Jump to content

User talk:Okip: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 453: Line 453:
== Thanks ==
== Thanks ==
Thanks for that, and while we're on the subject on BLP, well there is a survey of BLP photos I took and I need some feedback on which ones should be used, if you would be willing, and it should be a bit of relief after the depressing nonsense of the past few weeks. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll]]''</font>) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and while we're on the subject on BLP, well there is a survey of BLP photos I took and I need some feedback on which ones should be used, if you would be willing, and it should be a bit of relief after the depressing nonsense of the past few weeks. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll]]''</font>) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
:I wouldn't worry about any policy changes as the chances of anyone bothering to implement it are pretty minimal. And as I said, I wonder if my comments got reverted?? on the AN/RFARB/RFC nobody checks to see if the refs work, and a lot of times at [[WP:FAR]] where the unsourced old FAs go, a lot of guys just ref the last sentence of the para and a lot of people assume it covers the whole para; not to mention the fact that many people just put in some ref that doesn't even agree; if people bother checking they might invent refs to obscure books that aren't in many libraries. But aside from dishonesty or incomplete reffing assumed to be complete, I doubt there will be enoug inspectors to do anything meaningful, and if they chop off 80% of an article for being unsourced, I think people will just add fake refs. I saw one case of a BLP Prod, the author just replaced it with a cut and paste with only 50% paraphrased a little bit. The other 50% of the sentences were untouched verbatim '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll]]''</font>) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
::I've seen some of the BLP hardliners at FAC/FAR and they didn't notice or didn't care about some unsourced/fake sourced stuff so I doubt this will be anything other than a legislative gimmick '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Photo_poll|<font color="#FA8605">vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll]]''</font>) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


==Template:WelcomeBack==
==Template:WelcomeBack==

Revision as of 05:41, 23 February 2010

The Unreferenced living persons contest
Please help us build this contest.
Your suggestions are warmly welcome.
>> Sign up now. <<
Click here to leave me a message

Category:All unreferenced BLPs

{{db-r2}} 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage/ABC&wpNewTitle=Thispage

"Disagreeable and closed to new ideas - that's the picture that emerges of contributors to...Wikipedia from a survey of their psychological attributes." Aldhous, Peter (January 03, 2009). "Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded". NewScientist. Retrieved 2009-05-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Source: "Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members" CyberPsychology & Behavior (DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225)

This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." -- User:Cool Hand Luke [2]

The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them. -- User:Jehochman[3]

A reliable measure of prejudice is how many mistakes a person gets forgiven. --Durova

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report

...as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Best welcome template: User:AxG/WikiWelcome1

wikipediareview: History of wikipedia

Regarding this

You should make that edit while logged in as Ikip. Otherwise, it's hard to know that this account is controlled by Ikip. (I didn't look, Ikip may have stated as much elsewhere, but it is easier to keep track of when it's all in one place). -- Bfigura (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Ah, I just saw the ANI thread. You may want to put a permalink to where you got verified on your user page. Sorry about the password issue. -- Bfigura (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I can have editors I e-mailed before with Ikip verify I am using the same email. Other than that, there is no way to access Ikip now.

"You may want to put a permalink to where you got verified on your user page?" Please explain...you mean that coding thing that editor have on their user pages, with all the scrambled letters? Okip (formerly Ikip) 18:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Bfigura may mean the diff where Tbsdy lives confirmed your identity. If you're using the same email address, shouldn't you be able to use the E-mail new password button? Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Flatscan, I thought I would use the E-mail new password too. I will try it again now.
See, i wanted to stay off wikipedia at work, so I had a complex way of making sure I did. Every night I would change my email address to my sons address, and then scramble the password. This went on for about two weeks. Then when I got home from work, I clicked the "mail a new password" to my sons account. He would then open his account, and I would take the password, updating with my new password. Well, I think on Monday (?) the e-mail to say confirm a new address somehow expired. I am sure I put the password in correctly. I stepped away from the computer and asked my son to press the first link, not the second, and based on the history of the webpage he did.
I was kind of wishing that this was it, that I would finally leave this nasty addiction. It was kind of nice to be off for a few days. But alas, here I am again. As you know I have left numerous times, I have used forced wiki-vacations, etc.
Terrible storm here, power may go out. I will send myself password to son's email again. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I've heard that some people can restore passwords in emergency situations with help from Wikipedia's developer team; I don't know the details of how it works but might be able to point you to someone who does and could help. Itd be a shame to just have to give up an account that youve been using for 4 years, not to mention the many many edits you've made with it that would all have to be redirected now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Son just emailed into his account, no new email. Thanks for the suggestions soap and flatscan. Maybe I should just commit suicide once and for all and be done with it... :) Okip (formerly Ikip) 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Well, if it doesnt bother you, then I'll let it be, but I'm just saying that in emergencies it's possible to regain control of an account even if you've lost access to the "email new password" for whatever reason. I've heard there's a limit on new password requests to prevent abuse; maybe you finally tripped the limit. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Since you've indicated that you've switched accounts, and your trusted userrights (rollback) have now been transferred to your new account, I've linked the block logs of your new and old accounts per the blocking policy. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Web slices

Hello Ikip/Okip, I wanted to get your thoughts on web slices at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Webslices for the main page.Smallman12q (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Your old talk page

