Line 459: | Line 459: | ||
{{od}}Thanks for joining us Vipul. I'm between meetings right now, so this is just a brief note to say that I am interested in carrying this discussion forward. 'Simfish' (who BTW doesn't conspicuously publish his paid editing affiliations) just happened to open his "bounty" account by creating an excessively NPOV/one-sided, puffed up and badly sourced article in May 2015 on the CEO of this startup which was then awash in scandal for (i) cutting corners aggresively in its regulatory duties in a highly regulated environment [https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/09/utah-state-legislators-vote-yes-in-support-of-zenefits-operations-in-the-state/ Feb 2015], (ii) aggressively stealing customers and being "[http://fortune.com/2015/06/30/zenefits-human-resources-software/ banned, demonized, and sued]" across the US and (iii) carrying on a massive public relations blitz to keep the unicorn afloat and investors coming in, happened to get only US$25 for a Wikipedia article on its founder who exited with a $10 million "bounty" after being [https://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/80-of-zenefits-deals-in-washington-state-done-by-unlicensed#.laQA2aEJg "found"] operating with 80+% of its employees unlicenced ? Excuse me while I laugh. This is not the first time Wikipedia has been used for 'pump and dump' operations and there are even some "badsites" which document those events in painstaking detail with diffs and which is why the applicable jurisdiction has regulators, like FTC, which WMF takes pains to obey.<br /> '''Q1.''' Can you explain why the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=662101190 article version you personally signed off on] for Simfish's bounty doesn't have a hint of any of the well known troubles then surrounding Conrad's company or Conrad ? (and which troubles only escalated from that point forward). [[User:Inlinetext|Inlinetext]] ([[User talk:Inlinetext|talk]]) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
{{od}}Thanks for joining us Vipul. I'm between meetings right now, so this is just a brief note to say that I am interested in carrying this discussion forward. 'Simfish' (who BTW doesn't conspicuously publish his paid editing affiliations) just happened to open his "bounty" account by creating an excessively NPOV/one-sided, puffed up and badly sourced article in May 2015 on the CEO of this startup which was then awash in scandal for (i) cutting corners aggresively in its regulatory duties in a highly regulated environment [https://techcrunch.com/2015/02/09/utah-state-legislators-vote-yes-in-support-of-zenefits-operations-in-the-state/ Feb 2015], (ii) aggressively stealing customers and being "[http://fortune.com/2015/06/30/zenefits-human-resources-software/ banned, demonized, and sued]" across the US and (iii) carrying on a massive public relations blitz to keep the unicorn afloat and investors coming in, happened to get only US$25 for a Wikipedia article on its founder who exited with a $10 million "bounty" after being [https://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/80-of-zenefits-deals-in-washington-state-done-by-unlicensed#.laQA2aEJg "found"] operating with 80+% of its employees unlicenced ? Excuse me while I laugh. This is not the first time Wikipedia has been used for 'pump and dump' operations and there are even some "badsites" which document those events in painstaking detail with diffs and which is why the applicable jurisdiction has regulators, like FTC, which WMF takes pains to obey.<br /> '''Q1.''' Can you explain why the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=662101190 article version you personally signed off on] for Simfish's bounty doesn't have a hint of any of the well known troubles then surrounding Conrad's company or Conrad ? (and which troubles only escalated from that point forward). [[User:Inlinetext|Inlinetext]] ([[User talk:Inlinetext|talk]]) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
: Hi inlinetext, glad to see your response. I find it unfortunate that you're so suspicious of my work despite the radical transparency I (and my workers) have practiced. Let me try to address your concerns. First, a little bit of historical context. [[User:Simfish|Simfish]] has been editing Wikipedia since the mid-2000s, but stopped working on Wikipedia in the last few years. In 2015, I approached Simfish with the idea of using some of his spare time to add content to Wikipedia. We were still figuring out exactly how payment and incentives might work to better meet my goal of promoting Wikipedia as a good source of knowledge. At that early stage (when both he and I were still figuring things out) I wanted to encourage him to create longer, more detailed articles. Of the articles he initially created, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=661902490 initial Parker Conrad article] (or maybe look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=662091501 this version] which is the state of the article after his last edit) was the first one that was not terribly stubby, and in order to encourage him to create more content of at least that length, I awarded him $25. As you can see from [https://contractwork.vipulnaik.com/worker.php?worker=Alex+K.+Chen#workerTaskList here] this is marked as an "accidental/retroactive bounty", i.e., it wasn't an article I told him to create, but one I paid him for after he created it. Subsequent to that, both he and I improved our standards a lot, as you can see by looking at the later works he did for me, and the work I've gotten from other contract workers since then. Now, regarding omissions from that initial article he wrote, it's likely that he and I did not do as much research on the subject as we should have (and if I was funding an article like that now, I would push for more research). I don't think the troubles around Zenefits were that widely known at the time. Definitely, when I had created the Zenefits article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zenefits&oldid=643493795 January 21, 2015], I had tried to get all the public information on Zenefits and hadn't come across a mention of these troubles. When Simfish created the Parker Conrad article, I didn't re-research the subject but simply relied on my memory of the situation from January when I had written the original Zenefits article, so therefore I missed any more recent controversies. However, I should note that even Simfish's short initial particle on Parker Conrad did include at least one negative thing about him -- his rejection of an employee who asked a Quora question -- which I think should address accusations of it being puffery. Neither he nor I (nor anybody else paid or instigated by me) have edited or otherwise interfered with the content of the Parker Conrad article after his initial edits in May. In fact, until yesterday, I wasn't even aware of the huge controversy surrounding the article's current state. I'm glad to see that the Zenefits and Parker Conrad articles that we created in 2015 (when the company was still looking like a fast riser) have evolved over time to reflect the controversies at the company. The continued evolution of Wikipedia articles to reflect changing realities excites me, and I'm proud that the initial content that I created (with the Zenefits article) and that Simfish created (with the Parker Conrad article) have been the starting point for this evolution.[[User:Vipul|Vipul]] ([[User talk:Vipul|talk]]) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
