User talk:Vermont/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 6    Archive 7    Archive 8 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)


Please comment on Talk:Richard Tomlins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard Tomlins. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.Legal stuff: No purchase necessary.  Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF)  (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Eurodac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eurodac. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia External Links Project

There is a group called the "Wikipedia external links project" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_External_links) whose stated aims are to improve the quality of external links. However, judging by their actions, the real objective is to eradicate all external links from wikipedia. They are especially hostile to any commercial links which they incorrectly term promotional. It is possible for a commercial organisation to have a website that contains factual information without being pushy or promotional. Commercial does not necessarily imply promotional.

Certain members of this group are going around deleting external links from random articles. In one instance that I know about, that is all that the person actually does - delete EL and occasionally issues warnings to editors' talk pages cautioning them against adding "these types of links" to article. The advice, whether in the edit summary or on the editor's talk page is generally very vague and the editor cannot be expected to know what is actually meant by "these types of links"

Now I am quite concerned about this practice for a variety of reasons:

1. The Wikipedia guideline on EL clearly states that "some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links) This clearly implies that there is no blanket ban on external links. The mere fact that a group dedicated to improving the quality of links (The WP EL Project) indicates that links are permissable.

2. The WP guideline - is just that it is a guideline, not a law and not a policy. WP has few policies - but it does have many guidelines (too many as to be confusing in many cases). Now, a guideline means that everything is open to interpretation and that there will always be exceptions.

3. Given that there is some flexibility in the guidelines, every case needs to assessed on its merits. But it is very clear that the EL deleters are not evaluating anything - they are simply deleting entire sections of links, regardless of the reason, and not offering any plausible explanation. In fact, they are engaging in what wikipedia might term drive-by deletion or tagging. WP:DRIVEBY

4. These people have the upper hand because most editors are reluctant to revert or challenge the deletions. Maybe they are unsure of the policies or maybe they are not confident mounting counter-arguments - but there is a real tendency to simply accept whatever these people say. And, in the few instances when I have challenged the deletion of external links they come up with the same old arguments - if the link is not notable it should not be there - and if the link is notable, then the editor should develop an article for it and subsequently use a wikilink to the newly created article, thus obviating the need for any external link. (Seriously, that process would take about 6 years at the rate new articles are being cleared?) Clearly this group has very well-rehearsed arguments which suggests that they are colluding in their ambitions to eradicate all links.

5. The notion that an editor can follow others around, deleting all their links (or content) without offering any real explanation is tantamount to bulling WP:BULLY

Ultimately, my concern is that the deletionist mentality is driving editors away. If this is allowed to continue unstopped, then there will not be any contributors left - just deletionists with an ever decreasing amount of content on which to work.

I have given up editing several times now - and it has always been triggered by unreasonable deletionists who delete content for spurious reasons and refuse to engage in any genuine debate over the issues. I have no problem with the guidelines on External links, which as I see it, are primarily concerned with ensuring that any links are high quality and that the list does not become overly long and cumbersome or filled with spam. But, my concern is that these deletionist type editors are actually failing to observe many of Wikipedia's guidelines on good conduct, in order to impose their bizarre interpretations of the EL policy. It seems that for the deletionists, the 'end justifies the means.'

I wrote to Wikipedia Help about this matter sometime ago - and was informed that I needed to read the policies more carefully!