Meanwhile, people are posting there, and the 'click here to leave a message' maybe should also take them here? Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[]

thanks, good idea. Okip (formerly Ikip) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Or maybe just redirect the page? If a password has been e-mailed to somebody, somewhere, perhaps the Ikip account should be blocked as a preventative measure.   pablohablo. 23:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[]
The only place the email could be sent to would be to my sons email account, or my own. If someone wants to block the account, that's fine though. Okip (formerly Ikip) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I was thinking that you might possibly have mistyped the e-mail address; if so there's a chance that what you did type would be someone else's e-mail address. Outside chance though I suppose.   pablohablo. 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

History of the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia

Hi Ikip, I posted this article on the page of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia with references, but I a getting a message that there are no references. Why is this? Please advise. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

In August 25, 1920, the First National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Bogotá, presided by Epifánio Montoya, Alfredo Vásquez Cobo and Don Tulio Ospina Vásquez. This congress laid the foundation for the successful organization and establishment of the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (English: National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia).[1]

The Second National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Medellín in 1927. Two sons of Don Tulio Ospina Vásquez, Rafael Ospina Pérez and Mariano Ospina Pérez, were among the delegates of the province of Antioquia. Rafael Ospina Pérez presided over this Congress, which created the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia.[1]

In 1928, after the Second National Congress of Coffee Growers had created the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, the first regional committee was established as the “Comité de Cafeteros de Antioquia”. Mariano Ospina Pérez was its first President, and the first registered member of the association.[2]

The first Board of Directors of the newly organized Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia assembled in Bogotá, in August 3, 1929. Its first members were Mariano Ospina Vásquez, Alberto Camilo Suárez, Gabriel Ortiz Williamson, Carlos Caballero, Jesús del Corral and Mariano Ospina Pérez, the greatest dignitary in the History of the Federation, for whom the organization of the national coffee industry was one of his most serious and ambitious concerns. [3]

The first Board of Directors of the newly organized Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia assembled in Bogotá, in August 3, 1929. Its first members were Mariano Ospina Vásquez, Alberto Camilo Suárez, Gabriel Ortiz Williamson, Carlos Caballero, Jesús del Corral and Mariano Ospina Pérez, the greatest dignitary in the History of the Federation, for whom the organization of the national coffee industry was one of his most serious and ambitious concerns.[4]

In December of 1930, the Fourth National Congress of Coffee Growers convened in Bogotá. Due to the vast knowledge and experience in the coffee industry, acquired running his own coffee business, Mariano Ospina Pérez was summoned by the Minister of Industry, Francisco J. Chaux, and by President Rafael Olaya Herrera to preside over this Congress. Ospina Pérez was elected President of this Fourth Congress. At the adjournment of this Congress, Ospina Pérez was elected, by the unanimous vote of the delegates, as “Gerente de la Federación” (General Director). He served in this position for four years, until 1934.[5][6]

In the election of members of the Board of Directors in 1954, Mariano Ospina Pérez, who served as President of the Republic from 1946 to 1950, was installed as President of the Board of Directors (of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia). His return to the Federation marked the reappearance of one of Colombia's greatest coffee names in an active role in the industry.[7] [8]

Under Mariano Ospina Pérez' aegis, the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia successfully consolidated the nation's coffee industry and promoted it in the world markets to great effect. Colombia became the largest producer of prime Coffea arabica coffee in the world. He laid a very solid corporative foundation, and today, the Colombian Coffee Federation congregates and supports over 500,000 independent coffee growers and small farmers.

[[4]]

Your oppose gives me the impression that you think that this would apply to existing articles. It would not. Would you care to clarify your statement to make it clear whether you are indeed opposed to CSD of new unsourced BLPs? Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

ANI link request

I can't find the link to the referenced ANI discussion as to why you changed your user name. Flowanda | Talk 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Simpsons couch jokes

You'll be autoconfirmed tomorrow, and will be able to edit the list then. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

thank you. Lord your talk page is confusing, the most confusing i have seen, and it probably discourages editors from commenting. Okip (formerly Ikip) 07:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Confusing? It's organised! As the instructions say, bottom of the page is fine. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Re

Truth be told, your prior message made me reconsider Je(etc.)'s proposal and I re-!voted as Neutral. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Yes, felt they were finished. I archive without hesitation. I used to just delete, until this incident (see later part about blanking). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

+Rollbacker

You haven't strictly speaking asked me for this permission, but it was part of the user rights table on your old account, so I see no reason why you shouldn't be trusted with it. If you'd rather it were removed, please let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Stop making COI edits now

You have a stated conflict of interest, over 700 edits in the two months you've been an editor and numerous requests to numerous editors soliciting support for your edits and point of view. You have been around long enough to know your edits clearly violate WP:COI. Flowanda | Talk 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Hi Ikipi, What does this mean? How do I respond to this accusation? Does it mean I am disqualified to write about the subject matters that I know best and which I am the most qualified authority? To whom do I appeal this charge? Would it be possible to find a Task Force to review this case from an independent and neutral point of view? Please tell me how to further this appeal to a higher body. Thanks for your help, advise and cooperation. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Let's Have a Proper Forum discuss these Issues