: Hi inlinetext, glad to see your response. I find it unfortunate that you're so suspicious of my work despite the radical transparency I (and my workers) have practiced. Let me try to address your concerns. First, a little bit of historical context. [[User:Simfish|Simfish]] has been editing Wikipedia since the mid-2000s, but stopped working on Wikipedia in the last few years. In 2015, I approached Simfish with the idea of using some of his spare time to add content to Wikipedia. We were still figuring out exactly how payment and incentives might work to better meet my goal of promoting Wikipedia as a good source of knowledge. At that early stage (when both he and I were still figuring things out) I wanted to encourage him to create longer, more detailed articles. Of the articles he initially created, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=661902490 initial Parker Conrad article] (or maybe look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parker_Conrad&oldid=662091501 this version] which is the state of the article after his last edit) was the first one that was not terribly stubby, and in order to encourage him to create more content of at least that length, I awarded him $25. As you can see from [https://contractwork.vipulnaik.com/worker.php?worker=Alex+K.+Chen#workerTaskList here] this is marked as an "accidental/retroactive bounty", i.e., it wasn't an article I told him to create, but one I paid him for after he created it. Subsequent to that, both he and I improved our standards a lot, as you can see by looking at the later works he did for me, and the work I've gotten from other contract workers since then. Now, regarding omissions from that initial article he wrote, it's likely that he and I did not do as much research on the subject as we should have (and if I was funding an article like that now, I would push for more research). I don't think the troubles around Zenefits were that widely known at the time. Definitely, when I had created the Zenefits article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zenefits&oldid=643493795 January 21, 2015], I had tried to get all the public information on Zenefits and hadn't come across a mention of these troubles. When Simfish created the Parker Conrad article, I didn't re-research the subject but simply relied on my memory of the situation from January when I had written the original Zenefits article, so therefore I missed any more recent controversies. However, I should note that even Simfish's short initial particle on Parker Conrad did include at least one negative thing about him -- his rejection of an employee who asked a Quora question -- which I think should address accusations of it being puffery. Neither he nor I (nor anybody else paid or instigated by me) have edited or otherwise interfered with the content of the Parker Conrad article after his initial edits in May. In fact, until yesterday, I wasn't even aware of the huge controversy surrounding the article's current state. I'm glad to see that the Zenefits and Parker Conrad articles that we created in 2015 (when the company was still looking like a fast riser) have evolved over time to reflect the controversies at the company. The continued evolution of Wikipedia articles to reflect changing realities excites me, and I'm proud that the initial content that I created (with the Zenefits article) and that Simfish created (with the Parker Conrad article) have been the starting point for this evolution.[[User:Vipul|Vipul]] ([[User talk:Vipul|talk]]) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
||
: I also wanted to address your question about whether Simfish has clearly disclosed his paid editing. It is true that at the time of the Parker Conrad article the information was not explicitly disclosed on his user page, partly because there were some aspects of policy we weren't fully aware of. On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Simfish&direction=prev&oldid=732445705 July 11, 2015] he added the disclosure. In subsequent edits on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Simfish&direction=next&oldid=671002294 August 1, 2016] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Simfish&direction=next&oldid=732445705 January 18, 2017], we added links to more detailed coverage of the paid edits, to make it easier for people to understand the details behind each individual payment. I find it unfortunate that people who hide behind pseudonyms, failing to disclose real-world identity, continue to attack us for being transparent about our real-world identity and full details of the work we are doing. It concerns me that this creates few incentives for others to follow in our footsteps in revealing information about themselves, for fear that it would open them up to unfair attacks and accusations.[[User:Vipul|Vipul]] ([[User talk:Vipul|talk]]) 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:09, 4 March 2017
If you have the capacity to tremble with indignation every time that an injustice is committed in the world, then we are comrades. – Che.
Archived Discussions
For you
El C, contrary to your edit summary- I noticed you were gone, and missed seeing you on recent changes. You are one of my favourite editors. This is for you. Regards, dvdrw 04:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay! Many chipthanks for the kind words. Greatly appreciated. Best, El_C 06:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I noticed and missed you! (Official circular here). Novickas (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thought of you while uploading this picture [1]... for all of your work. Novickas (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks! El_C 11:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sort of in a hole and am having difficulties submerging. Speaking of holes/that chippie, I got to do some visiting in its burro recently...
- You look really good in your purple hat! Bishonen | talk 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC).
- Free hat! Today, while cheekadeepetting, this lady who saw us from a far, came over and said: "Can I tell you something...? You're an angel of God."(!) To which I of course replied: "All hail Atheismo!" [nah, I said: "thank you, maddam, that's very kind of you" — what else could I say?] I took an especially neat cheekadeepetting photograph today: it remained visible between my thumb and index as it flew away, giving the illusion it was bee-sized! What an unexpected, and sweet, effect! El_C 02:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Capitano, where do you get a large enough sweater for a person with that hand? Bishonen | talk 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC).
- And then there's Skunky! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Oooo. Purdy!
Combine obvious love of animals with photography results in photographic win! — Coren (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great to learn that peoples (plural!) like! Chickadee says hi! El_C 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
- Hello. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thx, everyone! Happy 2009! El_C 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy Groundhog Day
Happy day! Jehochman Talk 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Chippies
El C, I've been meaning to ask for ages. What is the link between revolutionary socialism and chimpunks? Did I miss that bit in Animal Farm? Is it something to do with resting the means of damn making from beavers? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- No link; but are you referring to Groundhog? (see left) There is a Groundhog-Chippie connection, which I was trying to further cultivate (see right). El_C 11:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Love is in the air ....dooooo .....dooo.dooo ......doooo ......dooo.doooo ." --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Book?
