User talk:Honette/User talk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Discussion with 86.122.185.22

Hello,

Are you aware the reason why MGSpot.com was removed from some articles? Davtra (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why MGSpot.com keeps getting removed from different articles I try to contribute. If you could help out I would really appreciate it. (User:86.122.185.22) 08:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your contributions so far. I've looked at MGSpot.com. I can see it is a new website (created on March 3, 2010). At this stage, it is unknown if MGSpot.com is a reliable source. That's why MGSpot.com is removed or tagged as an unreliable source. Also:

• It appears there is little or no editorial oversight and may be self-published (for example, the person hosting the website is also the one writing its contents, a fansite which is generally not accepted). Some articles on MGSpot.com have poor grammar and style of writing, and incorrect spelling.
• Website was recently created therefore has either low or poor reputation for checking the facts.
• No author is displayed. This isn't a big issue, but most reliable sources display the author. It also helps to determine which author writes reliable articles.
• Where does MGSpot.com get its facts from?

Another reason why MGSpot.com was removed because some specific contents are already referenced by reliable sites and official information, so it's unnecessary to add an additional reference to that content.

Please do read Video Game Sources. A list of reliable and unreliable video game-related websites are at bottom of page. I believe MGSpot.com will be checked for its verifiability. If you have any questions, please do ask. Davtra (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow.. I have to say this is much more information then I have expected. Facts on MGSpot.com are found usually on the games or game developers official websites and it is a site under development and constant change. I am new to Wikipedia and trying to learn and understand how to use it properly, funny thing is that I actually thought somebody else, from other sites, are deleting my references. It also looks like I have to get better at English.

Is there any way I can speed up the acceptance of MGSpot.com as a reliable source? I will make some changes in the website as to add an author and see what else I can improve as this website is intended as a serious source of information regarding video games. Any more feedback is welcomed.(User:86.122.185.22) 10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia is a very big place and I sometimes get lost. The key to getting accepted is to make sure the articles are reliable. It's also important to keep the articles in a neutral point of view (no bias). You should also read No Original Research. These are long articles, but I think the first half or quarter of the articles is most important for your needs. Follow these guidelines and MGSpot.com will be acceptable as a reliable reference on Wikipedia.

It's best to write dates as May 7, 2010 or 7 May, 2010 on Wikipedia rather than 2010-7-5 or 2010-5-7. It may confuse the international audience because they don't know which is month or day. Format of the date varies in countries.

Do you write the articles yourself? It's a good idea for someone else to edit. It's sometimes difficult to edit your own work.

You should also sign up for an account :) Davtra (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I started using the international date format usually "May 7, 2010" on the website but actually forgot about it in the Wiki references and I am writing the articles myself for now as we are only two people working on the website. I am working on the articles and my friend is doing all the page design and development. We both have jobs, in the same company, same office, so we spend a limited amount of time on the website as it can't currently support our financial needs(No ads on the website). But our intent is to grow it as fast as possible in order to support a minimum income so we can dedicate our full time and attention to it.

I created an account MGSpot (facebook/twitter and others style) but you can imagine that it got blocked instantly for representing a website, wanted to create an article regarding our website development and evolution, but I guess I can do that with any account doesn't have to be the same name. I will create a new account in my name soon. i'll start reading those articles you linked me. (sorry for the bad grammar, I haven't used English in over 8 years)(User:86.122.185.22) 10:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Bravia2

I made some good changes to fallout: New Vegas, and please don't change it. Bravia2 (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bravia2, and thank you very much for your contributions! I don't change the content of articles based on my personal feelings. Wikipedia has its own guidelines to maintaining articles. As Fallout: New Vegas is a video game, please follow these standards: Video games/Article guidelines. If the article contents are not following standards, editors will edit or remove content. As stated by Wikipedia, editors agree that their writing can be edited.

I am sorry to say, but your writing is likely to be removed by editors. Your Courier section has already been summarised in the Story section, and your writing for the Weapons section is too much detail with unnecessary information as stated in Video games/Article guidelines. Editors may use some of your writing and include them in other sections of the article. If you have any questions, please do ask. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please do not copy and paste information from websites, such as you did from http://fallout.wikia.com for Fallout: New Vegas. Wikipedia dislikes copyright infringements as stated here. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Should I Tag Every Sentence?

