps you are sensitive to the amount of paid and COI articles that we're getting, and hesitate to accept articles on organizations, especially if they draw heavily (as this one does) on what the organization says about itself. When in doubt, do leave it for someone else as you indicated here.
6. When I designed the quiz I intended the first few to be easier and the last few to get harder, and it seems it worked. With #6, you indicated you would mark it for deletion as a BLP with no references. Why would you do that when it had a history as a valid redirect? When a redirect is converted to an article it shows up on the new pages feed. When that happens you should always check the history to see if (A) it started as a redirect, or became one via a deletion discussion (B) where the redirect pointed (C) what content is at the redirect target. If the new article is about a different topic than the target, and it's a valid article, then you should add a hatnote pointing at the original target. If the new article is vandalism or, as in this case, something that would fall under WP:A7 or BLP prod, then just revert back to a redirect. For articles redirected after deletion discussions it gets complicated.
7. Your response to 7 was fine.
8. 8 goes back to what I was saying about redirects, only with the added complication of it being a Cut and paste move. It can be either reverted back to a redirect, or you request a history merge to preserve attribution for copyright purposes. You won't run across that too often, but when it happens it's important that it get handled promptly and correctly.
9. 9 actually was accepted by Articles for Creation and moved to mainspace as being acceptable. Those also show up on new page patrol. The person without Blue Oyster in their name had worked with the COI contributor to ensure that the article was neutral, and the COI contributor had correctly followed the recommended best practice of going through AFC for such articles. If you go really in-depth into the article and the sources, there are some harder-to-spot issues remaining.
10. Checking for copyvio is one reason it's important to actually visit and read the sources cited in the article. That's harder to do when sources are offline, but if it's books or magazines, sometimes there will be previews on Google Books and you can see if the writing style is the same. Earwig's copyvio detector is useful, but only for on-line sources. There are other tools, including Duplication Detector which will work for pdfs where Earwig's won't. Don't put too much faith in them, but do check them. Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 is a pretty helpful basic primer on how to handle copyright violations on Wikipedia.

One thing you didn't mention much was talking to the people who contributed the articles. Twinkle and the page curation toolbar both provide a lot of template messages that you can use to send messages to the article creators, but often it's better to write a polite, thoughtful note yourself. However, that also takes time.

I'm curious if you actually read or looked at any of the sources cited for any of the articles. It's fine if you didn't for this quiz, but when you're actually looking at an article for NPP it's very useful to do so if they are on-line sources, and to attempt to verify that any offline sources cited actually exist. Also, how long (about) did this quiz take you? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I do it pretty much the same when working with NPP articles but I google search a chunk of the text more often than I did in this quiz. I checked number 8 and it didn't really seem to be cut and paste, as nothing showed up for it on Google (I didn't check the copy detectors as I didn't have a link for them), and also it's currently a page with the exact same text. Now that I've reviewed number 9, the other wikipedian working with the Blue Oyster person did what I was talking about in number 4 with moving it to a draft, helping the user along the way, and fixing the page. I could really just go around helping users for that. Also,do you think I should be allowed to do NPP based on my answers? Adotchar (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

I suggest you look over Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems, which is not a policy proposal but still provides guidelines for how to tag pages correctly. You can also look over WP:CSD for more on the criteria under which you can tag pages for speedy deletion. Lastly I'd like to add that I don't often add maintenance tags to articles anymore: instead, I try to fix the underlying issue. Best, Everymorning (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Adotchar (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcoming myself

Yes, I did welcome myself. It's for testing purposes. Adotchar (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Which of my edits were not constructive edits?Vroy0001 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

One example is your edit to Google Hangouts. ClueBot agrees. Adotchar (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Moshe Menasheof

Hye :) I added a few sources regarding Menasheof's work, all in Hebrew but very reliable (including his page at the official Israeli National library). Can you please move the draft back to the main article section? Are there any other issued that needs clarifying? Thank you! Lilachk (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Also, it seems you used your ip to edit and not your account, but that's okay. Also, I'm not entirely sure about sources in a different language, but google chrome can translate the page perfectly so I think it's fine. You should check with an admin, though. Adotchar (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't been using my account in years, but after the edit I decided to open a new account (I can't remember what was my old one). Thank you. Lilachk (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Vermont. You have new messages at Titodutta's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP 3