Thank you very much for all your advice, guidance, help, efforts and recommendations. I do NOT wish to have any sort of altercation or confrontation. I have tried to make my contributions based on historical facts and information available in the public domain. I have not posted my own words, thoughts or opinions. They are mere historical and undeniable facts, taken from reliable and accessible sources, mainly History books and industry publications. I know that most of these sources are in Spanish, and thus, I have offered to present copies or pdfs of the same for review. Nevertheless, there are some pretty good and reliable sources in English as well. I may not have quoted or referenced them perfectly, but they are there, accessible, reliable and easy to find and read. I have also requested several individual editors, groups and task forces to review and proof-read the article. I am not insisting or pushing for biased thoughts, ideas or opinions. I am only interested in facts and neutral and truthful information. This is precisely why I have insistently asked for help and invited contributions and editors to participate in the discussion and project. What I do not appreciate is the unfounded and unjustified mutilation of the article. I welcome, invite and ask for independent, neutral and experienced editing help, specifically from those from academia, historians and well versed editors. I apologize if my level of writing, contribution and editing is not at your same level. I would like to take these issues to the proper forum for discussion and resolution. Thank you very much. --Grancafé (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[]


The Big Picture

I am trying to convey that there are two ways to view an idea or concept, the myopic and narrow view and the broad and wide angle. I am proposing to reintroduce into the main article the entire section (here above) entitled “Impact on the Colombian Coffee Industry”, to reveal how Ospina Coffee has influenced and impacted both, the national coffee industry and theNational Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia.

You are not getting the idea. I gave you the example of Harvard University and its alumni. You responded saying that those are to separate issues. I don’t agree with your opinion, but I admit that it was not a very good example. So let me try again. Please go to the webpage of Harvard University (http://www.harvard.edu/), then go to their page called Harvard and the Community (http://www.community.harvard.edu/), and then go to their section on Economic Impact (http://www.community.harvard.edu/economic_impact.php). There you will find an in-depth, comprehensive and exhaustive article covering this most important and relevant matter.

Now, you tell me why Ospina Coffee is forbidden and disqualified to present its socio-economic impact on Colombia’s coffee industry and in particular in regards to the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia? I truly believe that we must invite community members from academia, scholars, historians, economist and sociologist to participate in this discussion. Perhaps I am not the person most qualified to write this article due to my language and encyclopedic limitations, but the historical and socio-economic facts of the matter are undeniable, most relevant and fundamental. This is why I have insistently invited other well versed and trained editors to participate in this project. Don’t you agree? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Wikipedia Dispute Resolution

The content and notability of this article needs to be reviewed and edited as the majority of this article was written and edited by an editor with a stated conflict of interest.

This is what the article looked like when it was nominated for deletion. This is what it looked like when the AfD was withdrawn. The majority of editing before and after by User: Grancafe shows no deviation from his stated conflict of interest. Flowanda | Talk 10:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Wikipedia Dispute Resolution

There is no conflict of interest here. That is your misguided opinion. My utmost interest is the truth and the undisputed, undeniable and well referenced historical facts. The interest of Wikipedia, academia end the community are above your interest or mine. This is why I have insistently invited other well versed and trained editors to participate in this project. I truly believe that we must invite community members from academia, scholars, historians, economist and sociologist to participate in this discussion. Do you think it is time to take this matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Referencing BLPs

I/Okip, Thanks for your comments on my ideas. It basically consists of two parts:1) a 50,000 long list is unworkable - break it up into workable parts and it's solvable. (more on that later) 2) Whilst it is possible for us mere mortal editors to use the various cat scan/list compare tools to do the breaking up, it takes time (more than 20 minutes for me to load fresh lists into WP:AWB and effort (effort away from actually referencing articles) to do so. Therefore, if this is a major problem according to Jimbo and Arbcom, then they must make some sort of automated system to do the splitting up of the lists into workable lists - by topic, not by date that they were tagged! I hope people don't think I want automated tagging - I only want automated list making.

The WP:Australia project had a list of over 2000 names just over 2 weeks ago. It's now under 900. 900 is still fairly unworkable, so we've split them up again into smaller topics. Other lists have popped up, Cricket, Rugby union, India and probably many more. This is all do-able, but it does take time, it does get a bit boring, it can be tempting for some editors to put the first google hit they see on it and remove the tag, but it can work. One other good thing about these lists, is that you can use the related changes link to see all edits to them... great to keep an eye on pages without clogging up your watchlist (almost like having multiple watchlists).The-Pope (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

