Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34

Pertinent parts of discussion now at Talk:EOMA-68#Scope_of_article.

hii zazpot... um... you recall i said that i don't have any faith in wikipedia "reviews" to deal correctly with highly-technical articles? can you see why i said that? one of the previous pages i edited was the "Bourke Engine" page. there's a section (since marked "controversial") which is a "science review" of the design concepts. unfortunately, to understand the bourke engine you need an extremely comprehensive knowledge of maths, physics, chemistry and engineering. none of the "reviewers" had sufficient combined technical knowledge, and make several false and misleading "conclusions" as a result. the EOMA68 page is similarly technically complex (anything with a five year development history is going to be). i really wish you'd worked with me to complete the COI review process - we now have half a dozen ignorant people rapidly trying to "contribute" to the page by making false and misleading statements about what EOMA68 is, instead of being able to work on the page in a *factually correct* comprehensive, measured and collaborative fashion. i'm not happy, man. i have so much to do, this is too much. Lkcl (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

frickin' ell, JzG's gone waaay too far - as i suspected that someone might. i didn't know who it would be, but i could tell it would happen. the current page (which he's re-reverted, twice now) is both factually misleading as well as in violation of Wikipedia policy. i know you meant well by creating the page, but i think you might agree that it would be in everybody's best interests if the page were deleted. if that's something that you support, please do chip in. thx. btw the work that everybody's done is fantastic, i've taken a copy and put it on the elinux.org page for now. Lkcl (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the "Bourke Engine" page... I can't speak to your experience editing the Bourke Engine page, because I am not familiar with the history of that article, and I am afraid I don't have the time to familiarise myself with it just now. Sorry about that.

i really wish you'd worked with me to complete the COI review process I'm sorry if you feel I didn't. I tried to address all your points there, but we weren't able to achieve consensus between us, so after discussing with you the possibility of asking for others' feedback, I reached out to other editors, with the risks that entails. I can understand that you feel frustrated about this for at least two reasons. The first reason is that you feel that there is no COI here (or that your relation to EOMA68 is an exception to WP:COI), whereas the other editors and I take the opposite view. The second reason is summed up in your comment that "we now have half a dozen ignorant people rapidly trying to "contribute" to the page by making false and misleading statements about what EOMA68 is".

I acknowledge those concerns of yours, and yet I think there are other, potentially less stressful ways of looking at the situation. I hope you will come around to my way of thinking, or at least give it a good shake :) Let me set it out.

Your contributions to the article, once they started, came thick and fast. Technically accurate though they were (and that is a good thing), the combination of heavy editing and reliance on primary sources that you had authored, in addition to your stated connections to the subject of the article, created a WP:COI concern that was so clear to me that I was sure other editors would, ultimately, not fail to notice it. This created a clear risk that they would undo your well-intentioned edits. Risks can be divided into likelihood and impact. It was quickly clear that the likelihood of an editor calling you out on the WP:COI was high, and would remain high if the article continued to contain so many contributions from you. The impact of their doing so, however, while low at first, would increase in proportion to the effort you expended on the article. This is first of all because the longer you continued heavily editing the article, the higher the chance that you would feel a precedent was set and that you should be able to continue editing the article in the same way: i.e. the psychological impact of being barred from editing the article (which I do not seek to happen here, but which is a very real possibility in WP:COI cases) would increase as time went on. Secondly, the risk to the article itself would be greater, because a WP:COI discussion would inevitably result in a flurry of edits, including some well-intentioned but potentially flawed attempts to remove perceived WP:BIAS or WP:NOR; and potentially also in a WP:AFD discussion. Even if it ultimately strengthens the article by making it meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, such a flurry almost inevitably results in undoing some good work, so the less good work there is to undo, the better :) And likewise, if a deletion proposal were, sadly, to succeed, then the less good work lost to Wikipedia, the better.

This situation existed. I could not help that it did. But I could give some consideration to how best to handle it, and attempt to make the best of it.

I believe (based on the press coverage) that EOMA68 is notable enough for Wikipedia. As such, I want the EOMA68 article to survive. Survival comes first; accuracy a close second. Wikipedia can't have an accurate article about EOMA68 if the article doesn't even exist.

I also wanted minimal disruption for all involved, which meant addressing the risk above while the impact was still fairly low. So, to make the best of the situation, the only viable option that I could see was to address the WP:COI early on: first with you, and then with others if you and I could not reach consensus.