You were asked 11 days ago not to patrol pages. That was an admin request. If you to do so, you msy find your editing privileges compromised. In any case, after Monday you will no longer be able to patrol pages until your work has satisfied an admin review at WP:PERM. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You told me not to to NPP, and I stopped. I went to Recent Changes Patrol, and have been doing well at it. I haven't used the New Pages Feed at all since you told me to stop, I use twinkle only for CSD, with recent changes patrol, and warning/notifying users, with recent changes patrol. I've done all you asked, I'm using snuggle only! When I said I was using snuggle to you on your talk page, you said "Adotchar, I think that is a very good idea." So, I've been using snuggle to find vandalism, and not NPP because I don't meet the requirements for it, and i don't need to. Adotchar (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you look at my contributions, it's all twinkle, not page curation, or any NPP things. I just watch users with Snuggle, and coordinating with administrators. I've done all you asked, and of not being able to patrol pages after Monday, I'm assuming that's when the new guidelines go into effect fully, which I'll be happy about because I won't be able to be accused of something I can't physically do. Sorry for any troubles I have caused you, as I"m currently on snuggle, but will be taking a break soon today, then returning this afternoon. Adotchar (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

re: Sig

Here's my code: <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm working on changing colors.

Thanks! _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chris M Pattinson

so like this Chris M Pattinson (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved this to the bottom of the page, as that is where talk page discussions go. Also, please try to fix your user page.

If you want, I can help you with Wikipedia. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I was apparently mentioned here? I received a notification, although I can't see my name so must be a bug. Correct me if I am wrong. Patient Zero^talk 11:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bug. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is a pain. Patient Zero^talk 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Like Patient Zero I too have apparently been mentioned ([in this edit] to be precise), Is there a phab ticket or is this discussed somewere ? .... Just seems rather bizarre. –Davey2010^Talk 11:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how but it's related to the archive linking (in the above edit) that's caused the mass pings .... I'm on your archives and so is Patient Zero so it's something related to that. –Davey2010^Talk 11:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I just got pinged, am also very confused. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 12:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I got pinged also. What it looks like happened is in this edit Chris M Pattinson put {{ }} around User:Adotchar/archive1. This effectively transcluded the whole archive onto this page and then when he sighed the edit it pinged everyone that had left a message that is now archived on that page. -- GB fan 12:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Aha, that explains! Patient Zero^talk 13:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

So sorry. _{Adotchar| reply here} 21:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chris M Pattinson

I think that info has been removed but after viewiing some of big global companies and msjor celebs many who I know personally they sppear all in breach of the T&C on self promotion. My Wikapeadia is not in the directory so with respect most of what I have added even though totally factual can only seen by me. so a pointless exceecise really. Chris M Pattinson (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because others are doing it doesn't mean you can. _{Adotchar| reply here} 21:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

Can you please explain why you are warning editors hours after they last edit for edits they have already been warned about? I reverted the first one I saw but I see that you have done it multiple times. I even see you gave Adan shiga an only warning for a stupid edit where they replaced the content of the article with "MY NAME IS JEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!" That is not an edit that is worthy of an only warning. -- GB fan 23:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that they may have made another edit that was not in good-faith, as I don't think I'd do that. Though, if I did, very sorry and I hope you reverted it. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here are the edits I am talking about.

