User talk:Stuartzs/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Stuartzs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Howdy, I just wanted to thank you for the contributions on Mark Pozansky. I'll also take a moment to suggest that you create a userpage clarifying if you have either a COI regarding the good Dr. Pozansky or if you have additional wikipedia accounts. I ask because it seems strange that one, brand new user, can create such a comprehensive account including infobox, categories and then goes through related articles adding info - and all this in under two days. Please clarify. Thank you and much love to you sir. Joe407 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

COI

Hi Joe, I have no conflict of interest with Dr. Mark Poznansky. I simply believe in doing things right and was able to do what I did with a lot of effort. Yes, I am diligent and like doing research.

This was my first experience with Wikipedia which explains why I made so many corrections. However, I truly enjoyed figuring out how to make it work. I felt like I was part of a detective story.

Thank you for contacting me.

Regards,

Stuart

Poznansky cleanup

Dear Stuart, Thanks for stopping by and I'm happy to help. The two articles you might want to read are WP:BLP and WP:PEACOCK. (I assume you've seen WP:NOTABILITY.)

Read those two and then imagine that the only things you know about Dr. Poznansky were from the news articles you cited. You have a good amount of sources so it shouldn't be a problem to still have a solid article but it means that some of the things you mention may have to go (the fountain pens, the name of his partner, etc.). If you do this and avoid WP:PEACOCK you should be fine.

Regarding the notability tag, make sure that the opening section describes why the subject is notable. Sources can come later on. I feel you did a good job of this. Joe407 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Joe

{{helpme}} I went to the links you sent me and have made a slew of changes. Yet I still get the cleanup warning. Have I not done enough?

Stuartzs (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuart, I am not Joe, but I will answer your question. The cleanup tag on Mark J. Poznansky, like all maintenance tags, is added by a user and will stay on the page until it is removed by a user. It looks to me that you have cleaned up the article very well. If you feel that you have addressed the issue(s) in the tag, then you can remove it by removing {{Cleanup}} from the top of the article. When you do so, please explain the reason for removing it, either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please let me know if you there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao talk 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mysdaao

Thank you very much for your advice.

Now if I could only get the notability message removed? Any suggestions here. I am trying to find support for all the mentions. Have covered most of them, but am still missing some that I'll hopefully uncover.

Stuartzs (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

I was able to take care of the notability issue as well. Once again, Mysdaao thanks for your help. And thanks to Joe407 for steering me in the right direction. WIkipedia is a very kind and helpful community.

Stuartzs (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. But as I wrote, when you are removing maintenance templates, please explain the reason you are doing so, either in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. This is a highly encouraged practice, and doing this (as well as using an edit summary for all edits, also a highly encouraged practice) will help to avoid someone confusing your edits for vandalism. But you're off to a great start, and please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao talk 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another question

Mysdaao, it was only until later that I only realized that I forgot to put in the reason why I removed the templates. I then went back and indicated what I had done in a subsequent edit. Will this suffice? I simply had no idea whether or not I could change a previous entry. Stuartzs (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuart, I don't see any subsequent edits to Mark J. Poznansky that explain what you had done. If you edited the page, but made no changes, and then saved, that it is a null edit, and a null edit will not record the edit summary or make an entry in the page history. If this is what you did, the alternative is to make a dummy edit, which is to make a small change that doesn't affect the display of the article (such as adding a blank line) and then writing the edit summary you wish to convey. That will suffice to explain a previous edit if you forgot an edit summary. There is no way to modify a previous edit or edit summary.
Also, when you are replying to another user's comment on a talk page (like this one), it is customary to write your replies on a new, indented line under the same section, as explained in Help:Talk page#Indentation. There is no need to start a new section for every reply you make. --Mysdaao talk 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mysdaao, thanks for telling me how to reply. I had queried Joe previously about this exact subject. Much Appreciated. --Stuartzs (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Let me know if you have any more questions! --Mysdaao talk 17:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gamification may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Waterloo Stratford Campus]] in [[Stratford, Ontario]] from October 2, 2013 - October 4, 2013.<ref>[[cite web/url=https://uwaterloo.ca/stratford-campus/events/gamification-2013|first=Gamification|last=
  • web/url=https://uwaterloo.ca/stratford-campus/events/gamification-2013|first=Gamification|last=2013}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

