User talk:Rotary Engine
To dream, perchance to sleep. Rotary Engine is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
Things to do / look at:[edit]
Note: This is simply an aide memoire, so I don't forget to come back to these. If there is an issue with this section, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required.
Articles[edit]
- Harmonica Done - East Asia section wants cleaning up; already flagged.
- Hungarian_gypsy_scale, Hungarian_minor_scale - musically these are the same (1,2,b3,#4,5,b6,7); would they be better collapsed to one article? (Note: "Gypsy" is considered a derogatory term for people who refer to themselves as Roma.)
- Adolf_Fredrik's_music_school Done - copy editing; more references(?) - see new section update below - Hej Andersneld!, "74" suggested that I might be able to provide some help with this. If I can suggest anything, I will put details on my Talk page; and "ping" you. - Ryk72
- Bob Huff Done - copy editing; fact checking; references.
- International Trombone Association, Eastern Trombone Workshop - References!!
- Sapience Done - see new section update below
- Craig Wing Done - update Japanese rugby union section; include Kobelco Steelers details.
- Tanerau Latimer Done - add Japanese rugby union section; include Toshiba Brave Lupus details; find sources.
- Kumamon Done - find source for currently unsupported section; or resolve if no source available; Not done - add info on Boston lecture, Cannes film festival et al.
- Kei Nishikori - add section on appearances on Tunnels (owarai)'s "Sports King is Me!" TV programme.
- Shred guitar - general prose clean up.
- Humane Society International Australia - find sources for this article.
- Bone China - find sources for use of synthetic bone ash; draft text for inclusion in article.
- Kabaddi - copy editing; clean up prose.
- Conscription - clean up/standardise table entries.
- Prepositional pronoun - draft section on Gaelic languages.
- USA Boxing - confirm & update weight divisions (male & female); update national champions lists.
- Haruka Ayase - add & source content; incl. name competition, if source-able.
- The Heroic Legend of Arslan - copy edit; add sources.
- Bonnie Ross Done - create article - with thanks to Strongjam & DHeyward.
- Zico Done - clean up external links.
- Aeoline - create
- Tiergarten - clean up; create Tiergartentunnel
--Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Essays/Op-Eds[edit]
COI?[edit]
a question, a response, a clarification, an apology |
---|
Have you edited Wikipedia under different accounts or IP addresses in the past? Bizarre! Suggest: WP:AGF WP:DNB - Ryk72 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
!COI Please accept my apology for not having formally responded to your questions above prior to now. I admit that I was a little taken aback by the questions; and did feel that there was at least in part an assumption that I was acting in bad faith. In the hope of allaying your fears, and assuring you that I am not acting in bad faith, I confirm that:
I accept that a new user entering into a contentious discussion as their first update on Wikipedia must have looked suspicious to you; and this would have given you cause for concern. I accept that this may not have been the best choice for my first updates on Wikipedia. I respectfully ask that you assume good faith, even though our views on the topic of the discussion may not be in alignment. I respectfully ask that you also consider the Wikipedia essays located at: Newbies aren't always clueless and Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet, including the section at Brand new accounts are not single-purpose accounts. Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. Regards, - Ryk72 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC) To User:STSC Hi User STSC, I have struck through the parts of my previous update[2], above, which contained:
I accept that these parts of the update were not helpful and conducive to an improved dialogue between us, and may have been better left unsaid. I acknowledge that at the time the update was made, that I was frustrated by a series of actions by users Ubikwit, Lvhis and yourself; as I felt these actions carried an implication that I was not acting in good faith; and I felt that the actions appeared to be at least in some part "playing the man, not the ball". I further acknowledge that my frustration at this time does not excuse my use of profanity (however obscured) or of a comment on the quality of your actions. I apologise for any offence which I might have caused to you or to any other Wikipedia user. I hope that we will find ways to better work together in the future. Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. (cf. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) Regards, - Ryk72 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Updated: - Ryk72 (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
December 2013[edit]
Extended content |
---|
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Secret account 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped. This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Rotary Engine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Hi, Hopefully I have the process right; please excuse me if I do not. The reason for the block from the block log entry is "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: obvious single purpose account/sock here to disrupt a page under ArbCom sactions", so I hope to address those concerns. W.r.t Sock Puppetry: I am a long time consumer of Wikipedia, but not a previous user/editor; and have not edited Wikipedia under different accounts or IP addresses in the past. I am not anyone's puppet; sock, meat or otherwise. Nor do I believe that I have a conflict of interest contrary to WP:COI which would require disaclosure. But I am not sure how to prove these without privacy implications. Part of the issue may be that I appear to be more competent than a usual novice user/editor; I am familiar with HTML & other