Is there anything that can be done to stop this 'out of control' deletionist mindset that plagues Wikipedia? It's no longer just about deleting articles, but it has filtered down to deleting sections of articles - external links are in the firing line, but see also links are also open game as are any references to primary sources or blogs. BronHiggs (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I am amazed that this matter could be closed without a thorough investigation and with a few flippant throw away lines. I am constantly left wondering why Wikipedia bothers to have policies at all since they are clearly not being applied correctly - not even by administrators. TimothyJoseph Wood, for example, says that several editors have argued that the links don't belong, and that one editor (me) has argued at length that they do belong. That is how it works! Well, in my view, Mr Wood is another example of a person who is clearly misinterpreting policies.
  • First, the argument that this content "Does not belong here" is a non-argument according to WP policies. (see WP:BELONG. The relevant passage specifically states that Such arguments are purely personal point-of-view. They make no use of policies, guidelines, or even logic. The message behind any of these is that "I don't like it, therefore it should not be included". On Wikipedia, inclusion is determined by a series of policies and guidelines set by consensus, not by people saying "I think this belongs" or "I do not think this belongs". All of that is personal opinion, and the only comment less helpful than personal opinion is a simple vote. Clearly Mr Wood's interpretation of the discussion is entirely at odds with this policy.
  • Second, Mr Wood has fallen into the same trap as the deletionist editors that are opposed to the 7 external links on the Market segmentation page. He simply quotes a policy/ guideline, while failing to explain how it applies in the specific instance. These editors simply state that the links constitute a link farm WP:LINKFARM or are not consistent with [[WP:ELNO; WP:MOSLINK#External links section; WP:MOSLINK#External links section or other policy. In the same way, Mr Wood has asserted that these links don't belong in the article per WP:ELNO (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#External_Links for the direct quote in context). This statement is not consistent with WP Policies which specifically states that, While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.
  • Third, Mr Wood appears to be assuming that a matter is settled by a simple vote. Once again, this assumption does not appear to be in accordance with WP policies. (see WP:JUSTAVOTE) This policy specifically states that This [number of votes] is not an argument for or against deletion at all, it's a vote. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. ...

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

None of the editors in favour of deleting the links has been able to supply logical, sustained arguments for deletion (other than "does not belong"). Instead they have relied on each other to provide some sort of critical mass to the debate. I have provided detailed, logical and persuasive arguments which they ignore in favour of repeating the "does not belong" line (which as previously mentioned is a non-argument). Now it seems Mr Wood is also assuming that weight of numbers, rather than quality of argument, is what really matters. Yet this flies in the face of WP policies - and administrators should know better!

I feel that I am being punished for writing about my own experiences and practices in response to a query from CulturalResearch. MrOllie is the editor who has been deleting large swathes of CR's contributions and it is also he that first deleted the 7 external links from the article on Market segmentation without clearly stating his reasons. I believe that MrOllie has enlisted the help of his friends at WP External Links Project to get back at me. I suspect that this matter has now been prejudged on the Administrators' Noticeboard and that I will never get a fair hearing.

This matter is very important, because these people are operating outside the guidelines - they are not operating within the spirit or the letter of the guidelines on external links and they are using bullying, harrassment and disruptive editing to impose their will. They all have agendas. Several of them have placed notes on their userpage about their opposition to external links (although one has since deleted all content from his userpage). This suggests that there is a conflict of interest which means that these guys are not acting in WP's best interests - but instead are pursuing some kind of personal agenda.

After all, we are talking about 7 high quality, relevant links in an article of more than 10,000 words. It's hard to understand how there could be so much opposition to such a small thing.

I intend to take this matter further. It is important to clarify the policy on links, and ensure that it is being interpreted fairly. The only thing that has stopped me in the past (and is what stopped me from making a formal complaint about that bully from a couple of months ago) is that I don't know how to do diffs. I understand what they are and how to use them; but I actually don't know how to put them in the body of a message as linked items. I do not feel that I can take this matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Can you suggest another place where I can raise this issue and get a fair, rational and logical ruling on how to interpret the WP guidelines on External links?

Rating of articles

Thanks for the advice about having some of the articles reviewed for a possible improvement in their rankings.

To be honest, I have very little interest in doing this. I read somewhere recently that there is currently a backlog of more than one year for article reviews - which seems like too long to wait. But in reality, I did not come onto Wikipedia for accolades or awards. My goal has been, and remains, a desire to rid some of the marketing articles of their problems - especially factually incorrect content, conceptually problematic content and glaring ommissions. I am trying to make articles more useful to users, especially students who I know from first hand experience, rely on them for the preparation of essays and reports, and who, all too often, are quoting misinformation which has a deleterous impact on their grades.

