User talk:Woodroar

Amazon Redshift

Hi. You removed a link from the External Links section of the Amazon Redshift page, citing WP:ELON. I presume you are thinking of point 5. I would argue this is not applicable, as the site contains years worth of unique research, where nothing like that information is even remotely available anyway where else, and years with of ongoing monitoring of Redshift, also available nowhere else, and the link is to that index page of that information. This is not obviously "individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". 89.14.146.243 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are concerned about your personal access to the site that has been removed from the External links section, the link can still be found in the numerous saved earlier versions of the article accessible via the page history. If the external site is a reliable source that contains information that would improve the article, then such information should be added to the article and cited to the website. In general, though, links in an External links section are not protected, and are subject to removal without prior notice. Donald Albury 18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is unique. This is why there is a link, and why the material is not in the page. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

89.14: Yes, ELNO #5, which certainly does apply because it's your consultancy page; also ELNO #13, your personal web page. I would also argue that none of the criteria under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE apply. And certainly WP:COI says you shouldn't be adding the link, either. (If it's that important, then get the information published in a reliable, secondary source and we can consider citing that.)

No matter the reason, you have been reverted at least 4 times now. At this point, it's up to you to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and attempt to gain consensus for inclusion at Talk:Amazon Redshift. I don't think that'll happen, but the onus is on you to get others to agree. Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A link to the site has been on the page for years. The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers, as well as system table dumps for the last couple of years, and cross-region cross-node type benchmarking for the same time, and so on. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals, or anything else of this nature. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is utterly unique, and that's why there's been a link. Much more recently, I added a consultancy section, and then more recently still, made that the landing page. This does not change the value or uniqueness of the content of the site, and the link I've made goes directly to, and only to, the index for that information. My argument then is that the technical information on the site, which has already been present in external links for years, remains valid and appropriate. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What I might suggest, is that I make a separate landing page, which has and only had the index of technical information, rather than link to the anchor which starts the technical information section on the home page. Can you tell me what you think of that? 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the rollback by the other user, by the looks of his talk page he has a history of this, with complaints by other users that it was happening and without discussion or explanation, and he despite my attempts did not engage in any dialogue regarding why it was done. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so a few things here.

I do think it would help if if the details on Redshift and your consultancy were on separate pages, or even separate sites entirely. But one of the bigger issues is that there's no evidence that you're a recognized subject matter expert or that your content is considered useful. I could just as easily run scans of websites in my own field, put the results on a site with some analysis, and try to force the results onto Wikipedia—but as far as anyone knows, I'm a nobody. The analysis could be faulty or the underlying data could be wrong. On Wikipedia, we look to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to cite as sources. And when evaluating new sources, subject matter experts, and other unknowns, we look to how those known, trusted sources use the new, questionable material. So my first piece of advice would be to separate your analysis from your consultancy and wait for reputable sources to start citing you. (Note that this is distinct from any "client reviews" on your page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not useful to us.)

Another issue is that you keep adding the link yourself, which is discouraged by our conflict of interest guidelines. If your site does end up widely cited by reputable sources, the most you should do is mention it at Talk:Amazon Redshift—then let other editors take it from there.

Finally, I'd be careful when casting aspersions about other editors, like vaguely referencing "complaints". That's typically considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. If an editor is truly acting contrary to our policies and guidelines, then start a discussion at WP:ANI. But I'll say this: plenty of people come to Wikipedia thinking they can create an article about a joke they just made or treat their fellow editors like it's 4Chan, and they often complain when someone tells them to stop. Anybody can complain, but nobody's going to do anything about it unless the editor is violating our policies and guidelines. Hell, I've been complained about probably dozens of times in my 18 years volunteering here, and I've never been blocked or banned because I'm acting in the interests of the encyclopedia and its community.

If you have any other questions, please let me know. But I hope you'll take the advise here to heart, to wait until your content is recognized as useful by reliable sources, and then post about it at the article's Talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

> I do think it would help if if the details on Redshift and your consultancy were on separate pages, or even separate sites entirely.

Separate page, yes. Separate site, I'm looking to help people, which is why I've spent now something like 15k USD on Redshift costs during the investigations I've made, which I publish for free, and I spend about 75 USD a month on ongoing monitoring, also published for free. Been doing this for years. I don't want to have to pay for another domain, because I find the rent seeking behavour of the registrars deeply objectionable.

> But one of the bigger issues is that there's no evidence that you're a recognized subject matter expert or that your content is considered useful.

Well, first, I would point you at the client reviews on the site. Those are from people paying substantial sums of money for my services.

Second, a part of that is there there *are* no other people who know about Redshift, *because* AWS publish no meaningful information.

However, I started up a Slack a few months ago.

An engineer from AWS joined, and he wrote this;

"I am an AWS employee and accredited as a 'subject matter expert' for Redshift and my knowledge in comparison to what is documented on your site is absolutely dwarfed. I just wanted to pop in and say thanks. The work that has been done with the observatory project is nothing short of incredible."