markup languages which may explain this, and the "Cheatsheet" is really quite useful. I also did a lot of research on Wikipedia principles, policies & guidelines prior to making any talk page edits; as I wanted to be useful, rather than uninformed. I accept and acknowledge that the situation may have been more easily resolved if I had made a more direct response to Ubikwit's initial "COI?" question on my Talk page; but confess to being stunned by the suggestion that I might be a US Government shill. I feel that the question did not assume good faith. W.r.t Disruption: While I have participated in a WP:RM discussion, I have not made any edits to the Wikipedia page itself, and did not intend to do so while the discussion was in progress. I am not here to be intentionally disruptive and don't believe that I have engaged in any of the behaviours listed under "Disruption" on WP:Blocking_policy, but am happy to address any of these separately if desired. I also do not believe that I have gone outside the suggested "Rules of Engagement" on the talk page; with the possible exception of having provided long updates; but that it what I understood the "Survey" part of the WP:RM to be for, reasoned articulation of different views. I apologise if I was wrong in this regard. I believe that my latest update[13] explicitly suggests a way forward, suggests changes to the article text which might address concerns of bias, and calls for a general movement towards consensus. I also suggested[14] a potential compromise position for the "Senkaku Islands dispute" page (but no-one seems keen to comment). I think all of these are positive things. I also did a lot of research on the history of the discussion prior to making any talk page edits; as I wanted to be useful, rather than uninformed. My involvement in this particular discussion was prompted by two comments, by Benlisquare[15] and 1zeroate[16], each calling for input to the discussion from new editors. I was hoping to provide such input, and ask you accept that I am acting in good faith. I attest that I am WP:HERE, but that I have only been here for a short time. My first 3 days as a Wikipedia editor have been interesting, to say the least. :) Note: I have just found some alternate reasoning for the block as listed elsewhere are "blocked indefinitely for general disruption to the Senkaku Islands page move discussion"[17] or "Update I blocked Ryk72 indefinitely, and considering the page is under ArbCom sanctions and his only edits was basically to disrupt the closure of the Senkaku Islands page move, the block falls under the arbitration decision of the case."[18] I am happy to address these explicitly, but tend to think that they are predicated, at least in part, on the assumption that I am a puppet. Regards, Ryk72 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: I find the evidence and rationales provided by Secret and others to be pretty sound. I suggest you email the Arbitration Committee's mailing list if you want this to be examined further ([email protected]), but I don't see compelling reasons to unblock. only (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request for Clarification Hi Admins Secret & only, I apologise for the interruption and thank you in advance for any reply that you might give. I am hoping that you might provide some additional information which will assist me to make either a better unblock request or appeal to the Arbitration Committee. I am still a little unclear as to what exactly I have done wrong. The reasons given in various places are (my underlining)
Would you please let me know what exactly I have done that is disruptive, and what evidence is used in support of that allegation/finding? I am simply looking to understand, so that I can improve if needed. (If you could reference policy using one or more "WP:xxx" tags that would be best; as it would make it easiest for me to find the policies). The WP:BLOCK page lists several actions which might be considered disruptive: vandalism; gross incivility; harassment; spamming; edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule; breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy; attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite. If one or more of these, could you please let me know which; and what evidence is used to support the allegation/finding? The WP:NOTHERE page lists the following as "indications that a user may not be here to build an encyclopedia": Narrow self interest and/or promotion; Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site; General pattern of disruptive behavior; Treating editing as a battleground; Dishonest and gaming behaviors; Little or no interest in working collaboratively; Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention; Inconsistent long-term agenda; Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods. Similarly, if I have been found to have breached one or more of these, could you please let me know which; and what evidence is used to support the allegation/finding? Would you please also let me know what evidence is used to support the conjecture that I "clearly ain't a new user"; as this appears to be central to the issue? Thanks again for taking the time to read this, and for any response that you might give. Greatly appreciated. And apologies again for taking up your time. Regards, - Ryk72 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Updated to include WP:NOTHERE reference - Ryk72 (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Request for Clarification - Procedural Questions Hi Admins Secret & only, I apologise for the interruption and thank you in advance for any reply that you might give. Having done some additional research at WP:AE, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands &c, I am now hoping that you can clear up some policy & procedural questions. Please note that I do under stand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and am not trying to "lawyer" my way out of the current block, simply to better understand it.