The poor quality of WP articles is not only affecting students, but for a number of years now, I have seen academics rely on WP's incorrect information in their teaching materials, and sometimes in draft journal articles and text-books. [I am a professional editor and review text-books for several multi-national publishers; prepare teaching notes (e.g. PPT, case studies, solutions' manuals and instructors' manuals to accompany text books) for said publishers and edit journal articles for academics at a number of Australian universities. Therefore, I get to read lots of drafts prior to publication and see first hand, how errors can be introduced via Wikipedia and am probably more acutely aware of the scale of the problem than the average readers.] To me, it is extremely disturbing that Wikipedia is single-handedly rewriting marketing theory and practice by allowing such poor quality articles to stand and taking so long to delete articles that have been marked for deletion due to their problematic nature. So you see that while I work towards improving WP articles, my ultimate goal is to ensure that the marketing discipline, as a whole, is not being hijacked by misinformation courtesy of Wikipedia. Original research may be a problem within Wikipedia, but there is a much bigger problem at stake, Wikipedia itself is contributing to original research within subject disciplines.

I prefer to work on articles that are not heavily patrolled because there is so much to do, and I cannot afford to waste time engaging with petty pedants and editors with a deletionist mindset. If I ask for an article to be reviewed, this will draw attention to it - and attract criticism from a broader range of people. I have little interest in responding to all this as it takes my time and attention away from making substantive improvements to existing articles that are desperately in need of attention.

Even if these articles had a higher ranking, it would not stop the External links deleters. The article on Market segmentation was just the third article that I ever worked on - and it was basically completed back in October last year - there may have been a few tweaks since then to remove vandalism etc, but I am no longer adding to this article in any substantive way. It was only a couple of weeks ago that MrOllie started his program to have all the external links removed from that article, and this was several months after the article was finalised. By the time Ollie got to it, I had moved onto other projects. Nothing will stop them. They are systematically searching articles for links to delete - eventually they will get to all of them. It is not possible for contributors to control when they get to an article of interest to that contributor.

These deleters are much more likely to stop me, than I am to stop them. MrOllie's actions already caused me to quit for a few weeks about a month back. I am very close to quitting again. But this time, I will take this issue as far as I can, before I consider quitting as a realistic option. I am more confident about Wiki policies and feel that I can mount a reasonable argument based on policies. I have been considering the prospect of editing articles for one of the rival wikis and may yet do this. I am now semi-retired (not working full time) and have the time for a bit of editing. I love marketing, really enjoy theory and also enjoy writing about it. I don't want to quit writing, it is just a question of finding an outlet that works for me. BronHiggs (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on external links

Just so that you are aware, I believe that these external links deleters have now embarked on a program of deleting all links from any page that I have worked on. One of them has just deleted the entire section of links from the page on Consumer behaviour See (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumer_behaviour&curid=754957&diff=764423739&oldid=763572723) This consisted of 9 links - each and every one of them to a peak industry association and each and every one with a description of the association's main roles and an indication of the content to be found on the website. These people are very vindictive. I believe that this type of behaviour is known as hounding or harrassment. WP:HOUND WP:HARASS. I do not think that this type of conduct will help their case. BronHiggs (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BronHiggs:It seems I didn't do too much research into this myself. Corporations aren't to be mentioned in external links section, usually, unless it's about a product the company made, on a BLP where that person worked, or something like that. For now, please, to stop this little edit war, if you want you can stop editing the external link section and allow the inclusionists in WikiProject External Links to do it, as your edits have been contested. Sorry I couldn't help more. Adotchar| reply here 22:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also reccommend that you not argue with people like MrOllie. They're quite experienced in this, and though they might be against some guidelines, and are acting a bit bitey. Please try to ignore their deletes of your external link sections, and just work on the text and references part. Adotchar| reply here 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so the deleted links on the Market segmentation article were to products (branded websites) and the deleted links on the Consumer behaviour article were to peak industry associations. None of them were links to corporations. As yet, I have not been supplied with a valid reason for deleting other than "doesn't belong" or "linkfarm" without further explanation. Can you please point me to the policy that states that corporations cannot be included in external links, as I have read a number of policies and not yet come across this one? BronHiggs (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can always ask. It was a list of external links to industry associations. It's extremely similar to the list in Market segmentation, a list of external links to related organizations/products. Again, the solution is to create a proper list, articles about the organizations, or both. --Ronz (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ask, but I do not get answers. I am still waiting for someone to point me to the WP policy that explicitly states that corporations cannot be used in external links. While you're at it, I would be very interested to see the WP policy that specifies that a list of external links to organisations should be in the form of a proper list. And if anyone can point me to the policy that explains that redlinks are preferable to external links that would be nice as well. BronHiggs (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For all of those see WP:consensus. We've had multiple noticeboard incidents on it, consensus was established. Adotchar| reply here 22:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tony Blair

