From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I watchlist talkpage threads for up to/at least 3 days (so please reply there, if you like).

[edit] small bag of holding

[edit] Noahveil

[edit] my links

First of all, thank you for putting back my link on the Tom Robbins page. There were many such links on wikipedia but other editors have had knee-jerk reactions and removed them without actually checking them out. Like you said, just because a link may appear to have a COI doesn't automatically make it spam if it's got good information pertaining to the subject of the page.

That link has been taken down twice now by editors who simply decided I was a spammer and ruthlessly went through the entire Wikipedia removing every single link I ever made, first by irishguy and now by Raven in Orbit. Many of the links had no COI whatever, links to articles by other people that just happen to be hosted on my site.

Please, I need somebody rational to talk to about this. Just as my Tom Robbins article is of value to people looking up Tom Robbins, so too are my articles about Andy Kaufman, Michael Nesmith, Godfrey Reggio, Jonathan Demme, and many others, all deleted by Raven in Orbit, the same one who deleted the Tom Robbins article, all declared SPAM for no other reason than they came from me.

Believe me, I understand "no original research" and COI, but these were all articles previously printed by the LA Weekly, Daily Variety, Movieline Magazine, and the WGA. I'm not a spammer, even though the articles happen to have been written by me. If I wanted, I could go into the articles themselves and edit in what I know, but my writing style isn't really a neat fit, so I thought it was more proper to simply add links at the bottom.

Do I simply need to find third parties to add those links? Some of those deletes make absolutely no sense. I'm the editor of the Los Angeles Free Press. I put up a link to the Los Angeles Free Press on the Los Angeles Free Press page. Raven in Orbit took it down, calling the link SPAM. Now people looking up the Los Angeles Free Press won't find a link to the Los Angeles Free Press. Madness.

Any advice or help would be appreciated.

Noahveil (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Noahveil/Archive 1#Reply from Quiddity and below.

See also User talk:Delicious carbuncle/Archive 2#every link to my site banned.

[edit] User:Noahveil

See User talk:Gb/Archive 15#Blocking after 1 warning for start and reply.

Thank you for your message - I think it's probably helpful to start when their contributions start.

November 2005 - a bunch of contributions, 99% of which were to add links to www.disinformationtoday.com and articles by User:Noahveil himself.

February 2007 - exactly the same thing again. 45 or so links to his website added in about an hour. Nothing else - no constructive contributions whatsoever. All these links are to a blog, and thus not a reliable source per WP:EL.

January 2008 he edits under an IP (User_talk:71.102.70.171) reinserting deleted external links to the same site on Sweeney Todd. He'd was warned on that IP address about adding inappropriate external links. There may well be other IPs which he's been editing under - I've identified at least by looking at Veinor's link count for 13 February 2007 where you'll see 44 links to dareland.com, of which 40 were added under Noahveil, but 4 under User:4.246.248.148.

26th March this year - a few more under the Noahveil account. 29th March, a couple more, ending with Lee Strasberg. He was warned by Delicious Carbuncle who subsequently reported the account to AIV where I then blocked. I initially blocked indefinitely, then tweaked it down to 48 hours.

Was the block punitive? Not really - preventative, if anything. It stopped him doing what he'd been doing and brought his attention to the relevant policies.

Could more, or stronger, warnings have been given? Of course - but the same could almost certainly be true of any block. From both a superficial and an in-depth look, however, it's clear that at that time User:Noahveil had only one intent - to add links to his website, in breach of any number of policies. He'd been warned in January 2008 - whilst I concede that the subsequent warning in March wasn't followed by any activity, he hadn't actually shown any intent to change his activities between January and March - WP:Block goes on to say that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking, and that users who have been made aware of a policy (as he had) and have had a reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour (as he had) may not require further warning.

As for him being a poor newcomer, well, I don't really subscribe to that (and I'm not sure what trend you're talking about - he's only been blocked once). He's not a newcomer, as he's been around for years. His sole intent, during that time, has been to include as many links to his own website as possible (there's even one hiding away behind his entry in a list of personalities linked to the station KROQ-FM). If he's entered into meaningful discourse with you about participating constructively in the encyclopaedia, then that's all good, and actually (in my view) justifies my block to a large degree - if not blocked, would he have done so? Or would he just have ignored the warnings and carried on as before.