Let me know when it is out, and you will up your sales by one. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1. Four Facets of existence: 1. Matter 2. Energy 3. Space 4. Time
2. Four Dimensions: 1. 1D 2. 2D 3. 3D 4. 4D (temporal)
3. Four Fundamental interactions: 1. Strong 2. EM 3. Weak 4. Gravity
4. Four States of matter: 1. Solid 2. Liquid 3. Gas 4. Plasma
Sorry
I was trying to add the shared IP template but accidentally clicked on the wrong section... 172.58.40.192 (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- No worries. El_C 00:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit request
Hi. Thanks for adding those sources in the article about Israel. I don't want to bother you, but I have one last request, nothing else. As you can see here, there's a duplicated paragraph in the article about Hamas. Also New Zealand is missing from the paragraph. Thank you very much. Have a great day!--Yschilov (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- No problem. Done and done. El_C 23:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Operation Accountability in Yitzhak Rabin
Hi. Could you get a new source for this or an antivirus for Paine Ellsworth? It's kind of an important conflict when Rabin was Prime Minister. Thanks--Yschilov (talk) 07:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I found "Operation Accountability: Step by step," Mako, 12-09-93 (Hebrew), it mentions his role and him refusing to expand it further: Defense Minister Ehud Barack wanted to attack in Beirut too, but head of Aman, Uri Sagi disagreed. Rabin sided with Sagi. El_C 08:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
David Irving
Thanks, but your version still used "historian" as a descriptor, and there's a long standing consensus not to use the word. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's my bad (an oversight). I support your changes. Regards, El_C 09:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- All too easy to miss things, no worries. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Imagination
Italy an India in the map of Power (policy) aren't without doubt according to all the articles at the same level of Turkey or others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.97.225.68 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Me and my colleague disagree, and more crucially, so does the properly-sourced map. El_C 11:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Rev del
Hi El C: For the Kiana Brown page, I think we may have tried to rev delete a contentious edit simultaneously, whereby I rev deleted the content, and then you may have accidentally restored it in the process of also seeking to rev delete the content. (See the Deletion log for the page). Please advise if this is what occurred. North America1000 03:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
N.b. I figured my initial rev delete didn't take, which seemed to be the case when I checked the article's Revision history and then content was still there right after performing the rev del. North America1000 03:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for catching that. El_C 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, great minds think like, we had the same idea at the same time, and then took the same actions at the same time. Thanks for letting me know. North America1000 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Fer sure. All is well now. El_C 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, great minds think like, we had the same idea at the same time, and then took the same actions at the same time. Thanks for letting me know. North America1000 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you fully protected Murphy's law indefinitely. Did you mean to semi-protect the article? —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, I meant to fully protect it, but I'm gonna lift in like an hour or so. El_C 02:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for clarifying. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Tel Aviv population
Hi. In the administrative divisions of the Israel article, the last sentence says Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of and 278,903, respectively. Obviously there's a number missing, which is 432,892 according to given source. Therefore, the sentence should say Tel Aviv and Haifa rank as Israel's next most populous cities, with populations of 432,892 and 278,903, respectively. Could you please add the population of Tel Aviv? Thanks.--Yschilov (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Got it. El_C 13:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Arendt and Habermas
The following edit [2] was introduced into the Legacy section with reference to contributions of Arendt and Habermas to Marx studies. Another editor took exception and asked for quotation to be added. After it was added, the same editor indicated that some basic phrases in poitical economy were not known to him. The dialogue is below and the material appears to be useful to add to the article which currently inaccurately identifies only two sources of critique. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Both Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas have extensive Marxist credentials. When I found that Wikipedia already has articles about two of their books dealing with these issues, then I did not include quotations from those books in the Marx article since interested readers could look at the articles for their books which I linked. It seemed that an article on Marx should not need extensive quotations from these books which might distract the reader of the Marx article, although both Arendt and Habermas discuss Marx by name extensively. Is there a way to return some of this mention of Arendt and Habermas to the Marx article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- I, actually, still think we need to be more specific. I don't think it's distracting in the form of refs (explanatory and otherwise). Also, establishing their KM credentials (in modern historiography) is also worthwhile: proving they are a third main current. What they each say can be further clarified, too. El_C 15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a quote from Habermas which is to the point from 1981, Habermas, Kleine Politische Schrifen I-IV, pp. 500f., which states:
This is a little long but perhaps you could figure out a way to shorten it for including it in the Marx article. Critique of totalitarianism as asserted in Marx has been a major topic in 20th century Marx legacy assessment and should be included in the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)"The point on which I differ from traditional Marxist analysis is that, today, when we use the means of the critique of political economy, we can no longer make clear predictions: for that, one would still have to assume the autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system. I do not believe in such an autonomy. Precisely for this reason, the laws governing the economic system are no longer identical to the ones Marx analyzed. Of course, this does not mean that it would be wrong to analyze the mechanism which drives the economic system; but in order for the orthodox version of such an analysis to be valid, the influence of the political system would have to be ignored."
- Here is a quote from Habermas which is to the point from 1981, Habermas, Kleine Politische Schrifen I-IV, pp. 500f., which states:
- Sure, perhaps excerpt parts of it. But clarify what he means by "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system," first. As for totalitarianism: what do you mean by "as asserted in Marx?" For this article, I think it needs, specifically, to connect to KM. Otherwise, there may be more suitable articles. El_C 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- But an issue I took with your version related to your "limits of totalitarian perspectives" (ascribed to whom?) which I find somewhat unclear. Point is, there could be more than two or three main responses to KM and his body of work—and, no mention of the East in that discussion, just the West. El_C 16:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, going with your version with no new additions and I'll shorten the blockquote somewhat for inclusion there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- What I suggest is that you take your proposal to the article talk page first for the purpose of gaining consensus for it. El_C 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Blockquote was shortened as you requested and "autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system" is fairly basic wording in Marxist commentary as used by Habermas here. The edit appears to be worth adding to the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Moving to Marx Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's a not insignificant addition, so it's worthwhile getting some feedback and seeing what the consensus is. El_C 17:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- What I suggest is that you take your proposal to the article talk page first for the purpose of gaining consensus for it. El_C 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, going with your version with no new additions and I'll shorten the blockquote somewhat for inclusion there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
That blue color
Your page inspired me (thanks!), and, found a way to get rid of the blue color, beneath your "Vanity page," on User:El C. Can look at edit linking to "Articles I wrote," under User:Dino; the edit at bottom of User:Dino.
Caveat: If you wish to get rid of the blue color. Just trying to be helpful.
dino (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. Hit me with it! Best, El_C 02:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Answer
On User:Dino, took your wiki markup on User:El C,
<font color=696969><center>'''[[User:El_C/Vanity|Vanity page]]'''</font> {| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color: #f0f8ff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:" |- |valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:33px; border-color:#f0f8ff; background-color:##00bfff; color:#00bfff;"| {| align="center" |- |}
Can't put the carraige returns in, some wiki hassle. The above led to your "Vanity page."