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Blair. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Taiwan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maryam Rajavi. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism

Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject IP Vandalism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ramsden Crays edit

Hello

I noticed your enquiry into why I made edits to the Ramsden Crays page. I have had to trim certain paragraphs down as the page is part of a University assignment. The final hand in must only be 4 pages long, my page is currently 5, meaning I have to go through the page and take out information I do not deem 'vital' to the page quality. If you wish, I will restore the information taken out after my hand in date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBaker19 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. Adotchar| reply here 00:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar For You!

CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
Undoubtedly, your contributions to countering vandalism are extraordinary. You are a top notch contributor, and your contributions are much appreciated. So, you are awarded this Gold Counter-Vandalism Unit award! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Retail now reclassified

Hi Adotchar, You might remember me from late last year. You asked me to upgrade a few articles in the marketing area in order to get them up to "C" class. I just wanted to let you know that one of the articles, Retail that I completely overhauled early this year has recently been reviewed and upgraded to a "B" grade article. I have now completely overhauled about 22 articles in the marketing area, and have added substantive new sections to a futher 18-20 articles. However, I am still being stalked, harassed and bullied by a very vindictive editor, so I have really cut back on my WP activities. BronHiggs (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BronHiggs.Thank you, really. I had absolutely no idea you'd do so much when I sent you that list. It's fine if you want to cut back on Wikipedia activities. I find it really annoying how deletionists are still doing this, 11 months after it started. You have made more than double the amount of edits I have, 95% being given summaries, which is amazing. I still only do anti-vandal work, but you've made a contribution that has seriously improved the standard of Wikipedia marketing pages, pushing many from start-class to C or B-class. If this harassment keeps happening, please message me here, or ping me. I will do my best to help. Adotchar| reply here 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Adotchar I didn't just overhaul the marketing articles because of your request. I have recently retired from full-time work, and it had been my plan to improve marketing articles on Wikipedia all along. My students relied heavily on WP for their essays and reports - but so much of the content is incorrect, low-brow or just plagiarised that students who relied on WP were landing themselves in a lot of trouble. I had wanted to improve things more for the sake of the next generation of marketing students. The vindictive editor, who has a reputation as a serial bully with ANI, started up on my just a couple of months after I began editing. His activities go way behond 'reversionism'. The scale of his interference is so extensive it is difficult to put in words. I started writing a complaint for ANI with all the diffs, but it is so long, I realised that no-one would want to read it. He deletes whole sections of articles, tags articles as "incomplete" because they lack the sections that he has just deleted. He deletes links, references, see also, further reading. He deletes authoritative references with the comment "normally xy is a good reference, but in this case it is unacceptable". He constantly requests more information/ justification about why I added certain things, even after he has deleted the offending section. If I respond, he never seems to find the response satisfactory. If I say that I do not need to justify content that has been deleted, he ignores that and continues asking over and over -always ensuring that his request is made on a different forum- presumably to sully my reputation on mutiple outlets. If I ask him to desist, he gets his friends to come along and pose the same questions. He also carries on a constant dialogue with his friends about my every move -e.g. "Look, she has done this and it has problems. I'll have a go," but after 5 seconds, he then says "On second thoughts, it's so bad it cannot be fixed." He is clearly watching my contributions, and uses that to identify articles that I have worked to commences his attacks. I had to remove a list of the articles I had worked on from my user page because he was using that to systematically destroy articles where I had made contributions. I tried quite a few things to shake him off, withdrawing for certain periods of time. I even asked for help at the HelpDesk, but one of the admins informed me that I had the wrong "attitude" and that the only people who complain about bullying are themselves bullies. This nasty vindictive, editor will not be stopped. I have had a good look at his contribs - and there is a definite pattern around how he selects victims and edits. He is also advertising extensively on the internet for paid editing jobs and claims that he knows how to handle admins, and promises clients that he can destroy their competitors Wikipedia articles while simultaneously enhancing their own WP pages. Nowadays, I add create a few diagrams for Wiki Commons, add images to articles, improve references, correct spelling, grammar and polish up expression. I no longer add substantive content to articles. It had been my intention to do a lot more, but I had not bargained on the stalking and bullying. BronHiggs (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BronHiggs. This is a serious accusation which must be addressed. Please post the name of the user here, and evidence of advertisements online, if you can. If that user comes and deletes it, it will be an easy admission of guilt. Again, I"m sorry for the issues you've faces on Wikipedia. Deletionists are really harmful to our bureaucracy. If you do not feel safe, or do not want to post it here, please email me. Go to my user page and email is a topicon on the top right. Adotchar| reply here 22:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Adotchar Before I do that, I should tell you that I had these posted on my User page for a time. An admin deleted them and gave me a warning that I would be permanently blocked if I did it again. The rationale given was that it was revealing the editors private identity (which it actually wasn't because the editor advertises under his WP name). Are you still willing to have this information on your page? BronHiggs (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BronHiggs Please put a link to their user page. Having a link to a user page cannot be against guidelines. Doing what you described, on the other hand, is. So, an investigation should ensue. I do have a COI towards you so therefore I will simply gather information and send it to an admin I trust that does not participate usually in this field of editing. That should resolve this issue. Adotchar| reply here 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adotchar I am not entirely comfortable making an unofficial complaint about an editor which refers to his WP name. Here is a slightly different solution; a list of sites where the advertisement appears and an extract of the wording used in the advertisement (no names are mentioned in my commentary):
Select list of sites where ad appears
Extract of wording from advertisement