1. Dankster2k16: They made an edit at 00:11, 31 October 2016‎ that was not constructive, this was reverted by Bgwhite at 07:46, 31 October 2016 who didn't warn them. They made another edit at 20:31, 31 October 2016. This edit was later reverted but wasn't unconstructive that needed a warning. You then warned them two and a half hours later at 22:57, 31 October 2016. So your warning was either for an edit that they shouldn't have been warned about or you warned them for an edit they made 22 hours earlier.
2. DarloFan: They have made edits to two different articles, in one, Darlington 1883, their edits still stand and have never been reverted. In the other, Hartlepool United F.C., their edits were reverted by DavidLeighEllis 1 minute after they were made. David immediately warned them about the edits. You left an additional warning for them over two and a half hours later. (I have now reverted this warning as non constructive) Again either you are double warnign them for edits or warning them for edits that deserve no warning.
3. Oddedd76: They made three non constructive edits to Magee Marshall & Co. All three edits were reverted, one by me and two by J3Mrs. Both of us waned them for the nonconstructive edits. They also left messages on both of our talk pages after our warnings and made no further edits. Again two and a half hours after their final edit to Wikipedia you stopped by their talk page and left them a warning for nonconstructive editing. This warning had to be for edits they were already warned for. (I reverted this warning)
4. Adan shiga: They have made three edits total to Wikipedia. The first two a week ago to their sandbox, the third was nonconstructive to PPAP (Pen-Pineapple-Apple-Pen). At 20:26, 31 October 2016 they replaced the content with "MY NAME IS JEFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!" This was immediately reverted and warned by ClueBot NG. Again you came by about two and a half hours later and this time left a message saying this is the only warning they would receive and they would be blocked if they did it again. (I have now reverted this warning as well) The single edit was not of the nature that deserved an only warning.
5. WikipediaEditor2015: They are a new editor who edited some WP:ARBPIA3 articles. General Ization reverted the first edit as unsourced and warned them about adding unsourced information. Shrike reverted their edits on two other articles per policy and then reinstated the edits on one of them as they were constructive. Shrike, left an ARBPIA3 warning on their page. Again over two and a half hours later you leave them a message about unconstructive editing. (also now reverted)

Now that I have laid out the circumstances that led to my initial question, please explain your thought process about leaving these specific warnings hours after they have been warned for the edits. -- GB fan 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, You never explained why you placed the warnings above and in looking again at your edits you are still doing the same thing.

1. Zakkid15: They made three non-constructive edits between 20:06 and 20:12 1 Nov 2016. All three were quickly reverted and they were warned with escalating levels for each edit. After the third warning they made no more edits. You went to their talk page 2 and a half days (and that is days not hours like the last ones I looked at) and gave them a final warning (now reverted).
2. Samhay9668: They made a series of edits back in October after the first two they were reverted and warned, they made the edit again and immediately reverted themselves. They came back 2 weeks later and made a single non-constructive edit which was quickly reverted. The editor that reverted the edit did not warn them but you did 2 and a half days later.

I would really like to here your thoughts on on why you are adding these warnings. -- GB fan 11:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I made the edit to Zakkid as his warnings were from bots, though I see now that it was not needed. For Samhay, I warned him for the last edit that was reverted but not warned for. It was 2 days later because of the recent changes backlog on snuggle, which is where I saw him. He was not notified of his reversion of edits to the Battle of Mulhouse, so I did by warning him for it. If you don't think I should have done this, please feel free to remove the edits, though I believe the edit to Samhay was perfectly sound, but the one to Zakkid can be refuted. Sorry for any troubles. _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

All the ones that were a few days late are because of the backlog. I also sort it by recent activity, so that it shows the newest users that made edits recently, so many of them made one edit today or yesterday or the day before and a bunch of vandalism ones prior to that. I'll be more careful with my warnings, thanks for your help. _{Adotchar| reply here} 17:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

New Editor - pulled out after having content challenged

I thank you for your interest in my experience as a new editor on Wikipedia and for leaving a note and a barnstar on my talk page.

In my entire career, I have never set out to make trouble for others, so I am very reluctant to provide the name of the over-zealous editor with whom I had an unfortunate experience. (I am an Australian, and for better or for worse, it is a strong cultural characteristic that we do not 'dob' regardless of how misguided we believe the other party to be.)

However, I wanted Wikipedia to be aware that its policy of Bold-Revert-Discuss is beset with problems. It assumes that those who challenge material do so in good faith and are prepared to defend their reversions. The current policy discourages those whose material has been reverted from simply reinstating it on the basis that this constitute "edit warring". However, if an editor is unwilling to explain or defend their reversion, and continually raises new objections that leaves the the original contributor doing all the hard work in terms of providing detailed counter arguments - while the reversionist gets away with making simple unsubstantiated allegations. Thus, the current policy gives the reversionist the upper hand. My feeling is that this practice actively discourages Wikipedia's aim to encourage "bold editing."

I left a comment about my experience on the Administrators' page, but overnight it was deleted on the grounds that it was a "rant" rather than a legitimate complaint.