Question 1: Can you please confirm that the block was made to enforce an arbitration decision; and, if so, that the right procedures were generally followed? (I am happy with a general alignment to the process; I am simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the block). The alternative is that the block actually made on the presumption that I am a "sock puppet", or otherwise acting in bad faith. If so, this might explain the lack of warnings, and the indefinite nature of the block. Question 2: Can you please confirm that the block was made on the basis that I am believed to be a "sock puppet" or otherwise acting in bad faith; and, if so, if the easiest remedy is for me to satisfy Admin Secret that I am a genuine new user? (due to the "ArbCom" nature of the ban requiring they provide a personal reversal) Please note that none of these questions are intended to imply that anyone has acted inappropriately or other than in good faith. I believe that you have both worked to fulfill your duties as Admins entirely in good faith, and based on your true and honest beliefs. Thanks again for taking the time to read this, and for any response that you might give. Greatly appreciated. And apologies again for taking up your time; and for the length of the update. Note: as above, if there is an issue with this or any other update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. - Ryk72 (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Unblocked[edit] This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Rotary Engine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: In line with WP:AEBLOCK, I would like the reviewing administrator to initiate a community discussion about an appeal against the current block. I have included an arbitration enforcement appeal template below. If possible, would the reviewing administrator please also provide notification to User:Secret, the Admin imposing the sanction. Many thanks, - Ryk72 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Accept reason: This does not appear to have been an appropriate use of an arbitration enforcement block. This should be seen as neither an endorsement or a condemnation of your previous behavior, the block was simply improper on its face and as such has been lifted. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Email to ArbCom[edit]The following is the full text of an email to ArbCom, requesting a review of the current block Subject: User:Ryk72 & WP:AEBLOCK Esteemed Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Members, I am hopeful that you might help with the current block on my Wikipedia account, "Ryk72"; which is listed as being due to an ArbCom decision. In line with WP:AEBLOCK, the block can only be lifted by the admin imposing the block - unfortunately this admin has resigned from Wikipedia, and so is not able to lift the block themselves. (cf. User:Secret ) I have also explored the alternative method, through an unblock request asking for a community discussion - unfortunately, this request has not yet been picked up. Reasons provided for the block are variously "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: obvious single purpose account/sock here to disrupt a page under ArbCom sactions" (sic), "blocked indefinitely for general disruption to the Senkaku Islands page move discussion" or "Update I blocked Ryk72 indefinitely, and considering the page is under ArbCom sanctions and his only edits was basically to disrupt the closure of the Senkaku Islands page move, the block falls under the arbitration decision of the case." While I maintain that I did not intentionally set out to disrupt the discussion, merely to participate in it; I have had the benefit of some good coaching from other Wikipedia editors ( User:74.192.84.101 & User:Yngvadottir ), and understand how my actions may have been construed as being disruptive; and, more importantly, how I can act better to ensure that the situation does not occur in future. For additional details, please see my Talk page, User_talk:Ryk72. I will include a copy of this email there, but please let me know if this is an issue. I will be happy to remove or modify as required. Please also let me know if you need any more information. I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thanks again for your time in reading this; appreciate all your efforts in ensuring the smooth running of Wikipedia. Regards, Ryk Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. - Ryk72 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Updated: section order / location change only - Ryk72 (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ryk72[edit]
Extended content |
---|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Ryk72[edit]Reasons provided for the block are variously "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia: obvious single purpose account/sock here to disrupt a page under ArbCom sactions" (sic), "blocked indefinitely for general disruption to the Senkaku Islands page move discussion"[19] or "Update I blocked Ryk72 indefinitely, and considering the page is under ArbCom sanctions and his only edits was basically to disrupt the closure of the Senkaku Islands page move, the block falls under the arbitration decision of the case."[20] Note: I have made a number of attempts to contact the Admin imposing the sanction for clarification[21][22][23]; but the Admin has unfortunately announced their retirement from Wikipedia.[24][25] Reasons for the appeal are:
I do accept & acknowledge that participating in a discussion on a highly contested topic might not have been the best place for my first updates on Wikipedia. I also accept that having someone new enter this discussion must have seemed suspicious; and that the Admin imposing the sanction acted in good faith, based on the information available to them at the time. However, I maintain that we have achieved the wrong outcome. I also accept & acknowledge that I reacted when provoked (cf. User_talk:Ryk72#COI?), and that this would likely have exacerbated the situation. I resolve to make every attempt to remain calm in the future. If the block is lifted, I will be looking to contribute in the ways suggested at WP:Community_Portal#Todo and Special:GettingStarted and at User_talk:Ryk72#Things to do / look at:. I humbly request that the block be lifted, in line with WP:AEBLOCK; and that the following pages be updated to reflect this: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144#Phoenix7777, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands#Log of blocks and bans For additional information please see my Talk page: - Ryk72 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Updated - Ryk72 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Statement by Secret[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ryk72[edit]Result of the appeal by Ryk72[edit]
Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC) |
This... makes me sad.[edit]
a welcome, a link, a quote, a disclaimer |
---|
Welcome back, Ryk72[31] Looking for an easy way to get involved? Just choose one of the three options below, and we'll give you a suggested article to edit.
Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. - Ryk72 (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC) |
An open letter to members of the Talk:Senkaku_Islands discussion group[edit]
Extended content |
---|
Explicitly includes the following respondents to the recent WP:RM: Lvhis, PBS, AjaxSmack, Jonathunder, Kendall-K1, Qwyrxian, Benlisquare, Lssrn45, Brian Dell, STSC, SnowFire, Phoenix7777, Oda Mari, Shrigley, Ubikwit, Blueboar Respected Fellow Wikipedia Editors, It has come to my realisation that there is an unfortunate side effect to my involvement in the recent Requested Move for the Senkaku Islands page et al, and subsequent block; on the basis that I am believed to have been a previous editor of Wikipedia (and therefore this account is believed to be a "sock puppet"). I realise that I have not only opened myself to these accusations; but also that I have made each of you, as participants involved in the WP:RM, 'open to the accusation that you might have acted inappropriately in an attempt to influence the discussion. I would therefore, like to categorically and unreservedly state that:
Please feel free to link to this update if & as required; especially if any accusations are made. I would further like to explicitly extend my most sincere apologies to Phoenix7777, who has already been the subject of such accusations. However they might have been intentioned, these accusations have no grounding in reality. Note: this update's purpose is only to proclaim the innocence of other users, including those explicitly listed above. Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. Best regards - Ryk72 (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Howdy Ryk72, this sorry situation was mentioned to me by Yngvadottir. What a nice happy new year, eh? :-) Sorry about the mess. I can skim through your contribs if you like, or answer your questions if you like. I've worked with Secret before, they are tough but fair. You mentioned above that you were worried about privacy-concerns, and that is perfectly fine. Nobody here is going to try and find out your real-life identity, see WP:DOX. As you may have noticed, there are some folks very antsy about WP:COI; that's not your fault, it is from recent events that have nothing to do with you, involving wiki-politics and real-world PR firms and all sorts of other unsavory stuff. Most folks that edit wikipedia, even including admins, have very little access to the deepest innards of the webservers. For transparency reasons, almost all stuff that happens on-wiki (meaning talkpages and articles and such) happens out in the open. This is even true for most business of the foundation, which handles donations and that sort of thing. The exceptions are very few. When you donate to wikipedia, and enter your credit-card number, that does not get posted here on your talkpage, thankfully. :-) Also, there is some networking-data, which is obscured from all but a few folks, who work in the WP:CU "department" here, and generally only a few folks (like a couple hundred maybe) have such access, to prevent abuse and/or privacy breach. Finally, as has been mentioned before, in some cases there is a special bunch of a dozen to a dozen-and-a-half folks called ArbCom... this name is historical, and the gory details are quite gory, but basically ArbCom has the unenviable job of being the appeals-court of wikipedia. They have indirect access (or in some cases direct access maybe? not sure really) to the webserver innards. They are elected by the most-active wikipedians, and in fact, there was just an election where 923 votes were placed, and the top folks got two-year terms. When you email them information, it is kept secret, and is not used on-wiki. Of course, the *email* itself might be unencrypted, if you are worried about privacy from your ISP or from your local government, please let me know. ArbCom members can be trusted not to reveal your info, generally speaking, and folks like User:only and User:Secret can take ArbCom at their word, if they say that you've emailed them and everything was a-okay. You don't have to email them, possibly we can figure out something else if necessary. It's the usual process... but as always, WP:IAR applies, and if the usual process is improper or inadequate, we can work out something else. Anyhoo, long story short... welcome to wikipedia! :-) If you're willing, I'll walk you through the steps to getting unblocked, and answer your questions. This prolly won't happen instantly, Rome wasn't built in a day, but you seem a fine person, it would be sad to lose a new editor to a false-positive. Hope this helps. I'll skim your info, and check back in a bit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
A brief note of thanks...[edit]
Extended content |
---|