On my page, used simply
<font color=696969><center>'''[[User:Dino/Articles I wrote|Articles I wrote]]'''</font>
Hope this helps. Questions, hassles, concerns about the meaning of life or how to cook with hot chili peppers, zip me a note, on my talk page. Do let me know, if all works.
dino (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Can you show me what you mean by editing my userpage directly? El_C 01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure
OK, here goes, though get a touch shy, messing with a user page that is not my own. If you don't like it, can always demolish my edit, pretty easily. Please don't tell the police!
dino (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I think, on Wikipedia, we are the police—scary thought, I know! El_C 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The deed is done
The deed is done.
dino (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, looking good! El_C 05:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
In my mind, the use of a {{clear}} statement, below the "Vanity page" code, will make for slightly nicer formatting. But, this is your call.
dino (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'll experiment with it, thanks. El_C 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
AE action appeal by Casprings
Apparently User:Casprings did not notify you of his appeal. I am chalking this up to possible inexperience (I don't know). So, it seemed easier for me to provide you with this notification, rather than try to figure out if he is editing on Wikipedia at this moment - even that would be just a guess. So, the appeal is taking place on the WP:AE page, here is the link 00:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) -----Steve Quinn (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I did ping you, but didn't do this. My apologies. I know to do this when reporting users and should have thought to do it here. My apologies.Casprings (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Thanks. El_C 01:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about the misunderstanding about what happened here. And you didn't sound like a broken record [3] :>) kinda funny! Steve Quinn (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- It started to feel like it! Thanks, I appreciate that. El_C 03:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry about the misunderstanding about what happened here. And you didn't sound like a broken record [3] :>) kinda funny! Steve Quinn (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. Thanks. El_C 01:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit war
I will not change the article over topic banned time. I will wait for the consensus. But an editor removed the discussion pages.
- No edit warring on the talk page, either(!). Though I admit that removal is troubling. El_C 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Mahmoud al-Zahar
Hi. Could you add this secondary source for Zahar's antisemitic statements. Thank you very much!--Yschilov (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not do it yourself? Why not add the entire passage?El_C 02:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)- Done. El_C 11:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit, please see the talk page. Further, I really dont see how this isnt a straightforward violation of WP:MEAT. An editor disallowed from making an edit is asking a specific user to make that edit. Extended confirmed status isnt needed to post to the talk page, the user could have posted there instead of asking for, and receiving, you making the edit for him. nableezy - 19:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- That's actually a fair point. El_C 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit, please see the talk page. Further, I really dont see how this isnt a straightforward violation of WP:MEAT. An editor disallowed from making an edit is asking a specific user to make that edit. Extended confirmed status isnt needed to post to the talk page, the user could have posted there instead of asking for, and receiving, you making the edit for him. nableezy - 19:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The Gambia
A discussion about the formal name of The Gambia is ongoing on the article’s talk-page. Your source has been discussed there, and it was concluded that it isn’t enough. So, if you want to change the formal name, please first discuss your proposal on the talk-page and any changes make only after obtain a consensus. Aotearoa (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Has my source been discussed? Where? I'm not seeing it. Anyway, glad you came to your senses about dropping Islamic Republic from the conventional longfrom. El_C 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Could you comment on this Talk:The Gambia#Is it "The Gambia" or "the Gambia" in the middle of a sentence. Just want some local concess before I start finding and replacing. I know the Gambia river should remain but the country should be made consistent one way of the other.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
UN Watch
Hello. What do you think of this gigantic removal of sourced content?--Hyaiks (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. It looks like it isn't not an isolated incident. I would suggest all participants try to reach consensus by taking to the talk page all removals and additions for this article. El_C 05:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Shiva
@El C: I'll clarify my edit, what I meant was that Hindu Sri Lankans are the ones who worship him as most Sri Lankans are Buddhist. The previous edit made it seem like Shiva is worshiped by most Sri Lankans, that's not the case. (101.160.23.20 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC))
- I was just about to suggest we change it to what you just posted. Nevermind, I agree with the new edit. :D (101.160.23.20 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC))
- Great minds... Glad it worked out! Thanks. El_C 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was just about to suggest we change it to what you just posted. Nevermind, I agree with the new edit. :D (101.160.23.20 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC))
Precious
hi ears
Thank you for quality articles such as Nothing comes from nothing and Yisrael Hasson, improving South Rhodesian politics and Chinese nature parks, serving from 2004, for the approach "educational but not pedantic" and the mantra "please stop vandalizing", for quoting indignation and for strong images, - historian, repeated from 25 May 2007 ("Whatever is a cruel wrong, ..."): you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi! /bows Thank you, so much, for these most kind words. El_C 11:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you semi-protect the page to persistent long-term abuse (Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nu metal genre warrior from Texas) 123.136.106.111 (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Sorry. But please keep an eye, and let me know whenever they make a re-appearance. Thanks. El_C 12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hezbollah's antisemitism
Hi. This is not a reliable source, don't you think? Maybe for attributed opinion, but I'm not sure. Just letting you know. I value your opinion and judgment more than mine.--186.138.118.17 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks. Yes, I do see your point. It is, however, qualified that it was stated in a letter sent to Neturei Karta (whomever added it to the article did so in the ref title). El_C 22:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Block evasion 113.210.73.46
113.210.68.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is now editing from 113.210.73.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). And now from 113.210.58.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please block and protect Thing (comics). Thank you. 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- You might as well make 113.210.73.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), if it's for your worth... Thanks. 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and also 113.210.67.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also.
- They're most likely open proxies and per WP:PROXY, these IP's cannot edit, anyway... 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Got it. Also semiprotected the page. Thanks for the heads up. El_C 06:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like you didn't get 113.210.73.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yet. 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken, I blocked that IP on 02:09, 25 February 2017. El_C 06:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like you didn't get 113.210.73.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yet. 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. Got it. Also semiprotected the page. Thanks for the heads up. El_C 06:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- They're most likely open proxies and per WP:PROXY, these IP's cannot edit, anyway... 208.54.5.210 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, and also 113.210.67.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also.