Today, the article's fate is still somewhat in the balance. The WP:COI discussion has corroborated my view that a COI exists, and the article has been nominated for deletion. This is all par for the course, in my view: the COI needed addressing, and the nomination for deletion is part of a trial by fire that many new articles will inevitably go through as long as there are deletionist Wikipedians.

I appreciate that you and I have had our differences of opinion about what the article should contain, whether it should exist, and whether there is a COI, but the bottom line is that it is in the interests of both Wikipedia and EOMA68 for Wikipedia to have a good, accurate article about EOMA68. Therein lies our common ground.

Therefore, I would be grateful if you would change your preference to keep on the article's deletion discussion, and thereafter step back a bit so that the editors who are curious enough about EOMA68 to want to contribute to its article have time and space in which to educate themselves about it and to improve the article in a way that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Inevitably they will make some missteps, because they aren't intimately familiar with the project. But probably the only person to whom those missteps will be obvious is you :)

Consider that Wikipedia articles are only ever provisional, they are never canonical. With time and effort, and perhaps an occasional gentle nudge from you on the talk page, the article will likely improve.

So please, try this: switch to keep at the deletion discussion; avoid editing the EOMA68 article directly; rather than immediately telling people they're wrong, let them be wrong for at least a little while and assume good faith; give each contributor a decent amount of time (maybe a week or two, at least) to get things right. If they fail, or if another editor does not amend their mistake, then just leave an appreciative one sentence comment for them on their talk page or on the article talk page, thanking them for their efforts and pointing them to the relevant passage in the EOMA68 spec (or better still, in a reliable and independent secondary source) that would help them improve those efforts. Definitely don't call them names that they might find upsetting and that might bring you (and by extension, EOMA68) into disrepute. Finally, reap all the time that this will save you, and sow it on fulfilling the crowdfunder! Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ehn?? worra? it's 2016 and there's no page that can be found on the 3-decade-old interface known as "RGB/TTL"!! a google search https://www.google.com/search?num=40&q=RGB+TTL+interface is 380,000 hits and the page doesn't exist! very confuuuuused. i can however find vague references and descriptions on the "LCD display" page but it's a sort-of paragraph on "types of displays" not an actual dedicated informative page about the interface. bizarre! Lkcl (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially a good candidate for a new article? I don't know anything about it, so can't really help with this, sorry. zazpot (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a request for the article to be created. zazpot (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Crowd Supply, Zazpot!

Wikipedia editor Randeerjayasekara just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article uses bare URLs for citations, which may be threatened by link rot. Please consider adding full citations so that the article remains verifiable. Several templates and the reFill tool are available to assist in formatting

To reply, leave a comment on Randeerjayasekara's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

