Hello, Zad68, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi, Zad68, Glancing through the article history I came across this edit by you, so thought of informing you, STiki does not revert or do edits by itself, until and unless you press the "Vandalism" button. would you elaborate what actually had happened over there? regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ09:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry forgot to reply. I understand what STiki is supposed to do and not do, but I only used STiki to make like 2-3 vandalism evaluations and reversions, just as a test, and it did that revert. Honestly, I do not remember being shown an edit on that page to review, so after my 2-3 edit reviews and reversions, I was fairly stunned to see it in my contribs. It wasn't like I had been using STiki for an hour and reviewed hundreds of edits--I only did a few to try it out. That's the best explanation I have, sorry. Zad6816:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, although that is a bit unusual but I believe you. Perhaps this might have happened because of the server lag. When you log into Stiki, then it connects to the server and takes a couple seconds depending upon the network speed to connect. It might be possible that you had pressed the revert buttons ( Vandalism, and good faith) even before the diffs were shown to you. And as you had pressed the button the reverts occurred, which was then visible in your contributions. If you want you can give it another try (more patiently) this time, will be glad to hear your response--ÐℬigXЯaɣ16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Midtown West - Atlanta
Don't understand why this listing is not allowed. How can we properly create a Wikipedia listing for our company Midtown West? Please visit
[1] for verification.
Thank you!Midtownwest1 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midtownwest1 (talk • contribs)
a barnstar from Lulo Flash14245 dated 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
Vandalism
Dear Zad68:
I feel bound to inform you that you appear to have reverted a recent edit on list of hobbies as a case of vandalism. Furthermore, you have attributed that edit to my ip address. I must therefore inform you that I had never made that edit. I find it disruptive and insulting that someone should make me liable for an action never committed, though not you in particular.
I'm sorry if I caused you offense. Are you talking about this edit? I think there is an easy explanation for what happened, and absolutely no offense was meant to you. You must use an ISP that assigns dynamic addresses, and someone else had that IP. Zad6817:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. They were both so wrong. I read "Pittsburgh Irish Festival, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation" and added WikiProject Companies to it. UK!!! I dont know why i did that. Must be still in sleep. Thanks! But in case you come across any more such feel free to change them. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have already warned the editor about edit-warring and improper accusations of "vandalism". I have watchlisted both articles. I'm waiting to see if the editor will be willing to stop edit-warring and start discussing. Zad6818:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 minutes
If you had given me more than 3 minutes you would have seen my response on talk. I would like to discuss this with you - i think our discussion has been very constructive so far - but please wait for the discussion to finish one way or the other before unilaterally removing the tag. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I saw that you had removed the tag without adding anything new to the POV discussion, but if you're going to add to t::hat discussion, go ahead and put the tag back. In general I don't like the idea of POV or other tags like that left out there forever without active discussion on the Talk page. Zad6817:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we both tried to revert the same vandalism at the same time, my Huggle got it and your Twinkle made no change... no big deal, vandalism is reverted. Zad6819:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the two or three Ive looked at some editors just leave/retire. No fuss. No muss. No comment. No Ban or Block. They just stop editing and, maybe, put up a retired banner. So....some way to differentiate the "levels" of leaving. From "Get out and don't come back" to "I just don't think we should see each other anymore". I just now noticed the "notes" column. Maybe thats the place. ```Buster Seven Talk03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buster, I have greatly improved the retired editors list page, please take a look at it. I'll try to figure out how to do some the meta-analysis you're describing. Zad6820:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly improved is an understatement. You are obviously a wizard of some kind. My original plan to lift various "I'm leaving and here's why" comments has moved to the back burner and is on hold (in agreement with Dennis and Cailil). I AM willing to do some investigative research and make entries into the notes column if you think it may have some future value. I do very little via "tools" so I should be done about the end of Obama's second term. Would it be adventageous to remove 1)editors with very few edits, 2)editors with a short lifespan, 3)editors that have abandoned the account to start another.? ```Buster Seven Talk22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wiazrd!" Wow, let me get my cape and pointy magic hat! All the "magic" was done in under 200 lines of Python code, which is something I've been trying to teach myself. Actually, I don't have any access to Wikipedia internals and I'm not a Wikipedia tools developer, although I think I'd like to look into that area. My Python script just pulls Web pages and scrapes the data out of them, and dumps the results into a Wikitable. I'll review the results and do some editing as you suggest. It should be easy to remove the accounts that have less than like 100 edits, are perma-blocked vandals who for some reason have a retired template on their account (maybe as a joke?), etc. I really would like to use the results to find a list of "good" editors who have wandered away, to ask them why they left and also to possibly encourage them to return. Zad6814:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zad, I appreciate your comments on the Talk Page of the Voters' Right Amendment article and have hopefully addressed them to your satisfaction with additional sources and reference to an uncopyrighted copy of the Amendment. Please see Talk Page responses and clear tabs as appropriate.