{{helpme}} Should I tag nearly every sentence with inline tags, such as , , in The King Never Smiles: Critical section? Almost every sentence in that section is direct quote or original research from authors. I've added a specific message box tag to that section (with a hidden message), but adding the inline tags may help editors know where to exactly reference. At the same time, it may appear tag bombing. The tag bombing article doesn't specify clearly what a tag is (message box or inline). Nonetheless, they are tags. Can someone confirm and advice? Davtra (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't them to every sentence, because it would become unreadable, and put people off sorting it out, which is what you are wanting to achieve in the long run.

Perhaps put in a couple and leave the sections tagged with {{refimprovesect|date=June 2010}}. Feel free to reply, kind regards Captain n00dle\^Talk 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

About your copy-editing...

Hi. I'm one of the editors that brought Beyond Good & Evil (video game) to GA status, as well as the one who requested a CP. Now, I'm confused. Why are you doing all of those strikings and taggings? Its kind-of scaring me. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's nothing to be scared about! Sorry, I didn't mean for the confusion. The strike tags are proposed for deletion. As for the tags, please click on "Edit" to reveal my comments. Davtra (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm... O.k. I guess I better get cracking on this. Thank you for CP-ing BG&E. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I have never played or heard about the game. If something doesn't make sense, I'll notify you or in the article. I read the Featured Articles criteria and it looks very tough. I'll do what I can do improve the article. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Sack Tapping

Hello, I saw and appreciate your copyedit of Sack tapping. I left a note on its talkpage which reads: I saw the clarification tag and am not sure the "to whom" applies. Several of the cited stories say that charges could be filed but don't go into depth. Since this is most likely a misdeanor at this point, it would be up to the parents to file the case because most likely the local D.A. will not press charges unless the victim/parents step forward. Since the child has been bullied twice, loss of scrotum and removal from school to avoid long-term bullying, I doubt the parents will proceed with charges. Since all the detailed facts were not present and my suppositions would be original thought, I did not include it. How would someone write what I just said to clarify it? If you could look at its talkpage and reply there, I'd appreciate it.

Don't know if you are around but Sack tapping is taking major hits because it is a DYK frontpage item. Could you take a look at it? ----moreno oso (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I think I can improve the article. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be very much appreciated. I mentioned on its talkpage in the last section that today's bullying is much different and harder than previous generations'. What with Youtube, cam phones, viral videos and the ability to message such stuff - bullying can really take a kid down quickly. Basically, that's what happened with the Minnesota kid who lost his scrotum. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The History section follows other WikiProject Psychologic type articles. It's important to show the evolution of fads/societal problems like this. I hope you saved the refs. I'd rather see a restoration as you deleted a large part of the article (almost 10 percent). ----moreno oso (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Nothing is actually deleted. Anyone can view the old content by going into the "View history" tab. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but now the lead is too long and doesn't follow the norm. With a History section, additional variations can be documented. In less than three months since sack tapping came to light, there are already two different variations. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe the introduction is too long. It summarizes the important aspects of the subject of the article (that is the purpose of the lead section). The only point in the History section was this: It has also been referred to as "Roshambo", a synonym for the game rock-paper-scissors, as a result of that name being used in a 1998 episode of South Park. That needs to be at least a paragraph long. The rest was repeated information. At this stage, I don't think it is important to include in article. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Honette. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey I just learned how to 'outdent'! {{outdent}} 220 (talk) ^Contribs 11:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, outdent is useful. I have cheatsheet Thanks, Davtra (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Gulshan-e-Hadeed

Thanks for looking over the above mentioned article in response to my tags. I saw the tag left behind by you on behalf of your guild that states that the major copy editing is not possible at the current moment. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please find some time to clarify the intent behind the tag to me as I fail to see how could one go about fixing the article without being able to edit it.