Hi, I just wanted to express my gratitude to those people who have noticed my current situation and have offered their assistance. I realise that everyone's time is valuable; and I am humbled & honoured that you have taken your time to help. Fellow editors Yngvadottir, Amakuru, 74 and especially Oda Mari - Thank you for drawing attention to my situation, to my previous Talk page entries, above; and making sure that the right people were made aware of them. I really appreciate it. Likewise thank you for providing advise on how I should best proceed; it is fantastic to be able to rely on the value of your collective experience with Wikipedia. I'd also like to thank Admins only & Nick for responding on the various talk pages & for any work that they have done or are doing in following up the reasoning behind the block. I'd like to recognise the valuable work that all Wikipedia's Admins put in to ensure that things run as smoothly as possible; for what is essentially a volunteer job, it cannot be an easy one. I notice that User:Secret has retired from Wikipedia, but I'd like to thank him for putting his hand up to do the Admin job while he was here, and for the hours that he put into the role. Finally, it looks like all roads are leading towards sending an email to ArbCom; which I am working on now. Hopefully I can put my case forward clearly, concisely & convincingly. As "74" suggests, "Rome wasn't built in a day", so it might take a while, but I hope to be back making a contribution sooner rather than later. I think I'm likely to find myself "once bitten; twice shy" and stick to less controversial topics for a little while. Instead, I think it better to take the suggestion at Special:GettingStarted and do some grammatical or spelling clean-up &/or linking. Thanks again; collectively & as individuals, you've managed to restore my faith quite a lot. Regards, - Ryk72 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
Meta TBD[edit]
a thing |
---|
Hello again Ryk... are you
Here were some tasks I assigned to Peter, who wasn't keen on them, it turned out. But a genuinely nice fellow! You are free to mess with any of them you like, but the ones witch need teh most work are ETW and ITA. They are two existing articles in mainspace, but with negligible refs in the article. Trying to figure out if Stanley/HKTA/SliderAsia was wikiNotable, I looked up a bunch of sources in those two for comparison (about fifty each). Anyhoo, if you feel like doing more music-articles, you can tackle ETW or ITA or both. Many of the sources I found are *not* going to turn out to be WP:RS per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, because they won't meet the usual rules. That said, music is a performance art, and methinks a special case in some ways, as concerns sourcing/notability. Lemme know if you want to tackle these, and I'll try to get you straightened out on them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Meta FAQ[edit]
a nother | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
So what is your basic question? Something like, was justice served, when you got blocked? The answer is, probably not. It was rough justice. Frontier justice. Shoot from the hip, ask questions later, kind of justice. Wikipedia is still actually on the frontier. There's only 30k active editors, that contribute 5+edits/mo. Only about 10% of them are very active, with 100+edits/mo. Secret is a good editor, and a good admin. They once banned all members of homo sapiens sapiens modernii from mainspace, of course! That was probably a mistake. :-) But on wikipedia, mistakes are not permanent. History of human civilization goes where it should; that history of civilization does not yet do so, and has not done so since 2009, is a correctable trouble. Undeletions require admin intervention, otherwise anybody with a username could fix the history of civilization troubles. Along the same lines, unblocking requires an admin, and in your particular case, unblocking *usually* requires the blocking-admin. Which is no longer possible, and other admins are a bit antsy about an unblock which crosses the Big Line In The Sand. No harm no foul... you can still read wikipedia, and make new sections right here on your talkpage, and "edit" articles thataway. Just ask somebody by using the @Ryk72: feature to come along and shuffle your edits into mainspace, once the fixes are ready. Furthermore... although the admin shot from the hip when they blocked you, unlike in a *real* situation of rough justice, you can be resusitated. Content which is deleted incorrectly can be retrieved, and editors which are blocked incorrectly can be unblocked. I've only recently started messing with talkpages... for quite a long time, I just edited mainspace, communicating via edit-summaries. One thing I've learned in the talkpage-namespace, is that the wheels of wikiJustice grind exceedingly slow, but the do grind, and they tend to grind exceedingly fine. So, I expect you'll be unblocked eventually, and free to roam about once again. Did you do anything wrong? Yes, a couple things. First, you responded to rudeness with rudeness. There is a caste-system around here. It's not fair. But it is, what it is. You were the low-caste person. Somebody was fucking rude to you. You responded, with rudeness in kind. Banhammer. It's unfortunate... I think it's the wrong way to run the 'pedia... but it's nothing personal. "Ye judged me before ye even knew me." Correct. Because statistically, the chances that you were a wikipedian at heart, rather than somebody here to disrupt things, was about 10 to 1, or maybe higher. As it turns out, you were a Good Egg, and thus, your ban was a false-poz. I'm working on adjusting a bunch of different wiki-crap, to keep the false-poz events from being wiki-stress-inducing. Sorry that I