After having the material challenged, my initial response was to quit Wikipedia, but after cooling down and thinking about it, I have found ways to get around the system. I have started posting both content and editing suggestions on talk pages in the hope that other editors will run with the recommendations. I am also prepared to add references, correct spelling and expression on the actual content pages - in the belief that few editors could raise objections to such minor changes. Gradually I am starting to regain some confidence and am now prepared to add substantive content to pages that this over-zealous editor does not appear to patrol. However, in future, I am determined to refrain from making any substantive changes to the main 'Marketing' page because I am certain that this editor is regularly patrolling this page.

BronHiggs (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to help you. Is it okay if I add some stuff to your user page, to make it a normal user page? Also, your edits to the category of marketing have gained you some attention in that category. I'm going to do a short investigation to try to help. If you need anything, are bored and need something to do (we have an extreme backlog), just post it here, and I'll notice. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I found why he's annoyed. He's one of those editors that follows Wikipedia guidelines no matter what. As stated within those guidelines, they're not rules, they're guidelines. Wikipedia uses general consensus to get stuff done, and each guideline was written after general consensus. Though, in some cases, it does not apply, but somehow you really angered this editor. And yes, your replies did seem like a rant but it's a discussion, it's going to happen though it may be frowned upon. The reason you hadn't been seeing anything on your other edits is because of our backlog with recent changes and new pages patrols. You would have recieved more barnstars if you'd shown up on their feeds. Keep fixing up Wikipedia. If any other editor does something like this, please tell me.The editor apologized, which is good. For some reason many people hate this guy. I do see why, but it's not for good reason. Keep working on Wikipedia, we need editors like you. It may take about a year for you to make it to sysop, but I estimate a year if you keep editing this well and this frequently. Thanks for your contributions, and, again, welcome to Wikipedia. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You are most welcome to add stuff to my User Page. I wasn't able to figure out how to set it up.

I still have no idea why my material was challenged. It was all factual, all verifiable and mostly verified with reliable sources. It's all very well to say things like "some content just doesn't belong on Wikipedia" and "I don't like your conversational tone" and then sign off with the parting advice of "get a book and work from that" - but, sadly, this type of commentary is not very instructive. Yes, he apologised - but as I understand it, that was for his off hand manner - not for reverting the content. His reversion stands - and I still believe that the content was sound. It was certainly an improvement on the errors of fact and errors of interpretation that remain on that page.

Some of the marketing pages that I have been working on have not seen a discussion on the Talk Page for 8 or more years! If we signal every planned change via the "Talk" page, and then sit back and wait for editorial approval, nothing would ever get done! Meanwhile editors are busy placing tags about quality and sources on these pages, but doing very little to upgrade the content. It all seems like a very strange system to me. BronHiggs (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

5 million pages for less than 30,000 editors. We have backlogs. Work on marketing, I'll fix up your user page. Keep going and tell me if anything goes wrong. _{Adotchar| reply here} 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

So I'm not very good at fixing up your user page. I tried. _{Adotchar| reply here} 21:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

False Positive on Bot

hey there,

I recently was reading an article on "Emotional Intelligence" and I noticed that someone wrote "BullShit" in the first line to imply that Emotional Intelligence is a hoax.

As a result I attempted to edit the article on Emotional Intelligence in order to remove "BullShit" as it was highly misleading, let alone the fact that it is profanity.

Now however, if I understood correctly, the wikipedia automated system indicated that I was the one doing the "vandalism", which is highly confusing. I am not sure why the Bot's AI figured I must be "Wrong" when in fact I was "Right".

Link to the Wikipedia site change:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotional+intelligence&diff=746521934&oldid=746520787

Anyways, just curious :)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.209.195 (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what happened. A vandal made an edit, reverted it, I didn't see the reverted part on snuggle, so I reverted his edit. Then you came around and cleaned it up, then the bot thought you were a vandal yourself. Wow. Well, just to inform you, the bots are not endorsed or funded by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. They are run by volunteers, usually extendedconfirmed or sysops. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Robert Kooren (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your welcome!

I am writing an article for consideration but feel if I am walking in the dark. May be you can answer some syntax questions:

What is the difference between a note and a reference?

In a table is it possible to center information in a column?

Thanks

Many thanks for fixing up my user page.

BronHiggs (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Advertising Stubs

I have had a quick look at the pages - and some of them look like they are simple definitions so they should be easy enough to clean up (and could probably be placed in the dictionary of terms). Some of them have conceptual problems - and all of them lack suitable sources.