You will be happy to note the list has dropped by 7,000, from a high of 52,000 to just over 46,000 last I checked :)
I need suggestions of what I can do. I find waiting for someone else to do something usually never pans out.
I can ask the appropriate channels, but unless someone with the technical skills sees your vision, the way I have seen your vision, it will be a long slog :/ Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I've had my say, and setup our project to get the job done. I want to keep out of the drama until at least the end of the month and then show everyone else what 20-30 committed editors (thats probably about how many we've had) can do in a month. If one project can reference 2000 articles in a month, then the entire project should be able to do 45316 in a few months.The-Pope (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]
RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.
Okip, what would project Rugby union need to do. I'm willing to help, and so far have been the only person to try to reference the articles supplied by The Pope and I think I've only managed 80 out of the original 350. The project is presently more interested in fighting over a flag (please see the heavy discussion on the talk page), and you are shouting into a gale. But I'd be happy to monitor the pages thrown up by a bot if that's what is required. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]
You did everything you need to. all I need is an "okay" from an active member of the project.
Funny you should mention the flag, I about wrote, "in between your arguments over the color of the flag" but then thought best of it, and didn't write that...
I will let betacommand know your project wants a list, he can make it, then I will post it on your page. The daily bot will start hopefully soon. There is an unexpected problem with a past arbcom decision, which we will have to iron out first.
The pope had a contest idea, which I think is wonderful. I asked Durova who to ask about this. I would be willing to put $20 in the pot as a reward, I am sure other editors would too. Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Okip, I've actioned the last group of BLPs you posted today on WP Rugby union. Four of them we would have no interest in as they are Rugby League, hope the rest can be released. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Comments at Phase II

My comments weren't intended to oppose the proposal, I was simply pointing out that maintaining such a rate of referencing is not an easy task. The proposal is a lot better than most that have been proposed regarding this issue. Hut 8.5 23:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Talkback

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Bot

Hi I/Okip, the bot sounds like a good idea, feel free to have it tested on Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Unreferenced BLPs. Keep up the good work J04n(talk page) 11:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your response to articles you are interested in referencing

"This first run there were only 3 editors who responded." this is what i love about wiki, thousands vote over how to automatically delete BLPwoR; 3 interested in editing & improving articles; conclusion, why waste time casting pearls before swine, get to work. Pohick2 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

navel gazing is fine and all, but people are using BLP as an excuse to delete perfectly fine articles that merely need a little work. (is this a new cabal, no merely a new stratagem by the young deletionists, they find they have a backlog from the good old days before they went on the prowl.) Pohick2 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Appreciation

I have mixed feelings about barnstars but not about bouquets - thanks for yours :) You have done so much on article rescue issues - these flowers won't bloom till July, so pls accept this pic as a virtual bouquet and as an optimistic proxy for the future of WP. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

A pot of coffee

While WP:DENY specifically mentions trolls, I think it applies as much (or more) to the subspecies known as attention whores. I'm sure he'll be back.   pablohablo. 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[]

glad we can work together. I appreciate him showing that it is possible for both of us to work together on something we both feel is important. cheers. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Aritekl Rescue Squad

Thank you for your invitation. I would have joined but there are already too many members. How would you like to start up a newer, more aggressive, Squad of those squarely against this mass-deletionists. We can start it together. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks!

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It is greatly appreciated! CTJF83 chat 09:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]

your welcome. Thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Muchas Gracias

Please allow me to join in this Thank You note. I must reiterate, as well, my deepest gratitude and appreciation for your kindness, wise advise, continued support, words of encouragement and most valuable guidance. As a novice editor in Wikipedia, your mentorship is highly appreciated and most needed. I think you deserve another barnstar as a Wikipedian Noble Crusader. Thanks again. Mil gracias,--Grancafé (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]
PS. Why did you change your name from Ikip to Okip? Ikip sounded better to me. Ikip = I keep order, peace and integrity. Best regards, --Grancafé (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]
It was as the result of an I/O error.   pablohablo. 15:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]
ya err, what Pablo said. (I have no idea what that means)... long story short, I scrambled, then lost my ability to change my password, so I as locked out of my account. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

The Guidance Barnstar

The Guidance Barnstar
Hi Okip, this barnstar is for your tireless efforts in helping, orienting and encouraging newcomers and novice editors, like me. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Projectification?

I'm not entirely clear what your proposal is, so I can't really comment on it. -- BRG (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Coffee has a similar proposal. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II#Proposal_by_Coffee.3B_a_means_to_an_end I no longer support projectification, because the underlying premise for "BLP madness" is a hoax and fraud i.e. that fraudulent bad faith libelous lies against living people is so prevalent as to warrant such widespread deletions. The reality is that as many as, (or more than) 300 good faith articles must be deleted for every 1 potentially libelous article. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Re:BLP contest

Flag idea wasn't mine- that may have been Garden's. I've only been a judge this year- I was taking part myself last year :) J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[]

flag idea? Oh yeah, so much is going on, I forgot what you were talking about..for a second I thought you were talking about flagged revisions. thanks for response. We will talk very soon ;) Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thank you

Hi Okip. Thank you for the kind message. I have noticed your efforts to develop tools to address the unreferenced BLP backlog and appreciate what you are doing. Hopefully, the problem can be solved before any drastic actions are taken. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Lord, thank you so much. As but a small nail, everyday I log back on and think I am going to get hammered. It is only by the support of editors such as yourself, the non-elite (to borrow a term used by a study) editors who do not support Mr. Wales ill-advised agenda, that I am still here. At the risk of WP:BEANS I have already been accidentally indefinitely blocked once, and have been blocked for 12 hours. I simply in good conscience cannot let short sighted editors who have "utter contempt" for "community consensus" destroy the website I love so much. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks!