> I could just as easily run scans of websites in my own field, put the results on a site with some analysis, and try to force the results onto Wikipedia—but as far as anyone knows, I'm a nobody. The analysis could be faulty or the underlying data could be wrong.

You mean, the whole site could basically be fictious? that's a very large claim and it doesn't seem reasonable on the face of it. Something extraordinarily would have to be going on for that to be true. It is inherently a lot more likely the site simply is what it is. The site has been around for a long time, it will be in the Wayback Machine, and you can see the white papers building up over time. Try Googling for any of that content; you won't find any, anywhere, because on one else does this work.

In any event, this requires proving a negative - that I'm *not* ripping off another site.

> On Wikipedia, we look to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to cite as sources. And when evaluating new sources, subject matter experts, and other unknowns, we look to how those known, trusted sources use the new, questionable material.

I would dispute this is new, questionable material. It's been consistently growing and being published for some years.

> So my first piece of advice would be to separate your analysis from your consultancy and wait for reputable sources to start citing you. (Note that this is distinct from any "client reviews" on your page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not useful to us.)

Why not?

> Another issue is that you keep adding the link yourself, which is discouraged by our conflict of interest guidelines. If your site does end up widely cited by reputable sources, the most you should do is mention it at Talk:Amazon Redshift—then let other editors take it from there.

This falls over where there are no other sites discussing or working on the subject. Try a search. You will pages from Amazon, and SEO pages from people selling consultancy (and they publish no investigations or research).

> Finally, I'd be careful when casting aspersions about other editors, like vaguely referencing "complaints". That's typically considered a personal attack on Wikipedia.

I was referring to his talk page, which other people wrote.

But I think at this point I give up with Wikipedia.

I had an account once, and in the end deleted it, years ago. It was fine, back in the day, but it became more and more that anything you write gets removed by someone else, who then keeps removing it.

Getting past this kind of resistance is not worth the effort.

The wiki page on Redshift now lacks a link to the single and only site which does actual research into the database.

2A02:3100:2275:8800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated comments?

Hi, I expressed concern about AI-generated comments and quoted one of them that you reverted. See discussion here: WT:FILM § AI-generated comments? Feel free to share thoughts, or be aware in general. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Number of Polish MEPs

Poland has 53 MEPs, not 51. Please correct this in this articles: Civic Platform and Confederation Liberty and Independence. Moreover, the Civic Platform has 20 MEPs, not 21, because one of the MEPs from the Civic Coalition is a member of the Polish Initiative, not the Civic Platform, so please correct that too, ok? IgnacyPL (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IgnacyPL! I'm sorry but I won't be able to edit that article for you. It's generally not appropriate to ask others to make editors for you, as it's considered close to meatpuppetry. Perhaps more importantly, I don't know anything about Polish MEPs or where to find information about them. I see that you've started a discussion at Talk:Confederation Liberty and Independence and that's a good start. However, you haven't included a reliable, secondary, independent source, which editors will want to see before making that change. I suggest adding a source to that discussion and wait for an interested and knowledgeable editor to stop by. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

But I am blocked from editing these articles, so I am asking you. After all, all other articles say "53", so please correct that here too. IgnacyPL (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like both articles are locked due to disruptive editing. I won't be a part of that. If you'd like, you can add an edit request on those pages, which will alert other editors to your request. However, you will still need to supply a reliable, secondary, independent source verifying your suggestion. Woodroar (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025

Hello, you removed my edits on Ann Lee (singer) (regarding the rumours about her being the voice behind the Whigfield project) claiming that i didn't use a reliable source, which is not true because I've used an official news website from Italy which exposes the rumour. I put the link here: https://www.free.it/2022/07/06/le-sue-hit-hanno-fatto-ballare-leuropa-poi-e-scomparsa-troppe-le-bugie/

So i'd like to know why is this source not valid enough ? Thanks in advance. Miguel098374 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Miguel098374! It's important to understand that we don't repeat rumors and that we avoid gossip on Wikipedia. We're here to summarize facts cited to reliable, secondary, independent sources. When it comes to content about living persons, they really have to the most respected, reputable sources—and multiple sources when the content is controversial or negative. Free.it looks like an unreliable content farm, a mixture of gossip, citizen journalism, and SEO clickbait. That's the polar opposite of the type of sources we want.

I left a note on your Talk page pointing you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sireywan, Whigfield/Ann Lee (singer). I'm hoping that your message here, less than an hour after another editor was blocked for making these kinds of edits, was just a huge coincidence. If Sireywan or someone else did ask you to message me, it would be a good idea to disclose it at that link. Please let me know if you have any questions. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, i don't know about Sireywan and that person never talked to me. I was just wondering because i noticed that my previous edit had been reverted even if i added a source for it. Thanks for your reply! Miguel098374 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's good to know! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)