Sincerely. Jim Logan Howlett (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Jim Logan Howlett. At this stage, the article has several content issues: it may require a general cleanup, it may cause confusion to readers and material may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. These content issues must be resolved before a copy edit is performed. You are completely free to improve the article by adding, editing, re-structuring or deleting inappropriate content.

Copy editors are not responsible for the content. Rather, they check for spelling, punctuation, clarity and grammar. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged. Sincerely Jim Logan Howlett (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar because of your work at the Apostles of Linnaeus article! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela

Just a quick note to point out that the edit made by Rickyrab which you then readded (adding distinguish tag for Venezuela) has already been reverted by two different users, as it seems very unlikely that these terms would be confused (and there's certainly been no evidence provided showing that they have been frequently confused in external sources). Please discuss this issue on the talk page if you feel that the edit was constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy message. The removal of the tag is no problem at all. I actually added the {{distinguish}} template to help Rickyrab (the way he did it was by adding a new section), and the reverting editor thought that was vandalism. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just thought I'd let you know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela

Just a note to thank you for coming to help with vuvuzela. It is clear to me that it is benefiting both from your input and from the further work of others. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments . I believe the lead section is looking very good. It's the rest of the content that needs sorting (and that is going to take days). Before editing, we/I need to know the aim and purpose of the Origin, Use at international tournaments and Controversy sections. If there is no aim or purpose, the sections will continue to be unstructured and messy. Davtra (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks, Davtra (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck with it. For a variety of reasons I am trying to stay away from that article for a while, at least. I am sure it now has a chance of heading in the right direction. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new note. I am pleased to see it looking in good shape - well done to you and the other stalwarts who stuck with it. I'm unlikely to return any time soon but I will keep an interested eye on it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I come bearing gifts!

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--You didn't actually ask for it, I'm just in a good mood, but I can't be bothered to change my template! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the gift  Davtra  ^(talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzelas

Hey mate can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vuvuzela#Muting_the_sound_of_Vuvuzelas ? Thanks a lot :)

--Ruij999 (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I replied.  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Russian anthem

I will go for FAC again, but wanted to see if you want to make more changes before I send it again. I will personally check a few non-grammar things, like dead links. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Commas with dates

A small point regarding this edit to Kmart: the "comma when the date has month before day" rule that you linked to in the MOS refers to a comma within the date, as in the examples. Comma after the date (whichever format is used) is a stylistic convention applying to all adverbs or adverbial phrases at the start of a sentence, but if it is recommended in the MOS, I do not see where. I have left the change since it is generally stylistically preferable and since one could also argue in the case of dates in US format that include a year that the comma after the date is the closing comma of a pair around the year (and US usage is strict about closing comma pairs, whereas UK English is not). But I thought I'd point it out since it is not so far as I know required by MOS to have a comma after "On XX Month, XXXX" sentence openings, just usual. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for your notification. I think I know where you are coming from. I assume this style is applied to everything (to keep it consistent throughout all Wikipedia articles). It simply says if month is before day, a comma is required (the examples: February 14 and February 14, 1990 are then February 14, and February 14, 1990,). This style is not applied to these examples. I was puzzled; however, editors say this is correct, but I am going to seek clarification. I assume the article is written in US English? According to Wikipedia's MOS, US English prefers MM-DD-YYYY (closing comma pairs around year) and UK English prefers DD-MM-YYYY (no comma). Your explanation about the US and UK date formats fit nicely here, and I agree with you. You are absolutely free to remove the comma if it's inappropriate in this instance and make an invisible note advising future editors not to add a comma after the year using <!-- Enter text --> tag. I can do it for you if you need help. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 01:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. I just realised I made an error. In my edit summary, I should have used preferred instead of required. Sorry for the confusion.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Honette. You have new messages at Themaxviwe's talk page.
Message added 11:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Virender Sehwag

Hello, Honette. You have new messages at Bruce1ee's talk page.
Message added 10:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

www.jammu.com

This is regarding link to the website http://www.jammu.com/ in the Jammu page.

I would like to share with you that the website http://www.jammu.com/ is from Plus Automation in Jammu. The details are available as on the information page of the domain registered (you may click on the link http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/jammu.com to view the details).