The USVRA is a new, but rapidly growing movement that should be noticed on Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Historian2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian2010 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put in 3 references to the talk section supporting that the decision was "minor bodily injury" and does not apply to other courts. Please check it out and make an appropriate decision. --Activism123413:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs
a barnstar from David_FLXD dated 10:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list
Response
I have tried to correct the things you complained about. There are numerous links to the CIRP on wikipedia so I was surprised that you did not like that.
thanks for taking this seriously I'm traveling now but will look later, would like to talk with you about this a bit more. Zad6819:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under construction tags
They're not magic immunity banners which stop any article getting deleted. As far as I can see with the circumcision procedure article, obvious content fork is obvious, but we'll see. Why can't the material just be added to the circumcision article? Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because circumcision is already too big. OK, ok... Check out Talk:Circumcision. We just had an RFC where it was decided to spin out some of the detail from the surgical procedure part of Circumcision to its own article, Circumcision surgical procedure. Doc James (our chief resident maintainer of WP:MEDICINE) recommended starting this article for those who want all the gory details about the procedure, including surgical photos. Circumcision is written in Wikipedia:Summary style and the natural progression is to do this. We are doing this part of WP:Content forking: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." The paradigm Doc James gave us was Ingrown toenail and Surgical treatment of ingrown toe nails. Good? Zad6822:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Given the lack of consensus at the RfC I'm sure you can understand my actions. Sorry if I seemed like I was jumping the gun, it's just that whilst on NPP I've seen the under construction banner used like blood on the door at passover often enough to have become sceptical of its usage. Anyway, appeals to authority rarely carry weight with me but Doc James does tend to know what he's talking about! Good luck with the article. Let me know if you need any help. Regards Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, nice simile! Now, begone ye Angel of Death! ;) And warning you I may take you up on your offer for help. Cheers... Zad6822:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Circumcision and Law
I have always understood NPOV that different viewpoints should be represented without favoring any one viewpoint. In constructing the Canada sub-section, I prevented three different viewpoints without favoring any one viewpoint, that of Bouclin, the CPSBC, and the Court of appeal of British Columbia. I fail to see why this does not meet the test of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcube73 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just helping to translate the page into English and I would very much appreciate if you tell me where exactly you perceived the error. I could corret it at once.
So far I just follow the text in Spanish. Can you please tell me which sentences need to be changed?
I will stop my cooperation on translating to English right now, untill I receive your answer. It´s no idea to continue working on something that is not correct--213.89.96.233 (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Hope Christian School has been the target of much controversy recently in the local media. I am attempting to place information (that is verifiable) out so that those involved (including the media and the curious public) can be better informed. Sandigwilliams has been working with me to better this article.