Okip, thank you for the barnstar. Maurreen (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Long overdue!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For perpetually defending Wikipedia's intended and most valuable purpose: catalogging human knowledge. I hope you had a nice Valentine's Day! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 00:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Defender of the Noble Spirit of Wikipedia Barnstar

Defender of the Noble Spirt of Wikipedia
For your noble and unbreakable spirit of inclusion, mentorship and fraternity towards your fellow editors and the Wikipedian community. --Grancafé (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Barnstar of the Lamp For The Huddled Masses

Barnstar of the Lamp For The Huddled Masses
For your pure intentioned dedication to speaking for those who do not speak, the wretched refuse of the teeming shores of the internet, providing a lamp of illumination. ----Milowent (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Article Rescue Squadron welcome

Thank you very much for the warm welcome at my talk page. Actually so far I helped rescue an article and mildly the other with adding references and stuff at the articles themselves. More to come next. Thank you again and let's hope I could help.
Mohamed Magdy (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Warning about commentary at the BLP RfC

Okip, this is a warning that I believe your accusations against named editors in good standing are in violation of our policies on personal attacks. Specifically, the section which defines one form of personal attack as:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

I am making a formal request for you to refactor your comments, or to provide specific evidence of the wrongdoing you are accusing these editors of. Your comments amount to accusations without evidence, and if you do not refactor your comments, or if you repeat these accusations without substantiation, I may report your conduct for review by other administrators. Feel free to respond to this at my talk page if any aspect of it is not clear to you. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Well, this puts me in a precarious situation. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.
I was banned for 24 hours by an "involved" "non-impartial" editor, then the ban was reversed, on the condition that I "tone down the comments against MZMcBride". So I can't "provide specific evidence of the wrongdoing you are accusing these editors of", because I will be in violation of the reason I was unblocked.
So the only solution you are giving me is to delete my comments.
I would be happy to revise those comments by striking out any inaccurate comment(s), if fences and windows allows me too. Beyond this, I genuinely fear being blocked, but I fear being blocked for not doing anything either. Okip BLP Contest 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]
You cannot make accusations without evidence - it is up to you to decide how you want to handle it, and that your problem arises from your making prior unsubstantiated comments is not my concern and I am not going to unilaterally interfere in an administrator's unblock conditions. But substantial evidence must be provided, otherwise these claims must be retracted. All of your invective is focussed on www.sofixit.org - beyond being aware of its existence, I have no information about its contents. Based on your comments and endless questions/accusations about membership, I am assuming that you haven't any either. If you do have information that I'm not aware of, you may forward it to me, with the knowledge that I may respond to it on-wiki if it is based on fallacious assumptions rather than hard facts. If you do not, you 'must refactor your comments - a simple replacement of your contents with "[redacted as a courtesy]" will be sufficient and requires noone else's permission. I can handle the outstanding redactions myself. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Form Follows Function

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

I see you're something of a rebel yourself. Don't let them get to you. The worst they can do is throw you off their sinking ship. You should really ask yourself whether Wikipedia is worth the struggle, though. I'm here largely because the media places unwarranted importance on Wikipedia (and because Wikipedia Google-bombs every subject, causing it to rise to the top of the search on almost every subject), and someone needs to hold people accountable for the lies and shameless propaganda which breeds and multiplies here on the Internet's toilet seat. Because form follows function, and Wikipedia exists to create a dysfunctional wikiality as seen through the eyes of angry white Family Guy nerds, it probably can't be fixed. The best anyone can do is try to limit the collateral damage it causes outside of its little demesne. SmashTheState (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I need your further help

Hi Okip/Ikip. I hope you are rehabilitated by now. I have been working on several articles about the Presidents of Colombia, which the great majority are just simple and meaningless stubs. I am working on expanding, correcting and adding references. But I have a problem; I don’t know how to properly do the referencing. I have tried to practice on the test page you created (User:Grancafe/test), following the instructions you gave me, but it is not working, and I am very frustrated. Could you please see what the problem is in my practice page? Perhaps I need better directions and better instruction. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I was thinking of creating a video to help new users, but I may be indefinitely banned soon.
I am rather distracted by all of this upper level corruption, something which even new users can appreciate, because the end result has unfortunately been bullied new users. Okip BLP Contest 18:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I don't think you'll be indefinitely banned soon. The issue is that you're pissing off people. We're all humans, and because of how you're commenting, it's aggravating people. This in turn causes a perpetual cycle of rage that doesn't get anything done. I honestly think it could be a lot worse -- even though people are annoyed at you, they're not shouting "OFF WITH YOUR HEAD" quite yet. They're still trying to reason with you. Please, try to be accommodating. It will help you get your message across when you communicate in a way that doesn't make people flip out.
Also, a potential threat of you being banned is no excuse to not do constructive work. Proving your worth as a contributor is a fantastic, nay, miraculous way one can remain unbanned from Wikipedia. harej 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Eureka! I did it! I went to the help page, read all the links and articles, copied, pasted, practiced, and practiced, until I got it right. I am cyber-phobic, but when desire overcomes fear, I can do it. Hang in there Okip. Truth always prevails, even if it take 1000 years. Thank you very much for all your help, guidance and support. I think you deserve a Purple Herat. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]
PS. By accident I figured out how to make a line boldface. That's the way discoveries happen. --Grancafé (talk) 20
05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ikip (I like it better than Okip), I don't know what is going on and don't understand either. All I can tell you is, pick your fights. I do know that sometimes you have to fight, mainly if your honor is on the line. But my grand father used to tell me: the cemeteries are full of people who had the right of way. If it's not worth it, let it go. Cemeteries are also full of heroes. I am sure there are better causes and better battles to fight. Whatever it is and whatever happens, I will always appreciate your hospitality and help. Best,--Grancafé (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Note to Scott, Lar, and Mr.Z-man

I do not wish to engage in conversation beyond the talk page of the RFC, for several reasons. That is why I moved two editors conversations back to the RFC. Moving comments is a regular occurrence, it is permitted, and it is much better than deleting talk page comments (which is also allowed). Fences ask me not to move comments anymore, so I am deleting them.