Another section of the website that might be of interest is the 'Current Event' section that has been started about year and a half back and give current news and events in respect of tourism and travel for the region along with an archive section of such events.

Regards, Rajan Sachdev —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajansachdev (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the link was not added to the article because Wikipedia said www.jammu.com is not a reliable source.  Davtra  ^(talk) 23:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I submit a source to wikipedia so that a neutral third party can verify its reliability?

Thanks.and I remembered to sign my post this timePreciseaccuracy (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I just noticed that you have already answered this question on "art student scam" talk page. I thought I had seen it somewhere before. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Jillian Michaels

I wonder how Har121 is going to feel if I add that fact that she is being sued?

That photo at the top of your talk page reminds me of North by Northwest. I kept starring at it waiting for a crop duster to come by.

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps Har121 might go on a "deleting rampage"? I'll keep an eye on Har121.  Davtra  ^(talk) 04:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Landis Asshole Edit

I understand why my edit is considered vandalism, but, in my opinion, Floyd Landis IS a true asshole. Thank you.

Thanks for understanding, but Wikipedia isn't the place to post personal opinions. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

your review

Hi in this review I was wondering is the alteration correct? Off2riorob (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked it with the Internet Movie Database and it lists the character's name as Ranbir Raj and not Ranbir Raj Thakur. Cheers,  Davtra  ^(talk) 09:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. Off2riorob (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Zlatan Ibrahimovic source

Source for Zlatan Ibrahimovic goals: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/football/la-liga/2009-2010/league-tables/top-goalscorers.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.224.12 (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I added the website for you. Cheers.  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My Revision to the WENDY JAMES wiki is based on her OFFICIAL entries on MY SPACE and FACEBOOK

My revisions are FAR from being UNSOURCED..

They are proven facts.

WENDY JAMES herself has even posted a photo of the door of the AVATAR studio in NYC where she remixed her album.

Then a photo of the actual album itself with the AVATAR studio logo and date.

She has also posted several FACEBOOK entries about the events I mention.

She has also posted several MY SPACE blog entries about the events I mention.

All very very Publically.

Why not do your research and actually LOOK at those sites before editing entries.

The details I wrote are TOTALLY SOURCED under the terms of Wikipedia's Pillars.

If anyone must JUSTIFY their actions it is you.

Do Your Research In Advance Of Hasty Editorial Decisionss Next Time.

86.43.215.174 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided reliable sources for your contributions. Your edits were reverted twice by other editors here and here. You must present the sources in the article so that other editors can check your contributions. Use the <ref>Enter your source (e.g. website)</ref>. This is how Wikipedia works, every fact needs to be referenced. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that need addressing.

I was one of the people that worked on the map with xxMajorPayne, but I was an on and off map tester. As for reliable sources, there aren't any anymore. He only worked on the maps through battlenet and from what I know, he never went to the DotA site.

There is also the fact that it would be theoretically impossible to make maps like that on your own. You need multiple map testers for it, and xxMajorPayne was the most enthusiastic towards it. He gave ideas, which were then modified and implemented by Eul, then tested and changed accordingly. Payne wanted to make it more balanced, but Eul said it was fine the way it is. This might be the reason why Payne stopped when The Frozen Throne came out then came back later on to see how the production was doing. When I saw him show up on TFT, I was quite surprised. I led him to a person named Dewgong because I was keeping tabs on the production of the map type. I seriously had thought, that at the time, Guinsoo was still on the project, but I hadn't seen him online. He came back to me and told me that someone by the name of IceFrog was working on it now and he decided to go on with it. I remember him messaging me stating that someone finally managed to make the map more balanced, but was curious as to what had happened to Eul.

From what I know, Payne also refused to sign up on the DotA site as he just wanted to stay in the game working on the map.

The fact remains that the information shown on wiki currently is not the entirety of the history of DotA and I decided to fill in some of those missing details. I also doubt that Payne's name was ever published, but seeing as the current information on this wiki page is garbled bits of loosely held information regarding only the people whom had completely taken over the project, it would probably harm every person that was in that project with them.