The article on mass marketing could probably be merged with undifferentiated marketing which I think has an article elsewhere.

It is late at night here, and I am just about to head off to bed. I will have a good look in the morning and see what I can do. I have no doubt that they can all be fixed and that decent references can be found. It shouldn't take too long once I get going in the morning.

Unfortunately, I had more material challenged today - content on two entirely different pages was challenged for very different reasons. I cannot help feeling that I am dealing with deletionists - as these people are very unreasonable - and once they decide to delete they won't back down.

I will help out with the advertising material, but I really feel that I am not well suited to Wikipedia. I am the sort of person who likes to get on with the job. I just don't have the temperament to deal with petty pedants who want to undercut, undermine and debate etc. They are very didactic - and when I send them extracts from Wiki policies to defend what I have done (but if the policies contradict their views or statements), they just turn plain nasty. It is a big waste of energy -both time and emotional energy - and energy that could be better spent cleaning up more pages. So, today one person informed me that subject matter experts should not edit in their area - and advised me to look elsewhere for small editing jobs until I got the hang of it.

My view is that there are so many Wiki pages with problems, and that even small amendments can be an improvement. OK, so sometimes the reference may not be optimal, but a second rate reference is better than no reference at all, or even worse, wholesale cut and paste with fictitious sources added in to throw readers off the scent in the hope that they won't spot the original source of the plagiarised material! But these deletionists keep deleting small changes, while massive conceptual and structural errors remain on the page (probably because they have been there for years).

BronHiggs (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep sending you lists of pages that need to be fixed. Please tell me the names of these users. You are suited to Wikipedia. You're good with marketing, and we really need you. _{Adotchar| reply here} 21:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate user page warning

Yes, "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles", but this was clearly intended as a draft article (the user recreated it as a draft fifteen minutes later, and there was a rejection note on their talk page three hours before you left a warning there), I can't see there was any reason to think that the user was planning to "indefinitely host" the content there. --McGeddon (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. _{Adotchar| reply here} 23:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Advertising Stubs: Attention (advertising)

I apologise for not making a start on this project earlier today. I was caught up this morning with a fence dispute. My 40 year old fence is missing several long sections following heavy winds in the past few weeks and has become unsafe, but my neighbour who, in spite of the huge gaps in the fence and the fact that it is currently leaning at 45 degrees, refuses to accept that there is any problem (which is code for he doesn't want to share in the costs of replacement). It is the law here that neighbours must share equally in the cost of replacing fences - but he is intransigent and has become rather agitated and aggressive.

Anyway, I have made a start - not a big start - but at least something. I decided to post the comments on the Talk Page.

So I have had a good think about the Attention (advertising) article. I doubt that it can be redeemed - there is just too little information and what is there is very confused, possibly out of date and has major omissions. Having said that, I have recommended a few possibilities for interested people to consider.

As I go through these stubs, I will either fix them so that they are of an acceptable standard - or if that is not possible in the short term, I will post recommendations and comments on the Talk page where you and anyone else who cares can have a look and add to it. Then, we can go back and attend to the recommendations one by one when time permits.

Please keep your eyes on these pages for updates. BronHiggs (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's not possible to fix it, and it's not really a thing we can just send it to AfD. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Marketing and Advertising Stubs: State of Play - Progress Report

Hi,

Here is an update on where those stubs are at:

1. Attention (advertising)

Recommend: Delete or Move to Dictionary (after clean-up) or Develop into Full-Blown article on 'Advertising Effects" (not currently covered on Wikipedia, and arguably should be). Detailed explanation on Talk Page.

2. Gimmick

Actions taken: Cleaned up prose, added 7 references, added 2 relevant images from Wiki Commons; added new sub-headings and organised content into logical categories. Included section on 'Failed Gimmicks' as someone on Talk page had requested this. Added section on 'Types of Gimmicks' but overnight this has been amended to 'Examples'; improved definitions and included one direct quote from a dictionary (which some other editor doesn't like, because apparently we should not be using direct quotes from Dictionary sources). I had not completed the editing when I went to sleep last night -was planning to add content to 'Successful Gimmicks' (to balance the failed gimmicks section) but this heading has disappeared overnight. Some gibberish that I intended to delete has been relocated to a new section overnight.