I will address Mr. Z-man's contention there. Okip BLP Contest 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I don't give a toss about the reordering of the page. You repeatedly made allegations against me, if you were at all honourable (which I'm fast concluding you are not) you would retract them and apologise or produce evidence and a complaint in a regular venue. Instead, you remove negative comments about yourself from your talk page, and are unapologetic about posting unevidenced allegations, personal attack, and out of context quotes about me, in prominent pages. Well, I call you a scoundrel and a coward sir, and if that's a personal attack it is merited and I can offer evidence of both those changes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Were you a member of that message board that Mzmcbride was a member of? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Well, first of all thanks. This is the first time in all this bad-mouthing that anyone has bothered to ask me that question. Ikip would rather ask Durova about me. As, I've said, I've got some questions to ask first. 1) What is the relevance of the question? (relevance) 2) Why would it matter if I were? (policy) 3) Why are you asking me this, and not any of the other thousands of users of Wikipedia? (probable cause). Without answers to those questions, then I'm afraid your question smacks a bit of ""Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States [Secret forum of MZMcBride]?" "--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Well, it's that three pronged test that's making me so curious. I've seen it a couple of times, and it's the answer to its own number three. I don't have anything for the first two. It's just that I've become curious. If you don't want to say either way, that's fine. Just figured I'd ask. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I'm thinking a 'no' would suffice.--Father Goose (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]
So would a 'yes'. So, as here, would a "it is none of your business which other websites people visit or do not visit".   pablohablo. 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]
There are circumstances where it is of interest to the entire community, i.e., Wikipedia:Canvass#Stealth canvassing. Not that we have any hope that people engaged in such behavior will admit to doing it.
I don't agree with Okip's general premise that that behavior invalidated the BLP RfC in which over 400 Wikipedians participated. However, I am willing to express my displeasure that a number of people seem to have coordinated their actions offsite in an apparent attempt to coerce an outcome in line with their views. That's about all I can do, though, is express my displeasure. We don't have an effective means of prohibiting such behavior.--Father Goose (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Again, I ask, "what behaviour?" What evidence is there of any secret coordination? Some people don't like what was done, fair enough. But it was done openly and logged on wiki. I'll admit that my attention to Kevin's actions was drawn by an offsite forum (that's not a secret) - but where is the evidence of collusion or even probably cause of such? This is just smears by people who don't like the action. So, we discuss the action, the policy and the encyclopedia - and I don't waste my time responding to smears and innuendo. If there's reason to believe that editors have acted improperly, then will someone please have the grace to present it in a proper userconduct RfC. Put up, or shut up.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I'll choose to interpret that as a reply in the negative to the earlier question. I'm satisfied.--Father Goose (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Whatever. I resent having to defend myself against spurious, and frankly malicious, charges, and I doubly resent that such charges were spewed multiple times in a public fora when no one had the grace to bring them directly to me. Sorry if I'm upset by this. Ikip can now remove this an feign innocence.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ikip and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Quick question

We're having a discussion at a project and a question came up that I thought you might know the answer to. Is it possible to 'hook' into NPP for articles recently marked as category Martial Arts to notify the project so they can jump on reviewing those articles? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Note that I copied this text over from the Ikip talk page. I'm assuming you watchlist your old talk page so you can see these messages, but for the sake of convenience I've copied it over for you. —Soap— 00:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Talk page deletion

Generally, we only do that if an editor is exercising his/her right to vanish, which seemed to be the case for the one I just did. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Great idea

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
To the artist formerly known as Ikip, for coming up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest as a productive means to tackling the backlog of unreferenced BLPs. Let's focus our energy and get this puppy off the ground J04n(talk page) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]


Don’t be discouraged!

Hi Ikip (Ikip=Ikeep honor, principles and truth), thank you very much for your kind message. I have tried to look into what is going on with you and the wolves, and it seems mayor. It is totally out of my league and perhaps out of my interest. Nevertheless, as a word of encouragement, see Galileo Galilei who almost lost his life to the ridiculous accusations of the corrupt Roman Inquisition for telling the world that the earth went around the sun and not the other way around. It happens, the most absurd and bizarre, and that is the way life is. Don’t be discouraged, if you know you are right and its worth fighting for it, you will not be the first to die at the stake or the cross for telling the truth. Best, --Grancafé (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

thank editors every chance you get. Okip BLP Contest 03:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words and advice. My two middle names are “graceful” and “grateful”. I have been accused of giving to many thanks. I guess that there are people that cannot handle grace. It reminds me of the famous line from “A Few Good Men” with Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise, when the colonel tells the lieutenant: “you can’t handle the truth!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY). It’s a jungle out there. There is another line that comes to my mind, Mathews 7:6. I hope this ordeal works out for the better good. Take care, --Grancafé (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks

thanks for the directions about the bots. Also, did you know that if I click on your "leave me a message" bar, it apparently puts it on your old talk page? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

support

Needless to say, you will have my support in this outrageous RfArb when you need it, but I see no need yet to actively make a statement. I very strongly urge you not to make a statement yourself, for it is not necessary. Rather let people expose themselves unaided. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I agree completely with DGG above. I've been a bit out of WP these days for personal reasons, but I've had a look at what happened to you, and it's most disgraceful. Don't let yourself down. I'll consider making a statement. --Cyclopiatalk 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Further discussion at WP:AN