Heck, published information is the only information allowed to be posted here? That is BS in my opinion. Facts are facts regardless of that, and hiding them just makes things worse.

Eul --> Guinsoo --> IceFrog

The funny thing is, is that when he was working on this map before Brood War came out, when it was known as Aeon of Strife, he never thought that it would ever turn into something like this.

If you want to find Payne, I think he calls himself Torazo these days. I don't personally know him, but I was rather displeased with the lack of history detail for this, so I decided to edit it in. Maybe you should try to contact him about it? LostHerald (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. Is any of this information published by reliable sources? Wikipedia has a No original research policy. Thanks,  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LostHerald (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT original research. This is original factual involvement. Do you truly want to keep up misleading information? I mean seriously, this is truly pathetic.

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable? Alright then. You want to know something that cannot be verified? Whether the information you have on this page is everything in the history of the map. Doesn't that in itself deem the current setup of this wiki page as a violation in the ToS simply because you cannot verify the entire history of this map? Yes, you have some verifiable sources for very few things regarding this map/scenario.

Of course, there is no way that the entire history of the map would be published due to the extremely long history it has, but that doesn't change the fact that this entire topic only relates to the people that actually had public hearings, whereas the people that did a shit load of work on the map got no credit towards it! Do you understand this? If so, you might want to indicate that the entire history of the map is not able to be shown due to the lack of verifiable sources. It still doesn't change the fact that xxMajorPayne worked on it from the start in SC and worked on it until WC3:TFT. He later showed up on TFT and got ahold of IceFrog and worked on it a little with him.

This also doesn't hide the fact that verifiable sources also skew their reports and such, thus leaving out a LOT of details to make one person the entire target rather than a group of people. Take Fox News for instance. It's also kind of funny how Wikipedia even claims that it's own site is not for factual references by stating "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources"... Yes, wikipedia has a significant amount of knowledge behind its' topics, but when more than half of the history is missing, then what is truly the point in having it up?

Davtra, I would like to indicate something... If you were not on the project, then you should have no right to legitimately administer this page due to your lack of involvement and knowledge of the history of this!

I'm sorry, but that is how Wikipedia works. Please read Truth and Verifiability. I quote from the Truth article:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

You may be asking, why must Wikipedia use reliable sources to verify facts? Because anyone can write anything on Wikipedia. How do people know if the information is correct?

And you are correct, I know absolutely nothing about Defense of the Ancients (I have never heard of it). However, the policies apply to all pages on Wikipedia. If no reliable sources are presented to verify the content, it gets either challenged or removed from the page.

You may have another problem. It's called Conflict of interest.  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of sad really... Oh well. It's like crying over a cup of spilled milk then telling people whom all had stepped in there, but they don't really care unless their idol stepped in it, then they go after that idol just to ignore everything else.

They want to create a reliable encyclopedia that doesn't contain full truths, but only the partial truths that have been verified by other sources... Oh well. I thought Wikipedia was a little different, but the approach they take is probably the best one available so people can, at the very least, get some information for the topic they are looking for.

The main problem that I see with this though, is that people will generally only believe the stuff that they see and will think that is the entirety of the topic at hand. Certain topics can easily be clarified, whereas certain topics cannot. LostHerald (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As Davtra mentioned... we deal with verifiability, not "the truth". As there are no sources to corroborate your statements, we can't add them to the article, 'nuff said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. ZzZzZzZzZ