Unprotect page
I would like to edit Abdullah page, reduce protection. 110.139.129.197 (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Declined. Use the talk page to propose your changes and gain consensus for them, instead. El_C 08:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Could you look into semi-protecting this article again? The edit warring/disruption has continued after your previous protection expired. Thanks. 172.58.40.193 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked the user for a day, instead—but let me know if issues persist. El_C 19:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for WP:ANI#Overturn_Rfc_restarted
I appreciate what you said about "no fault should be attributed to the closer". In trying to maintain neutrality on the RfC subject, I realize I may have given the impression I did not care about the close. As to reopening it, well, I am glad to see hope springs eternal in the heart of the stalwart admin corps, apparently. In all seriousness, I doubt this will bring resolution. It will simply transfer the animosity and poor behavior back to whence it came. I advise keeping a close eye on the re-opened RfC. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Glad to bring it to an end. If I hadn't said it already, I'll say it now: I take exception as to how you were spoken to by some of the no consensus side, and I feel bad that I may have precipitated some of that. So, for that you have my apologies. Hopefully, you can put all that unpleasantness behind you. El_C 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- I thank you for that. If I wasn't bothered by being called "moronic" and other labels of that nature, I wouldn't be human. It was really only two editors, and while I will likely not be well-disposed towards them, I think I can let it go. There were more editors that endorsed the close, and those that did not like it were very closely-involved in the issue. I will, however, let a braver editor than I close the next (inevitable) discussion. Thanks once again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Adding my kudos to both you and Softlavender. The "can't we assume AGF" card had been played on obvious SPAs, which means that ANI was going nowhere fast. Both of you made the right call in shutting down the thread. It reminded of why I try my best to not get involved in ethnic disputes on here. Even as a third opinion :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- In fairness, she did most of the heavy lifting. But thanks, I appreciate it. El_C 15:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Cat: People of Jewish descent
Hi, since you reclosed the RFC at Category People_of_Jewish_descent, can you please remove the two Asian and ME descent cats from the page? Right now the cat is protected.
Thanks, Sir Joseph
- I'm not sure to what you refer. El_C 18:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The RFC is now closed as non-consensus, therefore the category should be the way it was for years, before the RFC was closed originally and the two descent categories added. If those two cats are to be included, it needs a new RFC or consensus.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. I still don't understand what you want me to do. El_C 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Cat: People of Jewish descent is currently protected, so only an admin can remove those two categories. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please ask the protecting admin to lift the protection so that you can remove them yourself. El_C 19:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Cat: People of Jewish descent is currently protected, so only an admin can remove those two categories. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Okay. I still don't understand what you want me to do. El_C 19:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- The RFC is now closed as non-consensus, therefore the category should be the way it was for years, before the RFC was closed originally and the two descent categories added. If those two cats are to be included, it needs a new RFC or consensus.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarification on the close
Hi, I'm sorry to bother you once more, but I'm a bit confused about the meaning of the no consensus closure. It looks like there are two groups of users with different understandings:
Opinions on the meaning of "no consensus"
|
---|
If I am understanding correctly, several users say no consensus means to keep the "Asian" and "Middle Eastern" categories until a consensus is reached to remove them (italics and square braces mine):
However, User:Debresser and User:Sir Joseph seem to understand no consensus to apply to the original survey which said to keep the categories. According to them, no consensus means to overturn the survey and remove the categories (emphasis theirs, square brackets mine):
|
Since the close of the RfC, User:Sir Joseph has succeeded in removing protections on the category and has deleted the Asian and Middle Eastern categories from it. Was this the intent of the "no consensus" closure? I am confused, because I thought those actions would be more appropriate for an "overturn" closure. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I realize this may complicate things, but the reason I overturned was only due to the improper participation. That overturning made no other comment on what keep, or no consensus to keep, meant concretely. Only that the overall discussion failed to reach a consensus. If pressed, though, I would say that, personally, I understood it to lean toward removal rather than inclusion—but that should not be taken as a position of the closure which was procedural in nature. El_C 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm afraid it did complicate things. If the closure was procedural, without an opinion on the concrete issue, I guess this means we would need another RfC to resolve that concrete issue of whether to keep the categories? Did your closure basically reset the whole discussion back to how things were before the survey closed? Musashiaharon (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Since I have used administrative discretion to overturn the closure on procedural grounds, I feel can offer no opinion on whether a new RfC is warranted or what may or may not had been reset. My only comment is that the discussion failed to reach consensus due to improper participation. El_C 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! Musashiaharon (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Musashiaharon (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- As an aside, I have replaced the categories that were removed by Sir Joseph. If the RFC wants to be re-done fine, but a no-consensus to remove from the RFC is a no-consensus to remove. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's no consensus to have those categories. They were not in the page for years before the rfc. That's another reason the rfc was written so horribly.Sir Joseph (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for being so obtuse about this, but I have had little familiarity with the RfC beyond learning of consensus having been arrived at, in part, due to improper participation, which couldn't stand—I think NeilN was able to bring some well needed common sense to this by reverting to the version before the RfC was listed. El_C 16:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WikiThugs on Ahmad Mohamad Clock Incident. NeilN talk to me 20:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. El_C 21:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
IPs
You blocked two IPs in connection with Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria. They are in the same range and I'm not sure how much good single blocks do, particularly since each made only one edit, and, for example, you failed to block other IPs in the same range. Regardless, we do not block IPs indefinitely. In this particular instance, although a block is understandable, a long-term block isn't even warranted. Those are generally used for long-term abuse, webhosts, proxies, etc. Please modify the blocks. Semi-protection, which you also imposed, was a better way to go. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Point taken. El_C 07:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
sockpuppets
I ask for help in the tigrayans page is a user who creates from about 1year multiple users to ruin the work of others: the user is Users:Otakrem User:Puhleec User:Resourcer1--Ferdi tal (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Have you considered filing a Sock Investigation report? El_C 10:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ferdi tal El_C No need, as they are not me and have already been banned. Ferdi tal, that is probably like the 6th sockpuppet you've made, surprised you are not IP banned yet. Another thing, why would I be the same 2 people I filed investigations about? Go check the investigation report page before throwing accusations. Resourcer1 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ferdi tal has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of Mulugheta alula roma. El_C 17:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Ferdi tal El_C No need, as they are not me and have already been banned. Ferdi tal, that is probably like the 6th sockpuppet you've made, surprised you are not IP banned yet. Another thing, why would I be the same 2 people I filed investigations about? Go check the investigation report page before throwing accusations. Resourcer1 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
POV puffery in Regulation Law
Hi. What do you think of these edits? Don't you think is a little bit redundant? After all, there's an article for the West Bank, those additions don't seem necessary. Would you mind trimming the article like it was before Al-Andalus modified it? Thanks--186.137.95.198 (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is redundant—but it is unsourced, so that's a problem. El_C 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
LogicSoup is fishy
LogicSoup created an article about a non-notable professor and is now cleaning it from any mention of the widely Reported sexual assault. Look at his edit history. Talk:Francesco_Parisi#Criminal_Allegations Plz help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.144.10 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- That is the reason why I protected it, in the first place—please read our living people crime policy to understand why that allegation must remain redacted for the time being (pending a verdict). The extent to which LogicSoup is connected to the subject is besides that point. Similarly, it is besides the point as to the subject's notability, which I make no comment on, except to suggest that you may wish to pursue articles for deletion if, indeed, you deem him to be below that threshold. Hope that helps. El_C 16:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring
With regards the Stolen Generations article, be aware you have reverted the article twice, a third time would subject you to sanctions. 2001:8003:6518:7A00:B149:3483:AA1B:C81E (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Actually the three revert rule permits up to three reverts, it's the fourth that's subject to sanctions. And my argument has been well-reasoned as to the onus being on you to balance the section. I did self-revert as to not edit war, however, placing the NPOV-section tag plus a note on the talk page, instead. El_C 08:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Clarification on editing article please
15:32, 2 March 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+163) . . N User talk:24.135.192.58 (Sorry, you can't add that link across multiple articles) (current)
- Hi, OK, I understand, but just a clarification please:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fez,_Morocco#Climate
- has multiple dead references on a subject of climate
- Correcting and/or adding data and then referencing to (our) source is also prohibited?