How about you try discussing your edits with others in article Talk pages or at least having the courtesy to use edit summaries instead of immediately leaping to begin edit wars in multiple articles? ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of this protocol. To be honest, I have no clue why you edited my contributions. And a question: Why are you responding to me with such condescension? "At least the courtesy to use" and "leaping to begin". Are these phrases not a little harsh/inflammatory? You are talking to someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartzs (talk • contribs) 16:53, April 5, 2014‎

It's difficult to regard someone who has been editing since 2009 as "new." You can see my edit summaries in the histories of the articles you edited. It would be courteous if you could remove your edits so we can discuss them since they're obviously contentious.
If you happen to have a connection to these topics or other articles you've edited in the past, it would also be wise to disclose those connections and avoid editing articles especially if you've been paid to promote the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you examine my history you will see that I did in fact contribute in 2009 for a short period. I have returned after a long hiatus and am still relatively new. I do not see how my edits are contentious when there are facts to support them. I had no problem with your comments. What I had a problem with was how you were talking to me. Using phrases like "having the courtesy" is not the way anyone should be spoken to. It is not what I would call courteous or for that matter, helpful. I have an interest in the subjects that I contribute to or edit about. Like you, I am inquisitive by nature, enjoy information and like learning about new things and sharing what I know. It is not about being paid to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartzs (talk • contribs) 22:10, April 5, 2014‎

You began edit wars at three separate articles - Desire2Learn, Big data, and Gamification - so please be courteous enough to participate in the discussions that I began in each article's Talk page about the content in question. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi ElKevbo. Again you are on this tangent about courteousness. I have no clue how to participate in the conversation you are describing. But more importantly, I have no clue why you continue to keep on removing posts that I am supporting with third party information. Truly, what is up with you? This is not an edit wars issue. It is an issue of you for some reason having an issue with me.Stuartzs (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an issue of community norms and expectations of behavior related to how many of us here perceive respect and politeness. We encourage editors to be bold in their edits but to ignore another editor by deliberately engaging in a revert war without making any attempt to tell that editor why you disagree is extremely rude because it's a dismissal of their importance and agency. It may seem strange, unusual, or just weirdly touchy and overreactive but things are a bit different here when we're interacting with a worldwide community of people we largely don't know through such a limited medium. ElKevbo (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Elkevbo, could you please explain to be how to participate in discussions? It's not an issue of so-called courteousness. I simply do not know anything about this forum. I am sincerely trying to make contributions to topics I am interested in. Stuartzs (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Every article has a Talk page, a separate page where editors discuss the article and issues related to it. For example, the Big data article has its Talk page at Talk:Big data. You could also get there by going to the article and clicking on the "Talk" tab at the top of the page on the left above the article's title. If you scroll to the bottom of the Talk page you'll see the section I recently added. Simply edit that page like you you've edited this page to participate in the discussion.
It would also probably be helpful to use indentation when you participate in Talk page discussions by adding one or more ":" characters to the beginning of each paragraph when you're replying to someone so your reply is indented one more tab than the person to whom you're replying. That's how we try to keep track of threaded discussions in Talk pages which can get very busy when several editors are participating in the same discussion.
Let me know if you have any other questions! ElKevbo (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and your direction to the talk page. It was very helpfulStuartzs (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome for the explanation but I'm utterly perplexed that after this discussion you're still making no attempt to discuss these contested edits in Talk despite the fact that several other editors have weighed in either with edits to the articles or their respective Talk pages. This is a collaborative project and you're not going to get much done here if you don't work with others. ElKevbo (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
No intention to offend. I saw the comments on the Talk page that you steered me to and followed the direction that was provided based on your discussions with two other editors. I also responded to the people who made the comments on their own Talk pages and cited the reasons for my changes. I guess you are saying that I should have done so on the article Talk page. I am trying to learn here.Stuartzs (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would be helpful to respond on the articles' Talk pages so that everyone who is interested in the topics, including those who have the article on their watchlists, can see and participate in the discussion. Feel free to copy over your previous notes to individual users to the article Talk pages, perhaps with a small parenthetical or italicized note explaining that you've copied a previous discussion from another Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stuartzs. You have new messages at Talk:University of Waterloo Stratford Campus.
Message added 01:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA talkedits 01:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartzs, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