The subject of my WENDY JAMES entries sources has already been discussed on the last editor's TALK page.Please read my words there. With reference to your last message to me.. That subject has already been spoken about by me on the last editor's TALK page. Please read my words there. 86.43.215.174 (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC) CHALLENGING THE SELECTIVE AND PARTISAN APPLICATION OF WIKI RULES/PILLARS TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL... The reasons for revising the previous entries in the WENDY JAMES wiki were selective interpretation of the Wiki Pillars. Several sections of this wiki entry blatantly break the Wiki Pillars but have been left intact. Until the "rules" are applied fairly and evenly through this Wiki. Any editorial decision based on them is suspect at the very least. You are of course entitled to do what you like (and are allowed to do editorially) But I am challenging the current editorial decision. Which is my right under the self same Wiki Pillars. I consider it to be deeply flawed and lacking in credibility. And will do so to the highest level. Thank You For Your Time. 86.44.85.89 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC) We have gone through this already. That was the fourth editor who removed your contributions. Have you read any of the materials that were provided to you? Your other IP page is 86.43.215.174 Thanks,  Davtra  (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean that its wrong. I've never even met Davtra or the other two editors who reverted your contributions but we all came to the same conclusion. That should tell you something right there.--*Kat* (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC) IF I AM BLOCKED HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT THAT THE CURRENT SITUATION MY ENTRIES HAVE BE PLACED IN NOW Davtra, If I am as you say "Blocked" from editing on that particular wiki. How is that any different from the situation I find my entries in now...? An effective "virtual" block is clearly being enforced to anyone (ANYONE AT ALL) who attempts to update the wiki details anyway. I will gladly accept such a "block" I will be satisfied if my COMMENTS are not cynically removed from the DISCUSSION page too. Last time I looked WIKIPEDIA hold the comments made in the DISCUSSION area to be not subject to the same editoral policy as the main article.. So go ahead and do what you will. This is a matter of principle and my potential "blocking" will not affect me in the real world. It will however leave a large STAIN on this wiki entry and will frighten off any (if there are any!) potential future contributors. Which of course is the current state of affairs. Either way. The current editorial behaviour will be CHALLENGED to the highest level. It is as I say a matter of principle. And should be for you too. Otherwise what are you doing here..? 86.44.85.89 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC) How will it be any different? It will temporary stop you from posting these crazy messages everywhere  Davtra  (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I wonder what he means by "the highest level"? Jimbo? The U.S. Supreme Court? God? LOL --*Kat* (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC) No idea lol. It's time to clean up after the troll.  Davtra  (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Davtra

I expressed that it is possible that any user on Wikipedia is being paid to write articles. I stated that I am not.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo expressed that there are ways for other third party objective users from the community to look into an article. Could you please further explain what he meant. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. You wrote on Jimbo Wale's talk page, "I am not under government or corporate employment to edit articles on Wikipedia. However, it is possible that I or any other user is under government/corporate employment to edit Wikipedia articles." The first sentence declared you are not working with organisations. The second sentences says you may be working with them . I now understand the second sentence was an example to emphasize your point.

In regards to your question, I think he is saying, "the more people looking at the article, the better as it will remove bias and present information neutrally".  Davtra  ^(talk) 22:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about this process?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It was a proposal or just a thought by Wales. However, ever since you posted the two incidents at the Administrators' Noticeboard, a number of people visited the article, and some senior/experienced editors are helping with the article. I know you have great interests for that article, but it will take time to address the neutral problems. How long? I don't know... that depends on how many editors work on the article and their communication skills.  Davtra  ^(talk) 04:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since some oppose and some support the article split, does wikipedia have some sort of avenue to deal with a specific issue like that?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of (I've never been through this process before). If not enough users support the proposed changes, the changes cannot be made. Have you looked at this page here (consensus-building)? In that list, you may be able to attract some editors for their opinion. Best to keep your statements concise, specific and on topic as possible to attract maximum attention.  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I know there is the dispute resolution like the articlesfordeletion page, but in that case a group of politically motivated users would show up again and vote. Is there any way that a completely random group of users who don't usually edit articles involving any sort of politics could be appointed to to decide on the merits of a split? Or do you know of someone who would be able to answer this question. Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I read about the mediation process. Shouldn't the article randomly choose the mediator and not the other way around as a politically involved user could end up mediating a disputePreciseaccuracy (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That link leads to the Mediation Cabal (informal). There is another called Mediation Committee (formal). I don't know about their processes. You'll need to read and ask question on the discussion page. Before that, also go through the Resolving disputes page. It provides you with a step-by-step process for resolving disputes .  Davtra  ^(talk) 09:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your previous question, take a look at the Arbitration. Decisions and outcomes are made by the Arbitration Committee, a panel of users. However, this process is the last resort in the Resolving disputes process. For now, follow the dispute resolution process. You can also ask Fences&Windows (an administrator) for advice. Administrators generally know the policies of Wikipedia.  Davtra  ^(talk) 09:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody! Stats If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest. Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+). The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc. The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono. Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK. The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey. The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr. The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW. Gold Star Award Gold Star Award Leaderboard Articles Words 5k+ Articles 1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13) 2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8) 3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7) 4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6) 5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks from the GOCE

