You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resource-based economy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hi. When you recently edited Nord Electro, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sampler and Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your interest in the NEARA entry. I am a current member of the board, lead field trips, plan and attend conferences, and therefore feel that the entry should more accurately represent what the organization actually does. It is no longer a "hotbed of diffusionism", although that remains an interest of some of its members. Most of us are simply interested in documenting sites and trying to preserve them until they can be professionally vetted.
In my edits, I tried to present a more accurate picture of what NEARA is today. Unless you have particular objections or knowledge I am unaware of, I would appreciate you letting my description of NEARA interests remain.
I'm happy to hear the nutcases are on the way out, amateur organisations like this can do a lot of good. Unfortunately, you will need a reliable third-party source to support this. I'll look at changing the statement of being a hotbed into something that is more clearly a statement from a certain date. It's still relevant as so many people try to use NEARA publications as reliable sources to prove that various stones are "Viking", etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be quite reasonable to say that NEARA publications represent the opinions of its members, are not professionally peer reviewed and should not be cited as scientific evidence of the origin of a site. We are working hard to get scientists interested in studying these sites and unfortunately some of the sensationalist attention the sites get tends to scare them away. Magicfiddle (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Resource-based economy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
This is patently absurd. I am not edit warring, and I'm definitely not doing so over "the whole of Wikipedia". Your accusations have no base whatsoever, and your defense of a vandal is inexcusable. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(though, if you read the article and talk page, you may be pleased with the result)
I noticed on your user page that you know Python. In my non-Wiki life, I am finishing up studies in GIS and trying to hunt down that elusive internship/employment. Since the Esri International Conference last July, I've been aware of Python as possibly the next thing coming up, along with ArcGIS 10.1, but my school does not teach a Python programming class. I've just spent two days at a regional conference at Esri headquarters in Redlands and several people working in GIS positions for various city and state offices say they are using it quite a bit. I am not a programmer and the thought of doing so is daunting, but how hard is Python to learn? Can you recommend any guides, schools or online classes? (Esri has a couple of intro classes on its site but I need to look over things there more carefully.) Thanks for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Python is a very easy language to learn, and a very good language to learn as first language. I just went through the official tutorial myself. Nowadays there are several books available online. All of them have their proponents and their problems. There is a list of beginning programmer tutorials here: http://wiki.python.org/moin/BeginnersGuide/NonProgrammers --OpenFuture (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. When you recently edited Clavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi - You recently participated in a move proposal discussion regarding articles about zombies and zombie pop culture archived at Talk:Zombie. That proposal was not approved, and a new discussion is taking place at Talk:Zombie (fictional) that is narrower in scope, and concerns only whether the older Voodoo and newer Romero zombie pop culture should be included in the same article or whether it should be separated. These are articles that receive a lot of hits, and should probably get more input than just the two editors having the current discussion. I'm flagging all old move discussion participants regarding the new discussion, and your input would be appreciated. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello OpenFuture. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Thank you for removing the POV in the Post-scarcity article
A day ago I started to translate the english Post-scarcity article to portuguese, and as I translated I noticed there was some POV there, so I came back again to comment about it on the Talk page, and I saw you had already removed that POV. Thank you for being bold about it :) --Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that you first call me immature, then start going tit-for-tat like this is some sort of kindergarten. Oh the irony. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted, and thank you for working on these articles. Although we will have to cut down on the massive amount of material you added to TZM, once this is done the article will be much better than it was before, and it's much easier to cut than to add. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than a month later, and weeks after we had any interaction, you retract your apology? That's very strange behavior. Excuse me for asking, but it's a serious question: Do you have bipolar disorder, or something other? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your comments and your edits since I posted the apology, and concluded that I made a mistake in apologizing to you. The mistake is entirely mine and I take full responsibility for it. A small subset of the specific reasons is as follows. It seems you are strongly hostile towards using our highly reliable and very extensive set of secondary and primary sources -- which combined, have been read or viewed by many tens of millions of people worldwide -- to develop the body of The Zeitgeist Movement. At the same time, it seems you are enthusiastic for using a small set of relatively obscure sources -- which combined have a vanishingly small readership, especially compared to the former set -- to build-up the criticism section of the article. You are definitely not the only one who did this, but as a result of this "work", the article is not much more than a bare-bones, skeletal coat-rack upon which hang the coats of the criticism, resulting in a criticism section which is almost as large as the rest of the article combined.
Among other data points to your dis-credit since I posted the apology, your sarcastic comment on the talk page of the article today is another point proving to me that I was right in deleting my apology. You wrote your sarcastic comment despite the fact that Tom harrison also wrote a sarcastic comment the day before and despite the fact I explained why his comment was sarcastic. (Your comment was more acerbic and sarcastic than Tom's, but the scope of your comment was much more narrow than Tom's, and you do deserve credit for appropriately limiting the scope of your comment.) It seems you may have been trying to out-do and one-up Tom (and me) in what seems like a childish effort to win an immature sarcasm contest and show that you have a longer and bigger certain-sexual-body-part than other editors.