failed to finish the job, in time to save *your* tender feelings. :-) But you came out of your trouble relatively unscathed. A bit more wary, perhaps, but still Assuming Good Faith... and that, more than anything else, says you'll do fine here. So. Mistake number one, being a beginner. "Mistake" number zero, reading the policies first, signing your posts, knowing what you were talking about, arguing lucidly, and being bold. DO YE NOT KNOW THY PLACE YE BEGINNER?!? :-) As for actual mistakes, your posts were too long. I suffer from the exact same disease; around here, they even named an official policy after me, WP:WALLOFTEXT. You and I will get along just fine. But other folks, are not gonna be happy. I won't try to give you any advice on how to stay terse, because obviously, *I* must know nothing about it, otherwise I would practice what I (don't) preach. Finally, you make the mistake of bangvoting in two-and-a-half places. You posted your original bangvote of oppose-the-move-to-a-slashed-article, and then later, you posted (several inches further down the screen) another bangvote of oppose-the-move-to-pinnacle, and then a bit further down still at the maximum outdent level) posted a comment where you suggested support for possibly moving one of the article to a slashed form. You are a beginner. You did not know. But here's the deal. If you bangvote oppose, and then leave a long comment (or there gradually grows to be a long chain of rebuttal-reply stuff below your original bangvote), and then later temporally you *change your thinking* and want to say more, you should say it right in the place where you originally gave your rationale, right at the top. Now, this is tricky to do properly! You cannot just go and change what you originally wrote, because folks may have already left rebuttals, to your *original* rationale, right? Right. So, you have to do it with a bit of HTML, and since you already mentioned you know something of markup langs, I'll just demonstrate, sans further longwinded explanations.
I haven't done everything that could be done here, but hopefully my point is clear. Give your logical policy-backed argument in a few short words. If you need a paragraph toexplain, fine. If you need eight paragraphs to explain, use the collapse-tags, or even better, sleep on it, so that you don't post until you can boil it down. If you are bangvoting, and you have multiple opposes, or some sort of complex oppose-x && oppose-y && may support variation-x-doubleprime, group them all at the top. If you need to *change* your phrasing later on, after folks have already commented, use the (s)(/s) and the (ins)(/ins) tags to make it clear what happened, for others in the conversation, and also for lurkers. Therefore, get in the habit of never using (u)(/u) for emphasis. Use this or *this* or VERY rarely allcaps to emphasize things. Only use bold when you really need your point to stick out, for someone who is skimming the entire thread. The exception is inside collapse-tags, where the TLDR barrier is helped by the liberal use of boldface... somebody that uncollapses your long argument, may get the gist of it from reading the bolded portions, if you do this right. And hey, if you really did it right, maybe you can just delete the collapsed section entirely, and just keep the formerly-bolded-sentences-therefrom, right? Right. Anyhoo, as has yet again been dramatically demonstrated, I'm not the one to be giving *anybody* advice on how to stay terse. Did you main question get answered? You got blocked by mistake, based on admins acting from experience (aka statistical evidence) and tell-tale clues (which turned out wrong). You'll get unblocked by staying calm, lucid, and ... unfortunately ... extremely patient, while the wheels of wikiJustice grind slowly along. In the meantime, feel free to ask questions about the finer points that may be unclear, or even about the bloody obvious points which are staring everybody in the face. Good questions are hard to come by, in the wikiverse as well as the real-o-verse. Also, feel free to keep on editing, just use portions of your talkpage as a scratchpad, and ask the nearest editor to help you out by putting your stuff into mainspace when it it ready. Hope this helps, sorry about the uber-wall, and thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Ugghh... broke syntax with incorrect nesting, lower portions of the talkpage were thus busted. Fixed now. Sorry about that. Beware using raw HTML. ;-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good to me. I added some sub-sections, those help. "Controversially" I also explain comment-splitting within the green boxen. But: just like TLDR, I strongly recommend you never do it to anyone else. :-) Same goes for ribbing, you can totally feel free to give Hafspajen trouble, they're tough, and of course my skin is thick like an oak tree, but in general, try to avoid humour like the plague except on the personal talkpages of people you personally know. WP:SARCASM applies, and people are often touchy already on article-talkpages... as you may be aware. See longer explanation, after this word from our sponsors. FEEL UNHAPPY? WISH YOU COULD HAVE FUN AGAIN? EDIT WIKIPEDIA! NOW!! HURRY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!1!!11` Sorry about that, but hey, they pay the bills, so I let them stick banner adverts on the articles, begging for donation-bucks. This new "inline advert" campaign, though, is getting on my nerves a we little bit. ;-) On that note... behold: the Great Wall of text! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC) welcome to the jungle ... anchor subtitle added by 74, not by Ryk, who is too polite :-)[edit]