" To help improve your online reputation contact an established Wikipedia Editor working for Wikipedia since 2005 with over 80,000 edits and a strong reputation with Wikipedia Admins.

Services provided:
  • Online Reputation Monitoring
  • Creation and managing your personal page on worlds largest free encyclopedia (Wikipedia)
  • Making sure your image is maintained online through my support and network of editors
  • Corporate Wikipedia accounts
  • Personal biographies
  • Competition monitoring and disabling strategy to create issues on your competitions wiki-page

[name and contact] for more info on affordable package details.

The ads are typically inserted into PR, commercial advocacy, reputation management sites, blogs or added as a comment to an article on these topics. I have seen ads with two different variations on the copy. But if you do an Advanced Google Search, and use key phrases from this ad, you will be able to locate many advertisements and their variations.

BronHiggs (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If they decide to block me permanently, it is of little consequence to me. I have been reduced to making small, insignificant contributions thanks to the constant harrassment of this editor so it will make no great difference whether I continue or not. BronHiggs (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BronHiggs. I informed someone about the problem. I would personally recommend that you take a break from Wikipedia, due to the stress this seems to be causing you. Of course, this is not an order or anything like it. I'm just saying that since you posted that original essay saying you're done with Wikipedia last year, it seems to have been causing you more bad feelings than good ones. Of course, that is not a good thing in a volunteer service like Wikipedia. Sorry for what has happened. Adotchar| reply here 00:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This editor appears to have friends in high places. He has been blocked multiple times, but only for a max of 48 hours. At one point, he was even offered counselling to manage his bullying ways. All that ever happens is that he learns and figures out how to mask his bully boy antics, so for the casual observer, it looks like he is making a real contribution. I have cut back considerably and am planning to retire permanently. I just wanted to let you know about the Retail article. I did not request the review, and have never requested any review of any article. It was just reviewed as a matter of course. I would not dare to request a review because this would almost certainly serve as a trigger for the vindicitve editor to decimate the articles in question. You have been most kind and helpful. Good luck. BronHiggs (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for your work in the marketing section of Wikipedia. Hopefully this is resolved and other editors are not deterred from editing due to problems like these. The editing base in Wikipedia is diminishing and the vandalism is increasing. I fear someday Wikipedia will fall due to issues in too much vandalism for the CVU to handle. Good luck in the future. Adotchar| reply here 00:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a test