LGA talkedits 03:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stuartzs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not only appealing on behalf of myself, I am appealing on behalf of the accounts that have been associated with me in this investigation. Please note that I am acting on their behalf because it was my account that was flagged, with them being implicated as a result of this. I am a longstanding wikipedia contributor. In the past, I have received praise for my contributions. I have always acted in good faith. But I freely admit that there is a lot about Wikipedia that I still need to learn. Both my accounts and the other accounts mentioned have been blocked due to allegations of sockpuppetry, a term, and action, I only recently became familiar with. I had been explaining to people with the accounts mentioned how to edit on Wikipedia because they had expressed an interest in learning about the medium. All of these people, had access to the same IP as myself because they were accessing the internet through my router because we were all situated at the same location and were sharing the same network. (These people are at this location quite regularly and I, in fact , did not always know when they were logged on Wikipedia.) I was not using these identities as sockpuppets and my intentions were not illegitimate. Rather the people were posting on their own and were doing so for practice on articles that I was sometimes working on as well so that they could learn the coding and style nuances of Wikipedia. In my opinion, they were also adding useful content through their contributions. To reiterate, I am not accusing these individuals of being vandals. Rather, they were simply people who did not know understand the implications of posting from the same IP. Related to this, I accept responsibility for the fact that I should have been more familiar with the rules of Wikipedia surrounding people posting from the same IP. When the allegation of sockpuppetry was made, I immediately notified the parties involved that they could no longer post from my location because it had resulted in the allegations being made against me; allegations that I took very seriously. The usechecker log should indicate while these people did continue to post, they did not do so from where I am located. I am not blaming the King of Hearts for the block being placed. Rather, he did the right thing given the limited evidence he had. But I wanted to provide this information for the purpose of clarification. While I realize that I only two weeks until my reinstatement, I thought it was important for me to clear my name. The allegation of sockpuppetry appears on my Talk page leaving a permanent stain on my reputation. As far as the other users mentioned go, I believe a more reasonable action would be to block them from posting from my IP address. This would allow them to continue to provide worthwhile contributions while not jeopardizing my status. I thank you in advance for your consideration and I look forward to a positive resolution of this matter.

Decline reason:

Your block expires in ~half a day, please just be patient. After your block is removed and you resume productive editing, you can also follow up at the SPI/AN pages. — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: I previously held the unblock request and asked him to email me, but he has not yet done so. Therefore I am releasing this request back into the queue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello User:King of Hearts. I have sent you three separate email providing you with additional information. I do not know why you did not receive them. Is it because I am currently blocked? I just sent you another email. Could you please confirm you received it? Thank you, Stuartzs (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I just emailed you. Did you receive it? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I just did and emailed you back. If you got my email, please let me know. and then we can begin our discussion. Hope it works. Regards. Stuartzs (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note, my unblock decline above is without prejudice for any involved administrator removing the block for any reason. — xaosflux Talk 16:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you tried to email me, but nothing in my inbox. In any event, your block has expired; happy editing. — xaosflux Talk 22:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Xaosflux. It may have to do with me being on yahoo mail. Could you please send me an email which I will respond to? I was looking for some assistance. Thank you.. Stuartzs (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Waterloo Stratford Campus may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • title=The Fourth International Margot Conference|publisher=Barnard College|accessdate=14 June 2014}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks BracketBot. I will make the change. Stuartzs (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stuartzs/Archive1&oldid=1091656726"