Jump to content

User talk:Dravecky/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2015

Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

Explanations are What I Need

Hi, I just saw you deleted the page "GoldKey" with the excuse it was advretising. GET OUT OF TOWN! That is advretising just as much as a page about Apple would be. Please explain yourself. -- Force4good (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The entirety of the prose content of the article was "Goldkey is the way to share your data PRIVATELY. Exellent reviews have been recived from the public, as well as amazing press response." That's unequivocally a promotional message, not a substantive neutral description of a product or company. - Dravecky (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

ISIL hostage quotes Wikipedia in propaganda video; AirAsia articles draw complaints regarding Flight 8501; Article errors reveal US political approaches to Wikipedia editing; Rhode Island Governor numbering debate
User:Jakec has been a Wikipedia editor for over two years and has been a writer of many recent Did you know articles on Wikipedia, including multiple articles on rivers and streams in the state of Pennsylvania.
Two lists and twelve pictures were promoted.
We end 2014 and and start 2015 with the normal array of year-end activities, including movie watching with Bollywood film PK (#1) topping the list, followed by The Interview (#2), 2014 in film (#10), and five other films in the rest of the Top 25, plus a number of articles about the subjects of these films. We celebrated the New Year by singing "Auld Lang Syne" (#11), or perhaps watching Adam Lambert (#9) perform with Queen. But we could not avoid a final tragedy with the crash of Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 (#4) on December 28.

Orphaned non-free image File:Fort Worth Vaqueros FC logo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fort Worth Vaqueros FC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Ever since the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident in 2005 triggered the restriction against un-registered editors creating new pages, WikiProject Articles for creation (AfC) has stood in the breach. The WikiProject's purpose is to review draft submissions from IPs (and frequently new registered editors) to sort the wheat from the chaff.
This anniversary issue, the WikiProject report is returning to WikiProject Articles for creation for one of our largest interviews ever. Last looked at in 2011, AfC is the method used by unregistered or new users to create articles, and provides an effective filtering system to remove all unsuitable or unsourced submissions to save them needing to be found and deleted later.
On the fourteenth anniversary of the founding of the English Wikipedia, the Praemium Erasmianum Foundation has announced that its prestigious annual Erasmus Prize will be awarded to the worldwide community that has built Wikipedia.
Wikipedia turned 14 on January 15. A few media outlets took note of the anniversary.
Six featured articles, five featured lists, and sixteen featured pictures were promoted this week.
It's a grim certainty what topic most interested Wikipedia viewers this week. The horrific attacks on the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine have drawn anger and resolve from around the world, and also the attention of an English-speaking world that had previously never heard of it.

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

A letter from departing Signpost editor-in-chief The ed17.
Celebrating and remembering ten years of community journalism.
Over seventy years ago, the US destroyer Mahan was patrolling off Ponson Island in the Philippines when eleven Japanese kamikaze aircraft appeared over the horizon and attacked. George Pendergast, who edits Wikipedia with the username Pendright, was eighteen years old when he joined Mahan '​s crew in April 1944.
The municipality of Esino Lario in Italy will host Wikimania 2016.
Our contributor opines that WikiProjects are failing to live up to their potential. WikiProject X is a new project funded by a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant that focuses on figuring out what makes some WikiProjects work and not others.
Quotes from Jimbo on Wikipedia in education; net neutrality; preserving musical heritage; Wikipedia in audio; a cheerful vandal credits high school with papal visitations.
Nine articles, one list, and ten pictures were promoted.
ArbCom's three open cases are GamerGate, Wifione, and Christianity and sexuality.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mississippi Beach Kings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Major Indoor Soccer League. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The editorial board is not complete without you. We are looking for Wikipedians with all kinds of experience levels.
The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has closed the colossal GamerGate arbitration case, whose size—involving 27 named parties—recalls large and complex cases of the past.
A murder suspect edits Wikipedia, Russia is kidding when it says it wants to censor Wikipedia.
Does the committee facilitate stability... or is it a circus. Two users, two perspectives.
It is pretty clear what the theme is this week: people.
A paper presented at the International Conference on Pattern Recognition last year presents an automated method to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theatre plays.
As with last year, music stars were the majority of celebrities on the list, as their frequent concerts and media appearances keep their flames alight longer than others of their stripe.
Ten featured articles, three featured lists, and 22 featured images were promoted this week.

January 2015

Information icon You have no right to accuse me of representing a PAC. That is disruptive, as is your wholesale attacks on my AfD nominations. Legacypac (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Your flawed, untruthful AfD nominations are the real disruption. I'm not "accusing" you of anything regarding your user name, merely pointing out that making broad assumptions based on them can be misleading. Thank you for solidly illustrating my point. - Dravecky (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Legacypac: You should definitely read the "Don't template the regulars" rule. That goes double for admins, which Dravecky is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know this editor/Admin from Jack. All I know is he is copypasting crap on my AfDs and making no sense. And wrong template - I'll remove that. Legacypac (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well ... for one thing, Neutralhomer, WP:DTTR is an essay, not a "rule;" you really don't want to mislead people into thinking you're citing a genuine policy or guideline. For another, if I may cite an essay in return -- that one being WP:BOOMERANG, I would not in Dravecky's shoes dare to call anyone's nominations "untruthful" ... not when he used the same cut-and-paste "Keep as subject meets the verifiability and notability standards for WP:GNG" on eight AfDs in the course of just a few minutes (the last six in just eleven minutes), a span impossible to have made any review of the sources whatsoever. (For my part, in my own evaluation of those AfDs, I took a full hour on both reviewing the sources and searching for others.) In almost every case, the sources presented were primary and promotional, blogs, Twitter feeds, personal websites and the like. In a mere experienced editor, this level of dishonesty would be objectionable. In an admin, someone held to a higher standard, this is unacceptable. Ravenswing 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
My comments, each carefully crafted as a response to the copy/pasted, flawed nominations, were made after simple Google searches and a close review of the actual edit history of the articles in question. None of the articles the nominator claimed were mass-created by a "sock farm" were either mass-created or started by sockpuppets. I was attempting to assume good faith by calling the nominations untruthful instead of deliberate lies. - Dravecky (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not as gullible as all of that. Your comments were identical throughout all of the AfDs save for IDing the name of the article creator and the date it was created, and showed no signs whatsoever of "careful crafting." You posted most of them within a span of 11 minutes, and the only alternative to having lied about checking for sources is a lack of competence in how to make such searches. I stick to my prior comment that this is unacceptable behavior in an admin, and amend that by saying that the more honorable path on your part should be less in the way of defensiveness of your indefensible action, and more in retracting your Keep comments and letting the matter drop. (I'm sure that apologizing for such behavior is out of the question.) Ravenswing 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Your beliefs are your own but my responses took more time to craft than the AfD nominations themselves. I described my process above in detail and accurately. Your insistence that I have something to apologize for when I'm pointing out flawed nominations based on false pretenses is curious. - Dravecky (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dravecky/Archive_71&oldid=1125485662"