And your question about bipolar disorder further convinced me I did the right thing in deleting my apology. Instead of doing some soul-searching and looking in the mirror for self-criticism and self-improvement, you rushed to blame another party - by inquiring about whether I have a mood disorder. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence on tangentiality in the "See also" section despite us already having been over that, can either be met with me explaining it to you again, in the same words, or me explaining it to you by showing to you with an example how absurd your position is. Since I had already tried the former and that apparently didn't work, I decided to try the latter. If you call that sarcasm or not is irrelevant, sarcasm is not disallowed on Wikipedia.
I used the word 'almost identical' many times in my comments to prove an (almost)-equivalence between TZM's ideas and my suggested links. The one time that I dropped the 'almost identical' and instead used 'influenced by' (because I assumed I was dealing with an adult who would have the common sense, courtesy and decency to read my previous comments and refer to wording in my previous comments), you immediately capitalized on that opportunity and wrote your sarcastic, ridiculous, inane, over-the-top, not-even-witty example using the word 'influence' to ridicule and degrade my comments. (And no, I don't think Rousseau and TZM are (almost)-identical. But Rousseau influenced several revolutions in France, and his work, as well as the work of others before, during and after the French revolutions, [as well as the acts of the revolutions themselves] heavily influenced Marx and Kropotkin.)
Your comment has conveniently ignored the following facts, some (but not all) of which I have discussed and supported in my preceding comments. (I respect the fact you don't like it when editors repeat themselves, but I'm including some older material here only for the sake of completeness and continuity with my newer comments):
All of Brown's ideas, including but not limited to her essay 'Does work really work?' are almost identical to those of TZM. This is supported by at least one secondary source (the Globes article) and primary sources (sections of TZM podcasts and videos discussing work in TZM's proposed economy).
All the ideas of The Technocracy Movement (TTM) are almost identical to those of TZM.
All the ideas of Peter Kropotkin are almost identical to those of TZM, based on a careful reading of PK's books and papers, which are available freely on Wikisource and/or Anarchist websites, and comparing them to our secondary and primary sources (TZM podcasts, videos, newsletters, etc).
Carl Marx, Carl Sagan and John Lennon are mentioned directly in the New York Times (NYT) article on TZM: "... a utopian presentation of a money-free and computer-driven vision of the future, a wholesale reimagination of civilization, as if Karl Marx and Carl Sagan had hired John Lennon from his “Imagine” days to do no less than redesign the underlying structures of planetary life. In other words, a not entirely inappropriate response to the zeitgeist itself, ..."
This relationship between my links and TZM is not tangentiality. For Brown, TTM and PK the relationship is (almost) equivalence. For Marx, Sagan and Lennon this is based on a direct quote from what is widely considered to be one of the very best papers in the world, read daily by tens of millions of people globally.
Thus, the links I included in the 'See also' section satisfy all of the criteria listed in WP:See also:
(a) my suggested links are related to TZM,
(b) they are at least peripherally relevant to TZM,
(c) they reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on TZM,
(d) they are limited to a reasonable number, and
(e) they enable readers to explore further (quoting from WP:See also: "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant.")
I suggest we resolve this issue as follows:
Please describe specifically, precisely and exactly (without any vagueness or ambiguity, please):
(1) which one(s) of the five specific criteria listed above [i.e, (a) through (e)] do my links, listed above, violate, and
(2) how, specifically, precisely and exactly, do they violate these criteria?
In order to resolve the editorial conflict, it is important that you please answer both questions for all the links I listed above (and please do not conveniently focus on only a single one of the links I listed above, or a subset of the links I listed, or on the issue of (almost)-equivalence, because it is not even remotely necessary to establish near-equivalence for inclusion in 'See also').
In the past (e.g. when you required some sort of proof that TZM officially is not using the term RBE anymore, or in your discussion of fatal flaws of our set of reliable secondary sources on the DRN, or in your edit summary calling all my links 'completely irrelevant' despite the strong evidence showing [at least some] relevancy), I found your explanations/ comments to be vague, insufficiently precise and insufficiently specific. This resulted in my having to interpret your comments to try to understand the bottom line of your comments, apparently without success, because when I responded to your comments, you informed me that my interpretations were incorrect, and further correspondence led me to become increasingly frustrated, and seemingly my comments have similarly made you increasingly more frustrated also.
Thus, in order to resolve this editorial conflict, it is critical that in all future comments, you (and I, and all editors, of course) try to be as specific, precise and exact as possible, to prevent frustration and wasting your, mine, and other editors' time. Thanks.
Suggested format (suggested template) of response:
* L. Susan Brown violates criteria (here, please use one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (please provide a specific, precise and exact explanation)
* TTM violates criteria (one or more of the letters (a) through (e)), because (explanation)
* Kropotkin violates criteria (...), because (...)
* Carl Marx violates criteria (...), because ...
* Carl Sagan violates criteria (...), because ...
* John Lennon violates criteria (...), because ...