why did you remove what was a bona fide correction to an asinine misspeling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.98.164.44 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

109.98.164.44. Sorry about that. On the program I used to revert that edit, I have the text size so large and I only saw that you added a "g" in front of the name of the section, which looks very much like a test edit. Thank you for correcting the spelling, and sorry about reverting it. Thank's for telling me. Happy editing! Adotchar| reply here 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kelly

Watch his coaching and prove otherwise. He is a horrible coach and was only promoted because Jeremy Pruitt was caught having an affair with an athletic trainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5CF0:FC80:C585:4D87:76F3:CC84 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edit because I like that coach. I don't know who he is, nor who Jeremy Pruitt is. All I know is you added defamatory content to the BLP, so it was removed. If you believe I have made a mistake, please tell me why. Adotchar| reply here 22:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vindolanda "Media attention"

Hi!

As you may have seen from the Vindolanda article's talk page, I'm new to Wikipedia and I was working on this as part of a University assignment, so I apologize if I missed some rules. Is there any way I could restore this section? What should I edit? I want to find a way to integrate the discoveries from recent excavation seasons that have been given obvious media attention.

Thanks! Ebaker22 (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In reply to your message on why you reverted my edits, I actually had taken that sentence from another section that was under the "Site Museum" heading, it had been written by another user before me....In fact, the sentence is still there now....I agree it is biased, if I rewrite that sentence may I have my other edits reinstated? Thanks! Ebaker22 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebaker22 Of course! To undo an edit, go into "View History" of the page and click undo. I'll revert my edit now, and add a NPOV tag to the article. If you have any more questions feel free to contact me here. Happy editing! Adotchar| reply here 15:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Iyoki Station

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iyoki Station. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want information about me

Temrk. So, if the page Albert Doda is about you, are you not an albanian footballer? Adotchar| reply here 09:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I’m not!

temrek. It's probably a different Albert Doda, then. There are sources that show that there is an Albert Doda with that birth date in existence. If you are the subject of the article, remember the same information is available on the Times, almost every European sport-transfers website, and a few others. Currently it's just your birthdate and occupation. Adotchar| reply here 09:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ridgefield, Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ridgefield, Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kazakhstan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kazakhstan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erich von Stroheim

I spent several hours today adding details to the roles von Stroheim played in his "filmography" section and you deleted them all because you thought that he was "a living person." The great actor and film director died of cancer in May 1957. I hope you can restore all of my additions because they really were time consuming. Thank you! Dr. Catherine Judd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.249.145 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darasing Khurana

Hi there! I'd normally ping ya on IRC, but your probably off doing.. what's that thing... oh life! Anywho, I saw you approved this article, and before sending it back to draft, I wanted to get your input. There's not a really good SNG for beauty contestant winners, the closest I could find is here, which seems to boil down to GNG. In it's current state I don't see him meeting that, but I haven't dug around too much online. Anywho, thoughts are welcome! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt: He meets WP:NMODEL due to his large fan base and significant role in the Mister World competition, as Mr. India. Adotchar| reply here 10:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Instant Pot has been accepted

Instant Pot, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This is a page that should not be requested for deletion {{page issues}}. This page should not be deleted because

It was created to represent Category:Voov the app is for, people who have most streams on Voov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.246.179 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adotchar. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vermont/Archive_7&oldid=1197430391"