Thank you very much for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors' September Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two years, to the summer of 2008! We're going to need all the help we can muster to reduce the backlog to a manageable size. We've set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog, and getting the total under 5000. To do that, we're going to need more participants. Please invite anyone you can to join the drive! Once again, thanks for your support! If you have any questions, contact one of our coordinators—ɳorɑfʈ Talk!, The Raptor You rang?, or SMasters (Talk).

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Torrens Park

Thanks! (Either, it must have been too late at night, or the wine was good.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I was following JohnKelly14 and that lead me to the Adelaide suburb and school articles (which I never knew about). Most of them require copy-editing (and more). Nice meeting a local ,  Davtra  ^(talk) 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

i) Yes, JohnKelly14 is a bit of a worry - I've just spent most of the last hour preparing information to demonstrate to him that he is (pause while I look for polite words) "ill-informed".

ii) "Most of them require copy-editing (and more)." - Whether they do or not, (and no-one is arguing that they don't), ANY and ALL improvements are appreciated! (And not just by me!)

iii) I had a look at your user page, but I couldn't identify our overlaping interests. From my user page can you identify any? (Having just reviewed my user page, I see I need to upate the sections referring to Adelaide and South Australian geography, history and politics!!

iv) And yes, it IS nice to meet a local!

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think we have shared interests. I'm mainly here to copy-edit articles. It's a great exercise. I get to improve several skills.  Davtra  ^(talk) 00:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for your thankless work in cleaning up SA school articles. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! (but ... )

Closed. This courtesy notice was to simply inform my edits, and the discussion dragged on. My skull is cracked far worse than I thought.