For anyone reading this: I am aware it uses bare URLs. Indeed, I added the bareurls template to the article myself, to alert other editors to the need to add full citations! zazpot (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your disclosure re EOMA68, that is a rare moment of transparency. Perhaps you can convince your fellow-enthusiasts to do likewise? Accounts coming out of long hibernation to add non-wonderful sources always looks suspicious, and there are a few of them in evidence. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thanks, but I wouldn't say transparency is rare from me ;) I have noted multiple times that I have ordered an EOMA68 (only one order, I should add: not multiple orders) and having met the EOMA68 author (which only happened once, briefly, at a conference with thousands of people, many months ago). I'm not even sure that level of disclosure is necessary. For instance, if a Wikipedian edits an article about a supermarket, should they add a disclaimer if they ever shopped there, or if once upon a time they met someone prominent from the company? We should draw a line somewhere. So as I say, I'm not sure it's necessary. But even if it isn't necessary, I don't see any harm in it, and as such, I'm definitely in favour of disclosure :) zazpot (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I was no in any way criticising you, merely commenting on the number of people who are, on the face of it, being less than open about their connection to this topic. The impact of an individual shopper on a grocery is small, unless it's a tiny artisanal place (in which case being a regular would be something you should at least mention in a deletion debate). Here, the thing is small, niche and very much surrounded by the usual open-source vibe, which verges on cult-like for some things. So disclosure is welcome even if in your case the connection is tangential. Now all we need is some substantive reliable independent sources, and a reduction in the number of spam links to the maker's website. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that :) Now all we need is some substantive reliable independent sources, and a reduction in the number of spam links to the maker's website. We've got the first, so that's a start. I don't agree that links to a tech spec and FAQ are "spam", and I'd point out the number of links to the Elinux website is pretty small and about on par with a lot of articles about technologies or their implementations, which often cite manufacturers' websites as the canonical source of technical specifications or other technical information. Are there any specific links that you feel should be removed? If so, which ones and how so (or alternatively, which information do you think the article should contain)? If not, please would you consider changing your preference that the article should be deleted? zazpot (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my commenting here rather than at T53736:Redirects to sections/anchors should not depend on redirectToFragment javascript (can't edit phab anonymously). One problem with reversing the javascript dependency per your and User:Lahwaacz's suggestion is that editors with javascript disabled would no longer be able to edit the redirect by clicking on it at the top of the page, so either way breaks functionality. I think User:PleaseStand had a reasonable workaround suggestion with: "So perhaps the best we can do is to add a new '(Redirected from $1 to section $2)' message, so the user can at least know what section was supposed to scroll into view, and quickly jump to that section." Thanks for trying to get this fixed. It's a pet peeve of mine. The workaround for now (other than just scrolling) is to click on the redirect which takes one back to the redirect page and then click on the text of the redirect itself which ends up requiring two additional page loads but is still faster than searching some very long pages. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I've added a link to this thread from the Phabricator thread. zazpot (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have moved the article EOMA68 to your personal user space where you can work on it and improve it as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EOMA-68. The article is now at User:Zazpot/EOMA68. Thank you for being willing to take this on. The article should not be restored to the encyclopedia unless it is significantly different/improved from the version that got deleted. If you want an evaluation about whether it is different enough you can ask me at my talk page - or any admin can advise you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It wasn't clear to me at the discussion whether the article name should be EOMA68 or EOMA-68. If you prefer the hyphen you should be able to perform the move, or I can do it for you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EOMA68 is correct. Thanks for offering to evaluate the page again in the future. As you will have gathered from the discussion, I believed (and I still believe) that the article met the criteria for inclusion as it stood, for the reasons I gave. (I only suggested userfication as a preferable alternative to outright deletion.) As such, if you are willing to offer feedback at this point too, I would be grateful, so that I (and perhaps others, too) can work towards remedying the deficiencies you perceive in the article, and then check in with you again at the point when the remedies have been applied and little room exists for further improvement, based on the sources available. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hear to inform you that the URL you have submitted to me is indeed a false positive of the algorithm. Unfortunately, I have not found a way to fix it yet, and I would recommend you tag sources in that domain with the ((cbignore)) tag. Every attempt to get the algorithm to get the site to return a reply, end with a 500 Internal Server Error response. This suggests to me a bot blacklist in effect or a server misconfiguration.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 15:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some good news, I figured out how to get it to work. :D—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 16:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for letting me know! zazpot (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Seneleleni Ndwandwe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've been waiting over a day for this page to receive sources. However, it only has a template and categories. The only notability is his status as king of a country.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pyrusca (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address your concern about sources, using the best sources I could find online. I suspect that more comprehensive coverage is available in print books and journals contemporaneous with Seneleleni Ndwandwe, or else published within the decade following her passing. Sadly, I do not currently have convenient access to such sources. zazpot (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sisile Khumalo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've been waiting over a day for this page to receive sources. However, it only has a template and categories. No Sources though. The only notability is his status as king of a country.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pyrusca (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing your WP:PROD notice from the page after I improved it! zazpot (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zihlathi Ndwandwe/Mkhatjwa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I've been waiting over a day for this page to receive sources. However, it only has a template and categories. No Sources though. The only notability is his status as king of a country.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pyrusca (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good job with sources. Pyrusca (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! zazpot (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zazpot,

Good to meet you yesterday. Thanks for sharing your thoughts about OpenSCAD, the eclectic architecture and your other ideas.

I'm interested in illustrating Habitat67 as its Wikipedia article doesn't give a good picture of its shape and its modular construction lends well to SVG groups. I found a few student sites which suggest its design, e.g. http://emilyjudson.com/case-study-habitat-67/ and http://arrulewich.com/projects/ad3-habitat-67/main.php . Would you know of any authoritative sources?

Here are some experiments I've done with Wikipedia:EasyTimeline.

I've found template:clade which lets editors create inline trees – not sure if there suit family trees.

Lastly, would you have any internal shots of Turning Torso? There are plenty of external shots but no internal ones on Commons.

Please let me know if you'd like to collaborate or have any other illustration suggestions.

Cheers,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent meeting you, too! I felt I was in very distinguished company.