Thanks for the reminder to assume good faith, incidentally, although I'm not sure where the link provided was supposed to take me! As you touch on, the obligation is not a carte blanche one - it is to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I had sufficient evidence to the contrary, in my book. _GB^T/C 12:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Delicious carbuncle#Lewis Arquette

Please respond to User:Noahveil's question, if you wouldn't mind helping him again here. Oh, and when are you going to bring up that misleading edit summary issue with him? Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads-up.

Re: the misleading edit summary, I imagine he simply clicked the "undo" link, and then adapted the auto-summary to something that looked correct (but in this case, wasn't). I don't believe it is worth hassling him over - he is aware that his edits are being scrutinized by others now, and back in February he had very little experience with the more arcane aspects of Wikipedia. Hope that satisfies you :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a nice theory, but if you look at the actual edit, there's no way that could have happened. As well as undoing the previous change, he simultaneously added material. And as has been pointed out before by someone else, the user's inexperience with WP is due to the fact that it's a four year old SPA for adding links to his own site. You appear to have taken him under your wing -- for whatever reason -- so I'm not going to pursue this unless I see something egregious, but no, I'm not satisfied. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When you click "undo", it presents the edit form, ready for editing. He could have also copied the summary from a different revision and altered that.

I find your attitude towards this dissatisfying. You are refusing to see the evidence from an outsiders point of view: This edit by you, on 29 March 2008, was the first personal message that we can definitely assume Noahveil saw, since November 2005 when he was welcomed.

Please take a look through this thread, where I've tried to explain why good faith is a complex thing, that we have to make an effort to assume (vandals often become good contributors, some even become admins eventually). If you don't give someone a chance to learn from their mistakes, noone benefits. "People are the most important resource there is, for Wikipedia; not frightening anyone off forever, is the 2nd most important job we have, as ideal Wikipedians (after writing an encyclopedia)." -- Quiddity (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the demonstration - I accept that your version of events is plausible. In fact, my assumption that the user undid a misspelling and inserted his web site turns out to be completely backwards, on closer inspection. The user undid the removal of his website and corrected the misspelling while he was in there. I don't disagree with your general premise that SPAs or outright vandals can become useful contributors, but in this particular case I am doubtful of it ever happening, even with your guidance. (Occasional spelling corrections notwithstanding.) I wish you well in your efforts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Upload

You have a lot more patience for the proposal process than I do.

That page has some ambiguities and really needs to be proofread/edited by a capable editor.

I think it would benefit from your attention.

I handled the Welcoming Committee at your request.

I'm now requesting that you proofread and propose improvements to the upload page.

See ya around.

The Transhumanist    00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I barely know anything about our image/media policy (except how complicated it is), so I would not be the ideal person to tinker with it either. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand why your statements at AN made no sense. You misinterpreted what the discussion was about. There isn't any policy on that page. The discussion pertained to the editing of the English/grammar and MOS elements. The understandability of the menu itself. As a menu. Like the sentences "Where is it from? (Click on the appropriate link)". You don't instantly see anything wrong with those? Or with what they imply?

Nothing clicks?

The Transhumanist    06:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I understood exactly what that discussion was about. However, I imagine you will be sufficiently cautious now that there are many more critical eyeballs watching; the page has been unlocked, so go do what you will.

To elaborate on one point: I believe leaving editprotected-requests on talkpages is preferable in cases like this, because it guarantees feedback, because it avoids the danger of confusing the users with temporary mistakes, and because it leaves a more visible record of why an edit is beneficial - for others to learn from. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than at RfA, when am I not sufficiently cautious?  :) People learn by example pretty well - discussing mundane edits seems like overkill.

Clean up is complete. Feel free to refine or revert as you see fit.

By the way, thanks for your input. Those issues needed to be considered. I've replied to concerns in general at WP:AN.

The Transhumanist    13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You've given me an idea, which I've presented in the basic topics renaming proposal discussion.

The Transhumanist    03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image feasible

The pic you sent would work. I whipped this up to see if anything could be done with it. This one is crap because the lighting of the two objects don't match, but it shows that the concept has potential.

I just thought the original globe was too small.  :)

The Transhumanist    09:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like an idea of what the trophy will look like, I've posted the specs and some components at user talk:Penubag#This one should be fun.

The Transhumanist    11:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)