- Thanks,
- Nino
- 24.135.192.58 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not prohibited—that's actually encouraged. Please do. El_C 16:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'll log in, make changes and then ask you (if it's not too much trouble) to look into it. Tnx.
- p.s.
- It there a limit on number of articles that have citation/reference to one portal?
- * we can really put an effort and thoroughly inspect and contribute to thousands of articles of cities with(out) climate data
- 24.135.192.58 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- In theory, there's no limit. As long as it's not used to replace existing refs. Of course, the expectation is that you add the data, then reference it with a reliable source. El_C 16:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello again
- I've edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fez,_Morocco#Climate
- Added data to table Climate data and referenced (as required)
- Can you please verify if is it OK? (any suggestions)
- Thanks,
- D.Nino (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Looking good; but you should have removed all the refs that have dead links in them, so that we know they're no good. Whenever you see refs with dead links, please remove them on sight. Thanks. El_C 13:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- thanks for your answer
- I didn't remove dead link for 2 reasons
- 1) I'm newbie here
- 2) Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links >> Wikipedia:Link_rot#Keeping_dead_links
- "Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with [dead link] for a long time."
- It's not a problem for me to check and remove dead refs links, but I'll wait to have few more successful edits under my belt
- if you reconfirm "removing on sight refs with dead links" I'll start now
- D.Nino (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. It just troubling to consider the reader facing 4 refs with dead links out of five, then having to go one at a time until getting to the one that works (yours!). El_C 14:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify: It's probably okay to remove a dead link that you're replacing with a live one (otherwise, yes, sometimes dead links can be followed up to cached content). El_C 14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello
Please stop vandalizing my page. Thanks. 212.178.251.41 (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am not vandalizing your page, I am asking what you're trying to do. El_C 09:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- When you start sounding official I will leave your comment. As for your question "what am I trying to do" you are clearly out of the loop. Read the discussion on talk page of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 212.178.251.41 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are adding that tag—please explain. El_C 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I kept adding tag because I made a mistake, just wanted to revert some other content. My bad. 212.178.251.41 (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- No sweat. That's all you had to say. You added it twice, reverting the 2nd time, so naturally I was concerned. El_C 09:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I kept adding tag because I made a mistake, just wanted to revert some other content. My bad. 212.178.251.41 (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are adding that tag—please explain. El_C 09:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- When you start sounding official I will leave your comment. As for your question "what am I trying to do" you are clearly out of the loop. Read the discussion on talk page of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 212.178.251.41 (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks for being my training wheels through the process of learning to edit D.Nino (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC) |
- Many thanks! That's very kind of you. And thank you for choosing to contribute to the project! El_C 14:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Legal threat?