Everybody appreciates you dilligence! (c.f. Barnstar from the monkey.) But in a few cases you're being a bit overzealous. I thought at least twice before making this posting, because I'm not quite sure what to say. The best I can come up with is to say: Please note that a few people have reverted some parts of some of your edits. You might want to review their edit comments, and their edits, and think about what they're saying. But otherwise, please keep up the good work. As you have seen from the postings above, (mine included), your work IS appreciated. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Starting fresh below hehe I agree with you! I must have been on fire or something. In regards with this, I deleted The Reds (how is it significant?), and the word today isn't precise language. Does today mean 22 August 2010, on the day that word was added, in 1980s or 1990s? I believe it's better to use something like As of 2005, the school caters for nearly ... To be honest, most of the school articles aren't well written for an encyclopedia.  Davtra  (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Several questions there. I deleted The Reds (how is it significant?), - Hard to answer. If I asked you: "How is 'The Crows' or 'The Power' significant?", what would your answer be? My answer would probably be very similar to that. (And note, "The Reds" have been "The Reds" since 1869 - much longer than 'The Crows' or 'The Power'.) "and the word today isn't precise language." - I disagree. Today is quite precise. And unambiguous, too. When it becomes incorrect, then it's incorrect. But it's quite precise. "To be honest, most of the school articles aren't well written for an encyclopedia." - No disagreement from me on that statement!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "The Reds" since 1869 Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? I now believe that is "significant" and worthy! As 1869 is the year of the founding of the school, I don't think it's any more (or less) significant than the founding of the school. However, I'm sure I could be conviced otherwise by a well presented case ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) But it's quite precise. How is it precise? I believe that depends on the context? In my view, the text is accurate but not precise. I don't see much future, and I do see LOTS of words, in the continuation of that. In response to your comments, perhaps it's more useful if I say: 'Replacing "today" with "since xxxx" is probably a better solution.' (i.e. OK. Good points. I'm convinced.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) No disagreement from me on that statement!! You know, I think I should rewrite the school articles instead of tagging words (I'm new to this tagging and template business)  Davtra  (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Maybe. But it sounds like a high risk strategy to me. It appears to me that armed only with logic and a knowledge of good grammar, you are thinking about embarking on an activity in areas where you don't know the background, history and predjudices. A worthy motive, but perhaps problematic, and likely to elicit antagonism? Personally, I wouldn't. And if you decide to do so, I suggest you VERY quickly develop a VERY thick skin. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Not to worry. If it's too technical, I need not touch the subject.  Davtra  (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) In regards with this, I believe it's better to be specific (for example, the school has some # clubs for students). What does many mean (and under what context)? There are four examples presented. Assuming the school has four clubs, to the school or students, four clubs may appear many but not to others Nonetheless, many isn't actually needed.  Davtra  (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC) "Assuming the school has four clubs" - Why would you assume that? I wouldn't. In fact, I wouldn't assume anything! I would proceed with extreme caution ... Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) "Nonetheless, many isn't actually needed" - I either don't understand, or disagree. (Or both?) "Many" indicates that there are more than the four mentioned. (Which, independently, I know for a fact to be true, but there is no way that you could have known that.) What I'm trying to communicate is that things aren't always black or white, PARTICULARLY where people and their opinions are involved. i.e. Be careful and conservative in your assumptions, and if something is important, verify the information rather than assume that logic applies; where/when people are involved, logic is often irrelevant! (By-the-way: By now you've probably realised that I'm not the world's best speller.) Again I'll emphasise that I'm NOT wanting to discourage you. On average you're doing a great job, and as I've said before, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is appreciating your work. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC) By-the-way: I'm trying to be helpful. If I'm just being an interfering busybody, please say so and I'll go away. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your inputs! I appreciate your helping. Most of these "issues" can be rectified by re-writing or re-wording/copy-editing them and adding references, so we need not debate. You are right, it's best not to make any assumptions at all. There may be good information, but if it's poorly written, it may convey the wrong meaning. I need your feedback on the Prince Alfred College's lead section. Do you see any issues in the lead section? I'm trying to write it from an international perspective; I need confirmation that all Wikipedia's core policies apply to all articles? The data (such as The Reds) I deleted are back into articles because they can be verified (with references). (I shouldn't have deleted them.) You brought a very important point, verifiability (not truth). Some articles contain no sources to support facts and hence my tagging and removing. I'll be checking data using online databases and add references to support facts. Thanks,  Davtra  (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I've lost track of the conversation - see below. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC) breakpoint for editing convenience I'm going to summarise this discussion. The above discussion isn't productive, my fault for not communicating effectively (what you are saying may not be what you have said... d'oh!). To summarise: (a) my aim is to make the text clear, concise and precise as best as possible to best of my ability for the encyclopedia while following its policies and style guide, and to make the verifiable text readable and understandable for the local, national and international audience. (b) your concern is my (premature) tagging and removing of words is unnecessary for certain text. (c) conclusion: I should have been bold and re-wrote or copy-edit the text "on-the-spot".  Davtra  (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC) As you've probably realised, I think your goals are laudable, and I support them. Also, I appreciate your efforts, and I'm confident that others do, too. But I feel you may have missed a few points. And I'm afraid I'm not sure what question you are asking, and hence I'm not sure what answers you are looking for, and thus, what answers to give. But I'm confident that we can't be "miles apart" ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I'm confident we can't be "miles apart" too. However, I'm afraid I have no clear idea what you want me to do exactly? My editing is not "perfect" and error-free. Mistakes do happen and editors correct (and never revert e.g. this) them. Just to be "safe", I'm going to stay away from all local school articles. Cheers,  Davtra  (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC) PS Thanks for telling me that I was distorting information; a good editor never changes the meaning of facts. In regards with deleting content, my removing of data could have been in error. Perhaps you are saying the removed data is useful and can be improved? On a different note, my questions (in the context of local schools): What type of data has encyclopedic value? What is considered to be encyclopedic? How much detail is too much detail? How much detail do people need to read or know?  Davtra  (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)