on names[edit]
|
Which way to proceed[edit]
Extended content |
---|
Ryk72: I hadn't seen the unblock request and Arbcom appeal draft above until today, sorry. Did you decide not to e-mail Arbcom? It still appears that having you do that would be the simplest way, since the blocking administrator, Secret, is no longer an admin. If you have decided not to do that, I think a discussion on the Admins' Noticeboard might be preferable to a formal Arbcom appeal, but the e-mail route might save us all from having to go through either of those. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, So much to respond to; especially a few massive updates from "74" for which, given the time taken to write them, it would be churlish to not provide a response. And then to do some actual Wikiwork on building a better encyclopaedia. Will come back to here with a "sitrep" shortly. - Ryk72 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Hi Yngvadottir & "74", Just a quick note to let you know that I haven't heard anything as yet from the email to ArbCom. Given that the previous auto-response suggested that I would receive a notice if the email was not approved by the moderator, I'm considering that this is a case where "no news is _no news_" rather than anything else; either good or bad. I am hopeful of hearing something back in the next day or so, but will send a follow up email if I have not heard anything soon - likely asking for a positive confirmation of receipt if nothing more. Hope you are both well. Thank you for making Wikipedia, and my experience of it, better. - Ryk72 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Collapsed: - Ryk72 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) |
Adolf Fredrik's music school[edit]
a school, an article, some advice, a success |
---|
Hej Andersneld, I'm not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, or indeed if it helps in any way; and I do not claim to be any sort of expert on things Wikipedian; but I had a look over the article proposed at WT:Articles_for_creation/Adolf_Fredrik's_music_school, and here are some thoughts:
I also went looking in the suggested places for additional references in books, academic journals, etc - there are not many for "AF music school"; but found the following for "AF Musikklasser", which you might want to use:
I don't think there's much detail that isn't already mentioned in the article; but additional references certainly speaks to notability. From the perspective of demonstrating notability, there's also:
Feel free to use or refuse any & all of these. Best of luck! I am looking forward to saying "GRATTIS!" when the article is accepted. :) Note: if there is an issue with this update, please let me know; I will be happy to modify or remove as required. - Ryk72 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Terrific, many thanks for all the suggestions! I have included comments in the text above. Andersneld (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC) I found the book links above to be a little thin, but I found a Swedish book that I included under the Wider influence section Andersneld (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
To my immense relief the article was finally approved yesterday :-) Thanks for all the help !!! It is interesting that the school's own web page has youtube links. They might be the copyright holders though. Regarding the school's name I have just e-mailed the school's principal. I informed him that all four words now begin with uppercase letters on Wikipedia, and suggested that the school should adopt this as a new standard in English translations. I didn't say this quite as bluntly of course. The problem is that this is not how it would be done in Swedish (Adolf Fredriks musikklasser) so for many Swedes it takes some getting used to. Andersneld (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Sapience Analytics[edit]
Extended content |
---|
Hi Ryk72, Thanks for accepting to make changes to tone of the article. I also made the following changes to the article today 1) Added company infobox - the article now needs to get into company category instead of software. Not sure how to change that to leaving it to you 2) Retained product infobox - can we retain this? because this is the only product we intend to have and hence the comapny and product are synonymous to each other. If not, then please feel free to remove it 3) Toned down the non-verifiable portion and tried to make it NPOV 4) Added logo Please let me know if I this looks good. Also if everything looks good, do I need to Submit it for official review or you can do it and push it to main space? Thanks to User:74.192.84.101 and you in advance for your help, VirtualAvi (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi VirtualAvi, Hoping that I can help you get the Sapience article approved for inclusion in Wikipedia mainspace. I am only new to