I also wanted to give you a heads up about something we're thinking of trying with Twinkle. There's been some community discussion ([[Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg)|here]] and [[Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment|here]]) about the fact that deletion notifications sent by Twinkle look exactly like user warnings, even thought they're not. I've drafted some [[User:Maryana_(WMF)/Deletion_notice_redesigns|new templates]] with the aim of testing to see if these do better at getting authors to participate in deletion discussions and/or improve their articles (because right now the numbers are [[:meta:Research:Alternative_lifecycles_of_new_users#New_users_and_deletion_processes|dismally low]]). Let me know what you think about this as a possible A/B test! Thanks, [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I also wanted to give you a heads up about something we're thinking of trying with Twinkle. There's been some community discussion ([[Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg)|here]] and [[Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment|here]]) about the fact that deletion notifications sent by Twinkle look exactly like user warnings, even thought they're not. I've drafted some [[User:Maryana_(WMF)/Deletion_notice_redesigns|new templates]] with the aim of testing to see if these do better at getting authors to participate in deletion discussions and/or improve their articles (because right now the numbers are [[:meta:Research:Alternative_lifecycles_of_new_users#New_users_and_deletion_processes|dismally low]]). Let me know what you think about this as a possible A/B test! Thanks, [[User:Maryana (WMF)|Maryana (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Maryana (WMF)|talk]]) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
== Thanks ==
{{Talkback|Seduisant}}
Revision as of 21:00, 12 October 2011
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Causa sui}} on your talk.
I felt that a recent edit in the Istanbul Pogrom violated the NPOV greatly. It favored a Greek source over many other sources and contradicted in itself while stating that the number of casualties is both an estimation and an exact number of deaths. So I reverted it first and then typed my reasoning in the talk page but then the same user reverted mine saying that there was no talk page explanation probably doing before I hit the Save Page button so I reverted the edits the second time. However, I won't revert it again not to start a senseless edit war. I wanted to consult you first what to do first. Can I report him anywhere if he reverts my reverts again? If I revert his revert a third time it would obviously violate the 3RR. If I don't do anything then we'll have a page with a single source dominating over many others. A Greek source written in Greek that gives the number of deaths as 30 as an estimation while all other sources give a number between 13-17. What is the right course of action? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you leave the article as it is and talk it out on the talk page. There is no hurry, and your Wikipedia editing will be much less stressful when you can control the frantic energy behind naked reverting. Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary might have some guidance on this. Of course, dispute resolution is your bible here. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great if I saw the same approach from the same people I'm having trouble with. Unfortunately, I don't. Though, my pursuit of that particular edit did push them into adding it to the article with a less POV approach. However, the partisanship on Wiki irritates me and I'll probably won't stick around to fix such major errors, not that you care for sure. Thanks for the insight. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working with people who don't want to work with you is an art form, for sure. I hope you can find the patience. If all else fails, there are millions of other articles to work on and we always need more editors. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protection Log
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2011-10-05T12:41:31 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gilgamesh in the Outback [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) (got crossed, resetting to Causa sui's time) (hist)
2011-10-05T12:40:48 Lifebaka (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Gilgamesh in the Outback [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) (persistent edit-warring) (hist)
2011-10-05T12:40:01 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Gilgamesh in the Outback [edit=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)
2011-10-05T12:39:16 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Heroes in Hell (book) [edit=sysop] (expires 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)) (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)
2011-10-05T12:37:14 Causa sui (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Heroes in Hell [edit=sysop] (expires 16:37, 8 October
2011-10-05T12:36:37 Causa sui (talk | contribs) protected Heroes in Hell [edit=sysop] (expires 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 16:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)) (Edit warring / Content dispute) (hist)
Fascinating. Want to get into the details? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you. :-) Do you have a specific question, or are you looking for a translation? causa sui (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to the reasoning. This has been going on since May. The pages have been locked two or three times so far, with no functional result. The editor who appears to be the major problem, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has had no action taken against him, her, or it. It would be nice to have someone fix those pages properly. I'm a registered Canadian Publisher. I tried at one point to explain to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz how the copyright pages in the front of a book work, and I may as well have been talking to a brick wall. FYI, my specialties here are Chemistry, Emission Control Systems, Internal Combustion Engines, and Industrial Equipment.
I'm sorry to hear that you're in a frustration situation. However I don't have much background, nor time to bring myself up to speed sufficiently to mediate it. The page protection is enforcing the protection policy and general prohibitions against edit warring. Hopefully, the protection will encourage the disputants to resolve the disputes. Given your history with this incident, it might be a good idea to take a wiki-break and take a look at the millions of other articles we have to work on. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent an hour on the Catalytic converter article. It is still a mess. But if I put in another hour next week, and an hour the week after... It will get fixed. The problem is that no one understands the technology. That is why I'm not going near those pages, though I do watch them. It is frustrating watching someone who doesn't have a clue messing up what could be a good page.
I'm not going to rehash this whole dispute in yet another forum. I do think a small number of points need to be reinforced. First, Mr. Borean/UrbanTerrorist has misplaced confidence in his own understanding of copyright law, at least so far as it applies to books published in the US, like the ones at issue here. Individual story copyrights do not have to be listed on a "copyright page" as he insists, but may instead be listed on the individual stories within the book. See the US Copyright Office's "Circular 3," at the top of page 4 [1]. One of the authors in the HiH series has confirmed the the HiH anthologies listed copyrights on individual stories.[2] Second, while The Big Bad Wolfowitz may be a stubborn, abrasive old bastard geezer, he works hard at editing within guideline and policy; Mr. Borean, in contrast, seems to insist that the fact that he's been blocked and repeatedly warned in this dispute as some sort of evidence that he's right. Third, while Mr. Borean may have been involved in this dispute since May, as he states, when he uploaded an obvious copyvio and behaved rather contentiously over its removal (see User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_16#Suggested_Deletion_of_OrangeMike_Page_under_.E2.80.8E_.28G12:_Unambiguous_copyright_infringement.29), my involvement has been much shorter and much more consistently civil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to rehash. I have no intention to act on either side of the dispute, or to use sysop tools except where necessary to prevent edit warring. Regards, causa sui (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I wasn't the person who originally requested the deletion review; I just reformatted it. Metropolitan90(talk) 08:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at TParis's talk page. Message added 00:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
that was one of the most nicely worded such things I've ever seen here. May it add to the effectiveness. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template testing
Hi Causa sui,
Awhile back, you expressed interest in the Huggle experiment that Steven Walling and the WMF summer research team ran on level one vandalism warnings. We're currently finishing up a second iteration of that experiment and about to run a third with all level one Huggle warnings (test, blanking, NPOV, etc.). The draft templates are up on the wiki in case you want to peruse them and give feedback:
I also wanted to give you a heads up about something we're thinking of trying with Twinkle. There's been some community discussion (here and here) about the fact that deletion notifications sent by Twinkle look exactly like user warnings, even thought they're not. I've drafted some new templates with the aim of testing to see if these do better at getting authors to participate in deletion discussions and/or improve their articles (because right now the numbers are dismally low). Let me know what you think about this as a possible A/B test! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}