The reason y subjective content in the wiki voice is because people argue and it is not absolute. Like "Eric Clapton is the greatest guitarist of all time" when everyone knows its Slash! But here everyone agrees it is antisemitic - which source argues? is this still just one persons view even if this is not in doubt?Crystalfile (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You sort of answer your own question... Who argues? Nableezy argues! :) Generally, if an article tries to say something in Wikipedia's voice, and it gets challenged (like Nableezy did), the sources better be very strong, otherwise it'll probably get moved out of Wikipedia's voice and attributed to a source.
So how strong are the sources? The NY Daily News characterized it as "anti-Semitic". How many others did? YNetNews said "anti-Israel" and not "anti-Semitic." DigitalJournal carries user-supplied content and does not look like a reliable source. JPost doesn't say "anti-Semitic." The Blaze doesn't look like a reliable source and doesn't say "anti-Semitic." So, really, of the ones you brought, only NY Daily News. That's not strong enough.
I think there is a better case to instead have Wikipedia say "anti-Israel" instead of "anti-Semitic." Consider that. Zad6820:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But other describe it is as the "kill the jews" rally. If this is not antisemitic what is? Maybe calling it "kill the jews rally" is better supported? Crystalfile (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to go with what the sources say. If the sources don't say it was a "kill the Jews" rally, Wikipedia shouldn't try to say it was. Again, review the sources. I think it would be supported to characterize it as an "anti-Israel" rally. I haven't really exhaustively looked at the sources to support this, you'll have to do that, but that is what I'd look at.
Beyond that, I am troubled by your involvement at this article and a couple of others, and your interaction with Nableezy. It appears that you're engaging in some WP:BATTLEGROUND activity, instead of building a general encyclopedia. The two things that I've seen that support this are 1) the really WP:UNDUE edits at the Ahmed el-Tayeb to describe this one rally he attended one day in this way, and making no other edits to this BLP biography article; and 2) the tit-for-tat AFD nominations. I can tell you that this approach to Wikipedia will lead to a difficult and probably short editing career here. It's up to you to decide how you want to spend your time here, but you should be aware of the probable outcome of the current path you're on. Zad6814:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright in foreskin article
Zad:
You have made a mistake. Copyright is not at issue here.
I will reply at the article Talk page, in the mean-time, because WP:CPVIO is a serious issue, I'm going to revert the article edit until we're both clear on whether there's a copyright issue or not. Zad6816:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daisy, please read WP:LINKSTOAVOID, WP:LINKSPAM and WP:NOT. A link to information about volunteering in Kerala doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for external links for the general article about Kerala. The fact that similar improper links exist in other articles doesn't make it right. Sorry... Zad6818:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Zad68. I know that you expressed concern about Sugarcube73's pro-foreskin POV editing. I also have concerns about his editing and wanted to know if you are keeping a close eye on his edits at the Foreskin, Medical analysis of circumcision, Sexual effects of circumcision and any other articles closely related to circumcision.
Take this edit, for example. Do Masters and Johnson really not qualify for this material? Even with the study not being peer-reviewed, they are pioneers in the sexual field, including having debunked some sexual myths, and it's not like this circumcision research is attributed to anyone other than them. 109.123.115.21 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I'm on holiday right now... if you're seeing edits that don't meet Wikipedia guideline, won't you please help improve Wikipedia articles by reverting or fixing the bad edits? The more active contributors making improvements in line with Wikipedia policy and guideline, the better. Why not do some of the heavy lifting too? Zad6819:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not many people on Wikipedia take IPs seriously. And I know that this editor would most likely revert me and insist that he is right, and that the challenge would only end up with him "winning." I'm not as familiar with the research, but I know that you are, which is why I came to you. And if you are thinking that I should register, I'm not interested. Been there and it didn't work out for reasons that I won't disclose. 109.123.115.222 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me expressing to you how awful this is of you. You want the benefit--Wikipedia articles in an area of your interest to be cleansed of POV-pushing edits--without having to do the work or take on the responsibility. Dealing with POV pushers is very time-consuming and getting POV-pushers to stop (either voluntarily or through community-imposed sanction) requires planning and co-ordinated effort from multiple editors. I can't do this alone. And clearly you know all this already, based on your obvious Wikipedia experience you show from your edits and from your own admission. Yet you won't help, and in fact pre-emptively refuse to help, with a vague reference to some past history, and now you're hiding behind an IP and not editing, and you excuse yourself from the work by saying people don't take IPs seriously. The reality is that there is no Wikipedia rule that says everyone is allowed to revert any IP edit without reason. If you were to make good edits with good edit summaries and write article Talk page notes supporting your edits, your edits would hold even more weight than a clueless POV pusher's. And, in fact, there's a small number of well-respected IP editors who make good contributions to Wikipedia, you could be one of them if you would choose to.