Inlinetext says "removal of my COI warnings is a serious breach of FTC regulations" on Talk:Parker_Conrad. Is this a legal threat? The "paid editors" he is talking about were paid by someone doing philanthropic work simply to improve the quality of certain articles. Doc James was in contact with Vipul (see Vipul's talk page) and everything seems to be in order. Jrheller1 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know that it is. Possibly. I need more context pertaining to the dispute (with links). In theory, s/he is quoting from m:ToU—but did you remove COI warnings? And if so, why? I read Vipul on paid editing and I am afraid that I am not seeing how it directly connects to this dispute. Nor do I understand what this dispute is even about. El_C 20:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Inlinetext's comments on Talk:Parker_Conrad. He (just guessing gender) is falsely claiming that there were "unlawful" paid edits on the page. According to the link Inlinetext provided [7], an editor was paid a 25$ bounty by Vipul Naik for improving the page (which obviously is not illegal editing on behalf of a corporation). Jrheller1 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had already read that talk page—who removed COI notices, where & when? And why? I need details. Perhaps Inlinetext can better explain this him or herself. El_C 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Inlinetext deleted more than half the page (and placed the COI notice based on the false claim of illegal paid editing) and I reverted his edits (all within the last few days). I'm interpreting his edits as a more sophisticated than usual type of vandalism. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- In order: 1. Removed more than half-of-what page? (Parker Conrad?) 2. Placed COI notice on which page? 3. And you had removed said notice why? El_C 21:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the page in question is Parker Conrad (for both deletions and COI notice). I removed it because there was no improper paid editing and this user has done the same sort of thing on multiple previous occasions. For example, he falsely accused the primary author of Geodesics on an ellipsoid of copyright violation (while deleting more than half of the Geodesics on an ellipsoid article and also placing a copyright violation template on the page). Jrheller1 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though you've been light on evidence. (Personally, I like diffs.) But did the COI notice intimate improper paid editing or just paid editing? This is where evidence comes in. I'd still like to learn his or her side of it before rendering a decision. El_C 21:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, this is from the AN3 report I closed(!)—I didn't clue into that (I close a few). Now I'm remembering more. Anyway, I left Inlinetext another note. El_C 01:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, the page in question is Parker Conrad (for both deletions and COI notice). I removed it because there was no improper paid editing and this user has done the same sort of thing on multiple previous occasions. For example, he falsely accused the primary author of Geodesics on an ellipsoid of copyright violation (while deleting more than half of the Geodesics on an ellipsoid article and also placing a copyright violation template on the page). Jrheller1 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- In order: 1. Removed more than half-of-what page? (Parker Conrad?) 2. Placed COI notice on which page? 3. And you had removed said notice why? El_C 21:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Inlinetext deleted more than half the page (and placed the COI notice based on the false claim of illegal paid editing) and I reverted his edits (all within the last few days). I'm interpreting his edits as a more sophisticated than usual type of vandalism. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- I had already read that talk page—who removed COI notices, where & when? And why? I need details. Perhaps Inlinetext can better explain this him or herself. El_C 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- See Inlinetext's comments on Talk:Parker_Conrad. He (just guessing gender) is falsely claiming that there were "unlawful" paid edits on the page. According to the link Inlinetext provided [7], an editor was paid a 25$ bounty by Vipul Naik for improving the page (which obviously is not illegal editing on behalf of a corporation). Jrheller1 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I am busy in real life for 2 days (48 hours). If you want, I will assemble some diffs before the 5 days page protection expires. I mention, in passing, that it is incorrect to say I "removed" more than half of Parker Conrad. The page history will show that I made a series of edits, each with detailed edit summaries explaining my objections to specific portions of text on that page. 'Jrheller1' consistently refuses to discuss content issues with me and simply reverts all my edits either without comment or by describing them as 'vandalism'. I don't see how setting out, during discussion in a content dispute, the relevant operative portion of the WMFs official FAQ on paid editing constitutes any kind of legal threat. Since the sum involved for the paid edits promoted by User:Vipul are not insignificant and run into tens of thousands of dollars, well exceeding the Orange Moody paid editing scandal I am of the view that the case of User:Vipul and his extensive network of paid edits /editors must be investigated and dealt with by the Foundation because the Parker Conrad article is stated by User:Vipul to be first paid article of this "worker" who has thereafter received over $10,000 for paid editing from Vipul. Incidentally, I am not the only editor who has problems with Vipul and his network of meats, see link for extensive edits in September 2013 to Bryan Caplan with meat-puppetry by Simfish. Eventually User:Id4abel cleaned up the Bryan Caplan article in much the same way as I did Parker Conrad. I also make the point that Jrheller1 is yet to explain his past edit history at Wikipedia. He is clearly an expert editor in the maths domain first edit of Jrheller1 like User:Vipul is. This entire episode is very troublng and it is best handled by the Foundation and not on just one Administrator's talk page since it may be the tip of a larger paid editing scandal than OrangeMoody. I am also not clear why Doc James' input is relevant considering that he was removed from WMF's BoT and does not speak for the Foundation.Inlinetext (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. Those levels of payments, if true, are indeed disconcerting. But what about my questions no. 1 and 2? I am the protecting admin, so for better or worse, I am administratively involved (for) now. But by all means, feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation at: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us El_C 04:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- As I mentioned I am busy IRL. I am very clear in my understanding of Q1 and Q2 but would like to properly frame my response, eg in terms of ToU issues transcending local community policies / guidelines and failed drafts. The $10,000+ is the payment to just one editor 'Simfish'. You can see an example of another of Vipul's paid meats ANI final warning. It is clear that Vipul is paying some highly abusive and troublesome editors for some as yet undisclosed agenda. Will consider approaching WMF if this matter cannot be resolved within the community by discussion. Inlinetext (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ethanbas, really? Interesting. Fair enough, take your time. El_C 05:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello everybody! I see my paid editing has been discussed here, so I wanted to clarify a few things: (1) The figure of $10,000 for Simfish (real name: Alex K. Chen) includes all work he has done; if you restrict only to Wikipedia editing and related payments the amount is closer to $6400. A full breakdown is available here. (2) I don't control all edits by people I pay; the edit war and controversy that Ethanbas (real name: Ethan Bashkansky) got into were of his own volition and not paid for or otherwise requested by me. I did privately dissuade him from warring, and will continue to offer him candid feedback on the subject, but I don't control all his actions. Also note that most of the articles for which he got into edit fights were ones I am not paying for, but ones he created because he has become excited about contributing to Wikipedia (admittedly, his initial foray into contributing to Wikipedia was through paid work for me, but he's now editing it a lot of his own volition). (3) I don't know who Jrheller1 is (it's possible it is somebody who knows me, but I don't recognize the handle, and I haven't been in communication with this person). You can get a full list of the people I have paid for edits (with one exception, who requested the payment be made private, but this person has edited only one page and has not been part of any controversy) at contractwork.vipulnaik.com. Every editor who does paid work for me is required to disclose the fact on his or her talk page and link to my list of the worker's contributions and their payments. (4) Calling paid editors "meats" is disrespectful and misleading. I'm fully transparent about the work I fund, including revealing the real names and full identity (including social media identity and email addresses) of all workers, and all amounts paid (with one small exception as noted above). (5) My motives are pretty plainly stated at contractwork.vipulnaik.com and the articles I wrote that I linked at the top.Vipul (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Only $6,500(?!). To quote Homer Simpson:
"Can I have some money now?"