I'm afraid I can't speak on any sources for Habitat 67: I have only seen pictures of it (and read its Wikipedia article). It just immediately came to mind when you asked about buildings whose articles might benefit from your style of illustration.

Another building that might be interesting to illustrate in some kind of exploded or cross-sectional way, and which would you may find more convenient to research, is Cambridge University Library:

• you may have access to it;
• it has at least one source that would prove useful: Geen, Burnard (1934). Cambridge University Library: a brief technical description of its arrangement and construction. OCLC 646579634.

Great work on those timelines! Good to know about the tool. Lovely job on the block stacking illustration, too.

About family trees, there is this page with various options, but some of them strike me as very inelegant, mixing content and presentation. I think ideally there would exist a template that parametrically generates a family tree from WikiData. The first parameter would be the person of interest; other parameters would control the extent of the tree (e.g. by having a parameter for "number of preceding generations" and one for "number of succeeding generations"), and perhaps also the appearance of the tree (e.g. horizontal vs vertical layout).

I'm afraid I don't think I took any photos of the Turning Torso. It was dark, freezing cold and raining when I arrived, and I was tired and hungry. I had vaguely hoped there might be a restaurant in the building that I could eat at, but no: non-residents are not even allowed to proceed beyond the lobby. This meant that I didn't have much of a vantage for photography! (The lobby is fairly generic.) Still, it is an impressive building, even if only seen looming through the rain in the night! zazpot (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zazpot, Thanks for the suggestions on my articles, however, I was trying to edit a lot an include research accordingly. Lacking it, what type of external links are best? Just trying to get started with what I know best here on Wiki!

Kacper

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Hope that helps! zazpot (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and thought I was using right ones. Could you help me write one for the article t-shirt, then, as that was my most recent edit! Meanwhile, I'm be moving through some nuclear spectroscopy (yay!). Thanks! Kacperniburski (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The inline reference you inserted, in these edits on the T-shirt article, linked to https://www.shelfies.com, which, unless I'm mistaken, is a website that primarily exists to sell products. That editing therefore goes against the guidance at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Does that clear things up?

Cool that you're trying to improve the NMR spectroscopy article. A quick note about that: I noticed that you marked your edit as "minor", but it probably didn't actually count as a minor edit. See Help:Minor_edit#When_to_mark and Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark. Not a big deal, but worth bearing in mind for future edits. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clobbered your edit on the Gundert entry. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a reason to make your edits more granular ;) Anyway, not to worry: your rewrite of that entry was at least as good as mine! Thanks for stopping by to let me know :) zazpot (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Notmuch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notmuch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zazpot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zazpot. You have new messages at Katangais's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Discussion moved to Talk:The Prevention of Genocide#Notability

I went ahead and userfied it per your request. Wizardman 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman, excellent. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Genocide, you may be blocked from editing. The key text that you removed was backed up by 5 sources, each providing a full quote. I have reverted your edit, which constitutes clear vandalism. Please refrain from making such disruptive edits again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92slim (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

92slim, I am deeply hurt by your suggestion that my edit was vandalism. While I appreciate your concern to protect the article, I find it hard not to feel that by skipping less contentious alternatives and leaping straight to Template:uw-vandalism3, and by accusing me of vandalism in your edit summary instead of discussing your concern with me in a less accusatory way, you have perhaps not observed WP:GOODFAITH in this instance.

Anyhow, I have taken another look at the edit of mine that you have objected to, and compared this to your edit. Let me comment upon each part of my edit, so that you can see the intention behind it:

• s/In 1944/In 1943 or 1944/. The source I provided, which was WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT, claims the date of coinage as 1943, not 1944. However, another of the sources, Yair, claims the date as 1944. Therefore, "1943 or 1944" seemed appropriate, per WP:VERIFY. I note that you have retained this part of my edit, so clearly you did not consider this part to be vandalism. However, you removed the source I provided, which means that the phrase "1943 or" is no longer sourced. I suggest we restore the source I provided, in order to avoid leaving an unsourced claim in the article.
• s/ a Polish-Jewish lawyer named//. The article is about genocide, not about Lemkin. The article on Lemkin covers his background adequately. Moreover, the sentence was overly long. For all these reasons, this deletion made sense. I note that you have retained this part of my edit, so clearly you did not consider this part to be vandalism either.
• s/who was inspired by the Armenian experience at the hands of the Ottoman Turks//. As this is the only remaining difference, I must conclude that this is the part of my edit that you considered to constitute vandalism. Let me therefore justify it. This clause was ungrammatical as it stood, in the context of the sentence of which it formed a part. The sentence therefore needed that clause to be altered or removed in order to become grammatically valid. Removal was simpler, and the importance of the Armenian genocide in Lemkin's thinking is amply covered elsewhere in the article, including in the quotes from the existing sources, which I retained. Moreover, the sentence was overly long, as already noted. For these three reasons, I opted for removal. Perhaps you think alteration would have been preferable; that is a reasonable perspective, but it does not support an allegation against me of vandalism.