Wikipedia myself, so cannot claim to have all the answers for you, but will let you know where I am not sure, and try to call some other people in for a second opinion. I've had a quick look over the article as it currently stands; at the comments from the previous reviewers; at some of the relevant policies; and at some of the links that "74" found when searching for information on the company. I think that there's a lot that we can do to build a really good article. If / when you have time, and if you haven't already, please have a look over these two Wikipedia documents: WP:BETTER & WP:WORDS. These are about writing good quality articles and going to be what we use to form the basis for making the article look like it really belongs in an Encyclopaedia. Which is what we want, right? :) Now, for some of the questions that you asked, we already have some definitive answers from "74" & Gerda Arendt, as follows:
We also need to be incredibly careful to avoid advertising in the article. This is a big issue in the Wikipedia space - we need to ensure that whatever we say is based on & backed up by reliable sources. But, given the sources that we have available, we can still say a lot. Looking at the article, I think there's going to be issues with the Features subsection of the Products section no matter how we try to work on it. But, to be honest, the people who are looking for this level of detail, are going to be the people who jump across to the Sapience website; so you can tell them all this there. I think we're better looking for quotes from the articles listed by "74" which enable us to use the "Just the facts" style as at WP:PEACOCK - e.g. "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".[refs 1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.[refs 2]". I will look through some of the articles looking for things that I think might be appropriate, but suggest that you should do likewise - an easy example would be to mention that Sapience Analytics has been listed as an "IT Company to watch" by the Times of India or the Economic Times (or whatever the specifics from these sources actually say). Hopefully this is enough for you to carry on with. I will look over the sources in more detail & let you know what else I come up with. A final note. I am currently blocked from editing Wikipedia outside this Talk page, for reasons which would take too long to go into, so will not be able to make any edits for you. Hope this is helpful to you. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC) And a quick call to Hafspajen who might be able to also have a look over the article, or to confirm my thoughts above? Hi Hafspajen, a pleasure to meet you. "007-4711" speaks highly of you (see note in sections above), and thought you might be able to help on this one. :) I would really appreciate the benefit of your experience, but please feel free to say "no". - Ryk72 (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi VirtualAvi, I notice a lot of changes to the Sapience article by yourself, Hafspajen & 74.192.84.101. It's looking a lot better now, I think; and certainly some of the previous issues have been resolved. I notice that there's a note in the article that the "Reception" section needs expansion - so maybe we should look to do something there. My understanding is that we can put information about the awards, "Top 10"'s, "best emerging companies", etc in here; but that it probably needs some verbage around it. I will try to put something together for you to copy into the article; but can you also have a think about what could go here? - Ryk72 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
cf. WP:SECONDCHANCE - Ryk72 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Commenting the Sapience article "Reception" section, as editing can now occur in the actual article. - Ryk72 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
No idea what to do for the comment "This section requires expansion." under Reception section Shall I go ahead and submit it for evaluation? Or you will be able to do it yourself? VirtualAvi (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to you, Hafspajen & 74.192.84.101 for helping me you. I tried again on the Reception section. Looks like that's it from my side. Request you to make appropriate corrections as needed and submit it with correct title "Sapience Analytics". Keeping fingers crossed! VirtualAvi (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yngvadottir, Hafspajen & "74", Firstly, many thanks for the advice on watchlists; eminently useful, and much better than reloading page histories to check for changes as I was initially doing. :) I see that Sapience Analytics has made it to mainspace, which is pleasing; and entirely due to the efforts of Hafspajen, "74" and VirtualAvi.
Many thanks for all your assistance again. Apologies for the slower than ideal responses - too much going on real-o-verse wise. Hoping to find some time for an update in response to "74" above & also to work on some more musical pages (trombones, scales, etc). - Ryk72 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Updated; orphan tag has been removed: - Ryk72 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Collapsed (& merged): - Ryk72 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) |