I noticed a few WP users complaining about this page on various Answers type websites. I trust that it is a bit more useful now. However, this topic proved quite difficult to research.

The last comment on 'Talk' for this article was in 2012, and the last substantive changes (other than minor formatting and expression checks) was in 2013. But, suddenly last night there is renewed interest in editing this article. Great! Given that there is so much interest in the article now, I will leave it to others to fix it up. It still has a few minor problems, but is in much better shape than before and should probably get you to C-class in its present form.

3. Mass Market

Recommend: Delete. The page consists of gibberish and was written by person or persons who have no grasp of the concept. It is highly misleading and has the potential to confuse readers. It is entirely at odds with other explanations of the mass market concept on Wikipedia - of which there are many. This article adds no value and cannot be redeemed. Full explanation of issues on Talk Page.

4. Press Kit

Action taken: This article appears to have been wholly plagiarised from World Heritage Dictionary. I have changed some of the wording, both in sentences and in headings, added a few new sentences to provide greater context, added 5 references and 2 images from Wiki Commons. I have made enough changes to distinguish it from the Enclyclopedia article, but on close scrutiny, I am sure that an alert reader will recognise the similarity to the World Heritage Encyclopedia (especially the structure).

5. and 6. Promotion (marketing ) and Promotion Mix .

Recommendation: These two pages could and should be merged into a single article. However, these need a lot of work. Not only are there problems with lack of references, but the article is fraught with conceptual problems, problems with interpretation of source material, poor structure, repetitive prose. These pages will require a big effort in terms of reconceptualisation and restructure. I will have a closer look and make some changes in the forthcoming weeks.

Please do not send me more pages to edit. I really dislike the Wikipedia environment. As I have already mentioned, there are editors who are intent on deleting content and/or adding reference needed tags all over the place. I suppose they believe that they are helping to improve quality and feel good about their contributions. But some of the content on WikiPedia is so misguided and inaccurate, that no amount of references can ever fix it.

Wikipedia seems to have developed a bizarre culture. Content that is just plain wrong or seriously misguided is allowed to stand provided it has a "reliable" reference. Content that is sound is deleted, if they don't like the reference or dislike the way it is written. Wikipedia policies are so convoluted and spread across so many different pages, that it is possible to find a policy to support almost anything you might want to say. I keep hearing that every statement or every sentence MUST have a "reliable" source, which is interpreted as meaning that it MUST be a secondary source, and preferably an online source. BUT this is not what the WP Policies say, yet when I quote actual policies, editors fall back on a different policy or simply change the basis of their objection so that first policy doesn't apply. Nobody, it seems, ever backs away from a deletion and any attempt to debate results in a mass of contradictory and confusing arguments and counter arguments. So it seems that "culture and practice" now takes precedence over "guidelines and policies". This type of environment is toxic, especially for newcomers who have not yet learned what the principles of culture and practice might be, and cannot turn to the formal policies for guidance or support.

Temperamentally, I am just not suited to this type of toxic environment. For me, the accuracy and usefulness of the content should take priority. Of course, references are important but they should NEVER take precedence over the content itself. Unfortunately editors without subject matter expertise lack the skills to evaluate content, so they turn to "references" as an easy to understand and objective indicator of article quality. They fluff around complaining about reliability, neutrality and original research - but never stop to assess whether the content has any intrinsic merit - whether it would be useful to users, whether it is meaningful and whether it accurately reflects the current state of knowledge in a balanced manner. This emphasis on references has contributed to the 'deletionist mentality' which pervades Wikipedia. Environments where the unwritten rules over-ride the formal, written policies are stressful and toxic. I simply cannot work in this type of environment.

I will do what I can to edit pages from time to time, but I cannot commit to any regular contributions. I will be busy working on a paid research job over the next few weeks, so don't be surprised if I go quiet. I have a few last minute tasks that I need to finish for Wikipedia which I want to wrap up over the next few days.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting Tags

I should have mentioned that if you feel that deleting tags about quality and validation at the top of the stubs on advertising/ marketing articles is something that needs to be done, then I am relying on you to do that. Deleting tags, regardless of what they say, is not something that I am prepared to do.

BronHiggs (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)