I hope, from this analysis, that you can see my edit was made in good faith. I also hope that you will accept the restoration of the source I provided, per my rationale above. Finally, perhaps we can work together to improve that part of the article. Specifically: the sentence is still unwieldy, and would perhaps be better expressed as two or three smaller sentences, with each sentence citing the sources relevant to it. For example: one short sentence about the date of coinage; a second sentence about the fact that the coinage was emerged from Lemkin's reflections on the atrocities committed against the Armenians by the Ottoman turks, and those committed against Jews and others in Axis-occupied Europe; and a third sentence about the new word's adoption internationally. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, zazpot (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I have detailed my case on the talk page. --TedColes (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @Zazpot: Just thought I'd let you know what my thinking was on this edit. There's common pattern among spammers here: Create an article, fill it with COI/ADVERT material, then add Wikilinks throughout Wikipedia to the newly created page. (Just to give you a little background on myself: I spend a lot of my time here on counter-vandalism, and my real life occupation involves cybersecurity and anti-spam research.) Normally I would agree with you that this CDN should get a Wikilink as well, since others do. This situation is different IMO though, because that same user (an employee of the CDN) just resurrected that article a few days ago, and wrote almost 100% of the content for it. That page has previously been deleted in the recent past for similar shenanigans from another associate of the company. This particular company has been known to have associates spamming other notable sites for links as well. Right now there are serious reliability issues in play, and until these get sorted out, it seems prudent to hold off on adding Wikilinks from other articles, until that gets sorted out. Cheers. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and your perspective sounds reasonable to me, plus I have now seen your helpful note on that CDN's article's talk page. Thanks for stopping by here to explain. zazpot (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to how you use the revert function. I was notified of being reverted here, yet what you did was not revert my removal of the Euthanasia from the 'see also' section, but introduce another article (in Involuntary euthanasia), plus move it to a different position according to alphabetical order. Another editor might well have taken this as bad faith on your behalf. Cheers for the addition, but please be cautious about the methodology you employ. Unless you are genuinely reverting an edit, it's better to just make the addition along with your rationale because it is recorded by the system as a full reversion. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I was initially going to simply revert your good faith edit, because although I understood your good intentions, the Euthanasia article does in fact cover targeted involuntary euthanasia as well as voluntary euthanasia, and was therefore a legitimate inclusion in the "See also" section of Genocide. However, before committing the edit, I realised that wikilinking directly to the Involuntary euthanasia article, instead, would be clearer for the reader (i.e. would avoid any reader thinking that voluntary euthanasia is somehow genocide). I therefore changed the edit and the edit summary accordingly so that it was simply - as far as I could tell - a new edit, not a reversion. I am surprised to learn that you were notified of it as a reversion - I didn't expect MediaWiki to do that - and I apologise for inconveniencing you. Thanks for notifying me that this happened. I will try to remember to not change reversions into new edits in the future. zazpot (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Zazpot. Just to be clear, I did understand your rationale for the change, and I do agree that it's a relevant link... so I appreciate your picking up on a salient 'see also' wikilink. I just had an 'uh-oh' moment due to the amount of edit warring that takes place on all genocide related articles. It's one of those things that it's useful to be aware of, especially if you're working on a 1RR article or, worse yet, encounter one of the hot-heads who edit. Sadly, there are a goodly number of constructive editors around who could do with being reminded of AGF. In fact, there are more than enough around who don't seem to be able to keep their testosterone in check, and are particularly partial to letting their opinions be known. A pleasure to meet you, and keep up the good work you're doing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too :) zazpot (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! George Ho (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho, I appreciate your good intentions, but I feel you have erred in directing this concern to me. As far as I can tell, the text you are concerned about was introduced to the article in question not by me, but by User:Tayiba.Ahmed (in these edits). zazpot (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... My apologies. I'll notify that person then. I'm so sorry; I struck out the warning. George Ho (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. zazpot (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]