[8] [9] El_C 08:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)- I don't give out money for free. If you want to make money off of me, you have to earn it. You can look at my list of new articles and improvements to existing articles that I would like to pay for. If you are interested in working on them, you can contact me via Facebook or email at vipulnaik1@gmail.com.Vipul (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Only $6,500(?!). To quote Homer Simpson:
- Hello everybody! I see my paid editing has been discussed here, so I wanted to clarify a few things: (1) The figure of $10,000 for Simfish (real name: Alex K. Chen) includes all work he has done; if you restrict only to Wikipedia editing and related payments the amount is closer to $6400. A full breakdown is available here. (2) I don't control all edits by people I pay; the edit war and controversy that Ethanbas (real name: Ethan Bashkansky) got into were of his own volition and not paid for or otherwise requested by me. I did privately dissuade him from warring, and will continue to offer him candid feedback on the subject, but I don't control all his actions. Also note that most of the articles for which he got into edit fights were ones I am not paying for, but ones he created because he has become excited about contributing to Wikipedia (admittedly, his initial foray into contributing to Wikipedia was through paid work for me, but he's now editing it a lot of his own volition). (3) I don't know who Jrheller1 is (it's possible it is somebody who knows me, but I don't recognize the handle, and I haven't been in communication with this person). You can get a full list of the people I have paid for edits (with one exception, who requested the payment be made private, but this person has edited only one page and has not been part of any controversy) at contractwork.vipulnaik.com. Every editor who does paid work for me is required to disclose the fact on his or her talk page and link to my list of the worker's contributions and their payments. (4) Calling paid editors "meats" is disrespectful and misleading. I'm fully transparent about the work I fund, including revealing the real names and full identity (including social media identity and email addresses) of all workers, and all amounts paid (with one small exception as noted above). (5) My motives are pretty plainly stated at contractwork.vipulnaik.com and the articles I wrote that I linked at the top.Vipul (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ethanbas, really? Interesting. Fair enough, take your time. El_C 05:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- As I mentioned I am busy IRL. I am very clear in my understanding of Q1 and Q2 but would like to properly frame my response, eg in terms of ToU issues transcending local community policies / guidelines and failed drafts. The $10,000+ is the payment to just one editor 'Simfish'. You can see an example of another of Vipul's paid meats ANI final warning. It is clear that Vipul is paying some highly abusive and troublesome editors for some as yet undisclosed agenda. Will consider approaching WMF if this matter cannot be resolved within the community by discussion. Inlinetext (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for joining us Vipul. I'm between meetings right now, so this is just a brief note to say that I am interested in carrying this discussion forward. 'Simfish' (who BTW doesn't conspicuously publish his paid editing affiliations) just happened to open his "bounty" account by creating an excessively NPOV/one-sided, puffed up and badly sourced article in May 2015 on the CEO of this startup which was then awash in scandal for (i) cutting corners aggresively in its regulatory duties in a highly regulated environment Feb 2015, (ii) aggressively stealing customers and being "banned, demonized, and sued" across the US and (iii) carrying on a massive public relations blitz to keep the unicorn afloat and investors coming in, happened to get only US$25 for a Wikipedia article on its founder who exited with a $10 million "bounty" after being "found" operating with 80+% of its employees unlicenced ? Excuse me while I laugh. This is not the first time Wikipedia has been used for 'pump and dump' operations and there are even some "badsites" which document those events in painstaking detail with diffs and which is why the applicable jurisdiction has regulators, like FTC, which WMF takes pains to obey.
Q1. Can you explain why the article version you personally signed off on for Simfish's bounty doesn't have a hint of any of the well known troubles then surrounding Conrad's company or Conrad ? (and which troubles only escalated from that point forward). Inlinetext (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi inlinetext, glad to see your response. I find it unfortunate that you're so suspicious of my work despite the radical transparency I (and my workers) have practiced. Let me try to address your concerns. First, a little bit of historical context. Simfish has been editing Wikipedia since the mid-2000s, but stopped working on Wikipedia in the last few years. In 2015, I approached Simfish with the idea of using some of his spare time to add content to Wikipedia. We were still figuring out exactly how payment and incentives might work to better meet my goal of promoting Wikipedia as a good source of knowledge. At that early stage (when both he and I were still figuring things out) I wanted to encourage him to create longer, more detailed articles. Of the articles he initially created, the initial Parker Conrad article (or maybe look at this version which is the state of the article after his last edit) was the first one that was not terribly stubby, and in order to encourage him to create more content of at least that length, I awarded him $25. As you can see from here this is marked as an "accidental/retroactive bounty", i.e., it wasn't an article I told him to create, but one I paid him for after he created it. Subsequent to that, both he and I improved our standards a lot, as you can see by looking at the later works he did for me, and the work I've gotten from other contract workers since then. Now, regarding omissions from that initial article he wrote, it's likely that he and I did not do as much research on the subject as we should have (and if I was funding an article like that now, I would push for more research). I don't think the troubles around Zenefits were that widely known at the time. Definitely, when I had created the Zenefits article on January 21, 2015, I had tried to get all the public information on Zenefits and hadn't come across a mention of these troubles. When Simfish created the Parker Conrad article, I didn't re-research the subject but simply relied on my memory of the situation from January when I had written the original Zenefits article, so therefore I missed any more recent controversies. However, I should note that even Simfish's short initial particle on Parker Conrad did include at least one negative thing about him -- his rejection of an employee who asked a Quora question -- which I think should address accusations of it being puffery. Neither he nor I (nor anybody else paid or instigated by me) have edited or otherwise interfered with the content of the Parker Conrad article after his initial edits in May. In fact, until yesterday, I wasn't even aware of the huge controversy surrounding the article's current state. I'm glad to see that the Zenefits and Parker Conrad articles that we created in 2015 (when the company was still looking like a fast riser) have evolved over time to reflect the controversies at the company. The continued evolution of Wikipedia articles to reflect changing realities excites me, and I'm proud that the initial content that I created (with the Zenefits article) and that Simfish created (with the Parker Conrad article) have been the starting point for this evolution.Vipul (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- I also wanted to address your question about whether Simfish has clearly disclosed his paid editing. It is true that at the time of the Parker Conrad article the information was not explicitly disclosed on his user page, partly because there were some aspects of policy we weren't fully aware of. On July 11, 2015 he added the disclosure. In subsequent edits on August 1, 2016 and January 18, 2017, we added links to more detailed coverage of the paid edits, to make it easier for people to understand the details behind each individual payment. I find it unfortunate that people who hide behind pseudonyms, failing to disclose real-world identity, continue to attack us for being transparent about our real-world identity and full details of the work we are doing. It concerns me that this creates few incentives for others to follow in our footsteps in revealing information about themselves, for fear that it would open them up to unfair attacks and accusations.Vipul (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)