I would draw your attention to this particular discussion. Presently, I am inclined to agree with Guy; blocking would not be appropriate but, as someone previously uninvolved in these matters, I should strongly suggest that you refrain from commenting upon the genesis of the RfC (motives, personalities, etc.) on those pages. I would comment that even the best faith commentary that is not pertaining to the subject on the page may be considered disruptive if it is continued regardless of requests not to do so. Under the circumstances, this is a semi official warning not to continue making those edits to the BLP RfC page that are not specifically commenting upon the issue and a suggestion that you raise your concerns upon the genesis of the RfC at a separate venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Raising the bar for new "BLP" articles

I don't know whether it was obvious, but a year ago we seemed to be (in my case passionately) on the same side in the inclusion debate that resulted in A Man in Black moving on. As far as I can see, we also have the same attitude to cherishing newbies' first articles. I've proposed (here) that we raise the bar for new contributions, and this has been adopted in points (1) and (2) in the proposal to close the RFC. To make this happen I need conditional support from people like you, so we can prepare the right messages and advice so that new editors understand how to make successful and enduring contributions. Whether you agree or disagree, please make your views about new BLPs known here a.s.a.p. - Pointillist (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Re: BLP proposal

We have to move on, neither "side" is completely happy, time for compromise. J04n(talk page) 12:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I'm not changing my !vote. To be honest I want to see all articles sourced not just the BLPs. This is a good step. J04n(talk page) 17:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

BLP RFC

Okip, thanks for your note.

But I was deliberate (although imperfect) in taking a neutral position and elaborating on that. My position is not against yours. Maurreen (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

oh, I know it is not against my position. thanks for taking the time to consider what I said. Okip 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Thanks. I appreciate that neutral positions might be disregarded sometimes.
I am hoping that moderation all around will be productive. Maurreen (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
"Moderation all around" is not *just* about you. :) Such as, the "other side" is compromising.
I do appreciate your progress in that aspect.
I don't think I should move Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Moving_unfavorable_facts.
I do think it could be very helpful for you to 1) move/strike/delete/soften your comments that were combative and/or not directly dealing with the matter at hand, and/or 2) at least acknowledge to those you accused that you did not address your concerns in the most appropriate way.
Also, if you are canvassing, I think that is counter-productive. It might or might not influence the short-term decision. But it will engender mistrust. It could influence the other side to do the same, thus escalating conflict.
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I am not canvassing it is yet another personal attack by those who disagree with me. Okip 17:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
OK, I did say *if.*
Thanks for moderating your "oppose" statement. Maurreen (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Any other suggestions to moderate the oppose statement?
Thanks, see my comment on the talk page, BEFORE will not be added. Okip 18:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I think your comments about BEFORE are counterproductive. If any of the loyal opposition was considering it, you have given them reason go go against it.
I can't review your oppose statement in more detail now.
You did make a good point earlier, in a couple of ways, by voicing potential support for a PROD process that would include BEFORE. We're in a negotiation, and it helps to find ways for all parties to compromise.
No biggie, but just to fix a blip of my own earlier, when I said "move/strike/delete/soften," I also meant to include "archive." Just food for thought.
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Talkback

Hello, Okip. You have new messages at NuclearWarfare's talk page.
Message added 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[]

Not sure if you are watching my talk page or not. If you are, just tell me and I won't leave any of these in the future. NW (Talk) 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Agree with the your stance with Biography of Living People

Some support for your statement on the RFC. [5] Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/Contest

Smart idea. I've long suggested that we give people some incentives to actually edit wikipedia and make it fun but my proposals were ignored. Personally I think wikipedia should raise enough funds to put back into the encyclopedia in running various schemes like this to target our weak areas and improve the site. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC) []

Sorry to hear that, perhaps you should change your user name.. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 13:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC) []

NASA collaboration

I would like to hear your thoughts on a Proposed collaboration between NASA and Wikimedia.Smallman12q (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Enthusiam and consensus

Hi Okip, thanks for the nice comments you posted on my talk page the other day. However I fear that the claim that my "enthusiasm is contagious and inspiring" is undeserved. I have already given up on the BLP RfC. It seems that it will end like every other Wikipedia poll: a small minority who wants a particular outcome will persist until opponents get tired and walk away, and then they will declare that a "consensus" has been reached.