So, you are not off the hook. Help. Show that you're more than just an armchair quarterback yelling at the TV about what you would have done. And, I'll meet you halfway so you don't have to make any actual article edits. I'm still away from editing articles for a little while longer. You can do some of the hard work now. Take a look the editor's history and double-check that all edits made are sourced, check that any source used meets WP guideline (WP:MEDRS specifically), check that the article content is supported by the source, check to make sure that a poor-quality source isn't being used in an WP:UNDUE way to counter the statement of a high-quality source, check to make sure that all of the important points brought up by the source are reflected in the article content. (This last one has been a particular problem in this case--selective choosing only part of what the source says to include in the article.) Post the results of your research here on my Talk page.
Hi Zad, I have worked on Eduardo López Bustamante´s page according to your advise. I would very much like that you take a look and give me your opinion. Is it possible? I want to improve it if it´s necessary. Best, Isa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.96.233 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) --213.89.96.233 (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zad, I have checked again the page carefully during the weekend. I dare say that there are no problems of neutrality or "promoting language", but you have of course the last word. I hope tags are removed soon.
I have learned a lot about wikipedia and the most important is that it´s not really good to make a translation. It´s better to learn about the subject, by reading the Spanish page and even other sources, and rewrite the article.
While the comment may not have been seen as "constructive" it is the truth and it comes virtually verbatim from the LBGT movement's own mouth. The truth behind the LBGT movement will not simply be erased by editting a wikipedia post. I have not stated anything beyond what the LBGT's own leadership has already confirmed in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6043:8:21B1:13D1:DB24:9CE3 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia... every claim needs to be to be sourced to an independent, reliable source. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. If you can provide a reliable source to support the statement, it'll have a much better chance of being seen as constructive and staying in the article. Our own personal opinions about these matters are not important. Zad6812:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zad, I want to know if you can do something to protect the page. It was a lot of work remaking it and now people are editing in a wrong way, so the information is not the truth anymore. Can you do something about it?--213.89.96.233 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already corrected the mistake. It´s at the very starting of the article and it´s like this:
A leading intellectual means something very different form
THE leading intellectual.
The first is the original and the right one in this case. It means that there were other intellectuals by the time and that this person is among those who were the outstanding leaders. I could also write "one of the leading intellectuals", though the original sounds better and I prefer it.
The second one is the correction made yesterday by Yerpo and it implies that López Bustamante was the ONLY leader in that region of Venezuela. That is not true neither corresponds to any information I found in the books. I made all the research and I created the original article in Spanish. Other small changes he made I don´t mind, but this detail turns the story to be "false". This is History and one needs to be very careful.
OK... well I have some sad news for you, it is really not possible to protect the article so that nobody else edits it in the way you are thinking. Wikipedia allows everyone to edit, including people who might make mistakes. If you are really interested in keeping mistakes out of the article, you (or somebody else) have to keep an eye on it. Sorry about that! I understand what you are feeling, believe me, I have also wished I could "freeze" an article, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Zad6802:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my indiscretion
Zad,
Please pardon my indiscretion (re the IQ of a newt comment on the thimerosal talk page).
And please refrain from giving me any (unwarranted) lectures in the middle of an important talk page.
AND, from entering a scientific debate on the grounds of policy