I have come to believe that deletionists are generally moved by unconscious instincts that have nothing to do with the welfare of Wikipedia. Therefore it is no surprise that they are unmoved by any amount of statistics or logical arguments. (Indeed, it seems that the sure way to end a thread in the BLP RfC discussions is to post real data on the "damage" done by those BLPs. Instead of analyzing the data and its implications, the discussion just moves to other threads.)

Wikipedia "consensus mechanism" was developed to handle disputes among two editors who disagree on content edits to one article. It basically says that when agreeement seems impossible, one of the sides should walk away from the fight, and let the the most persistent editor win. That principle will often let the worst choice prevail; but this is not a serious problem in ordinary editing, because the damage is confined to only one article, and because the damage will probably be repaired by other editors at a later time.

Unfortunately that "consensus mechanism" is being used also to decide policies and guidelines; and there its shortcomings are much more damaging. Indeed, practically every page in the Wikipedia:* namespace is the "consensus" a small minority of those who helped write that page, who are naturally its stauch defenders. Even in the rare cases where opposing editors are brought into the discussion (as in the recent BLP RfC), the final "consensus" is reached when the opposers get tired and walk away from the discussion. Now, while in theory anyone can edit a guideline, as any other article, in practice that never happens: indeed many editors will oppose changes to an existing rule simply because they assume that the contents of Wikipedia:* are "the law of the land" and reflect the majority opinion. Moreover a guideline may affect millions of articles; so those small minorities who create the wikipedia guidelines become "super-editors" whose opinion automatically prevails over that of other editors — even if these outnumber them by 1000:1

A few months ago I found a poll in the talk archives of the {{unreferenced}} template, about the proper placement of that tag. The three alternatives on ballot were "top of article", "bottom of article", and "talk page". (Needless to say, the fourth obvious possibility "nowhere" was not even on the ballot.) There were about 30 votes, largely by people who had taken part on the design of that template, which were split roughly evenly among the three alternatives. The most voted one was "talk page"; the least voted (9 votes) was "top of article". Well, you know which one was declared "consensus". I expect that the BLP RfC will end in the same way.

All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Thanks

Thanks for that, and while we're on the subject on BLP, well there is a survey of BLP photos I took and I need some feedback on which ones should be used, if you would be willing, and it should be a bit of relief after the depressing nonsense of the past few weeks. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[]

I wouldn't worry about any policy changes as the chances of anyone bothering to implement it are pretty minimal. And as I said, I wonder if my comments got reverted?? on the AN/RFARB/RFC nobody checks to see if the refs work, and a lot of times at WP:FAR where the unsourced old FAs go, a lot of guys just ref the last sentence of the para and a lot of people assume it covers the whole para; not to mention the fact that many people just put in some ref that doesn't even agree; if people bother checking they might invent refs to obscure books that aren't in many libraries. But aside from dishonesty or incomplete reffing assumed to be complete, I doubt there will be enoug inspectors to do anything meaningful, and if they chop off 80% of an article for being unsourced, I think people will just add fake refs. I saw one case of a BLP Prod, the author just replaced it with a cut and paste with only 50% paraphrased a little bit. The other 50% of the sentences were untouched verbatim YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[]
I've seen some of the BLP hardliners at FAC/FAR and they didn't notice or didn't care about some unsourced/fake sourced stuff so I doubt this will be anything other than a legislative gimmick YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Template:WelcomeBack

There are lots of pictures of the Return of the Prodigal Son on Wikimedia Commons. Fences&Windows 02:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Contest

  1. I signed you up and you have to participate
  2. Your input is always welcome

J04n(talk page) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Quick trip to the incubator

I am not terribly familiar with the procedure and I'm afraid time might be a factor here, because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Aerobics is looking like a delete, but for the wrong reasons. I admit it, I was surprised, but this topic actually has significant coverage in reliable sources. It's just an article that is written wrong. It is too much of a how-to article and that's what is being used to justify deleting it. If you're on here (and I'm hoping you are), can you assist me in moving this to the incubator? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[]

  1. ^ a b El Café en el Desarrollo de Antioquia, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Editorial Colina, January, 2000, Page 22, ISBN 958-33-1279-7
  2. ^ El Café en el Desarrollo de Antioquia, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Editorial Colina, January, 2000, Page 28, ISBN 958-33-1279-7
  3. ^ El Café en el Desarrollo de Antioquia, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Editorial Colina, January, 2000, Page 23, ISBN 958-33-1279-7
  4. ^ El Café en el Desarrollo de Antioquia, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Editorial Colina, January, 2000, Page 23, ISBN 958-33-1279-7
  5. ^ Mariano Ospina Pérez, Un Hombre de Acción y de Principios, Miguel Angel Lozano, Fundación de Estudios Historicos, Misión Colombia, Funadación Mariano Ospina Pérez, Editorial El Globo SA, Bogotá, Colombia, November, 1991, page 61.
  6. ^ Informe del Gerente de La Federacion al Sexto Congreso Nacional de Cafeteros, Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, Junio de 1934, Colombia.
  7. ^ Brown Gold, The Amazing Story of Coffee, Andres Uribe C., Random House Inc., NY, 1954, Pg 113, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 55-5793.
  8. ^ El Café en la Ecrucijada, Evolución y Perspectivas, Diego Pizano, Editorial Alfaomega, Bogotá, August 2001, Page 31, ISBN 958-682-192-7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okip&oldid=345821489"