Your comments on the DRN would be appreciated -- I revised the DRN to request discussion of only one specific dispute on the Lead section, and one specific dispute on the Criticism section. Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. You stated that the allegation of anti-semitism "should stay, it is also from a reliable source." Based on your logic, then the section on The Zeitgeist Movement should not have been removed from Technological unemployment, because it is based on reliable sources. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"do not do a good job at explaining ideas and concepts in plain English" - I agree with this.
"what is the probability that all, or even most, of these highly reliable secondary sources did such a poor job in explaining TZM to their combined many millions of readers, so that these sources are essentially almost worthless to WP editors in developing the TZM article? That probability is nil." - Not at all. You miss a thing here. The probability that all these sources are unable to explain a difficult concept that they have had explained to them is indeed near to nil. But the problem may lie elsewhere than with the journalists. If the problem was with the journalists, then reasonably the primary sources should do a better job in these explanations. Their explanations might not be simple and well written, but they should explain, at least, right?
But, they don't. The websites videos and wrotings of Fresco and Joseph et al do not do do any better in explaining these things. And if they can't tell the journalists what they actually want, how will the journalists explain to their readers?
"These resources (esp. Huff Po, Palm Beach Po, Globes, and TheMarker) do a very good job explaining TZM concepts in plain English" - No they do not. I suspect the reason is very simple: Neither Fresco not Joesph nor any of their followers understand what they are talking about. They can't explain it, because there is nothing to explain. Their ideas are not new, it's just old recycled ideas that already has been proven to not work, but with a new name. But can I say this in the article? No, because I'd need a reliable source. And for a reliable source to say that, it needs to know exactly what TZM/TVP are actually proposing, outside of buzzwords, fluff, utopism and nice vibrations. But they don't say. Because they don't know.
Now, this is not the forum to discuss RBE/TVP/TZM. If you want to, we can do that, and I can explain all this more closely some other place. Email, a discussion forum, whatever. You choose. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither Fresco not Joesph nor any of their followers understand what they are talking about. They can't explain it, because there is nothing to explain."
First you say the concepts are difficult; then you say there is nothing to explain.
The 3 documentaries have been watched by a combined several tens of millions of viewers.
TZM and TVP websites, tens of hours of TZM video lectures and Z-day seminars, have been viewed, combined, millions of times.
NYT, Huff Po, Palm B Po, RT TV, TheMarker TV, TheMarker, Globes, VC Reporter have, combined, tens of millions of readers and viewers.
They all, without exception, do very good job in explaining TZM concepts.
"Their ideas are not new, it's just old recycled ideas that already has been proven to not work, but with a new name." Could you be more specific please. Where and when exactly have they been proven to not work?
I have already told you that Wikipedia is the wrong forum for this type of discussion. But as usual you didn't listen. I've suggested discussion forums/bulletins boards or email. If none of those are acceptable to you, then please suggest one yourself. But I will not try to educate you about economics on Wikipedia talk pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Wikipedia email? If WP email does not work for you, which discussion forums/ boards work for you? Are you referring to something along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? [I'd personally prefer the latter over email, but if you prefer email over the WP Village Pump, that's OK too.] Or are you talking about off-WP entirely? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I said that Wikipedia was the wrong forum, I meant that Wikipedia was the wrong forum. Wikipedia-mail though is just ordinary email, so that works well. Or we can pick a discussion forum. I just googled for "economic discussion forum" and found this: http://www.econpoint.com/forum.php That could work as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Yes, they are that biased. You are stating controversial (and in fact sometimes directly false) claims as they are facts, you can't do that.
For example:
"Money is created out of thin air through loans." - You can't just state this, not because it's factually incorrect (which it is) but because you need a reliable source that claims this. For a general fundamental statement about economics like this, a reliable source would be a textbook on monetary economics. You will not find any textbook on economics supporting this claim. What you can do is to say "The Zeitgeist Movement claims money is created out of thin air through loans", and add a source to where they claim this. This allows you to ignore the fact that it's utter nonsense (you can't create money through loans, lending requires the money that you lend to exist before you lend them). It doesn't matter that is completely incorrect, when you say "The Zeitgeist Movement claims" you no longer make a claim about that statement, you just claim that TZM says so. And that's OK, if you have a source where they claim it.
"Interest is charged on those loans, that doesn't exist in the pool of money, which means there is more outstanding debt than there is money to pay for it." - I get sad when I read this kind of nonsense. But again, if you prefix this with "They also claim" or something, and source it, it's fine, although I suspect it would en up being tagged with [clarification needed] or [vague] because it doesn't really make much sense. What pool of money? Why would there be more outstanding debt than there "is money" just because you have interest? Most people with loads are perfectly capable of paying their interest, but this sentence seems to claim that this isn't possible.
"This lends itself to more debt being created to cover it." - I wish somebody could teach TZM people basic maths.
So, in short: You need to support every claim you make with a reliable source. The Zeitgeist Movement is not a reliable source on economics. Therefore you can't just repeat their nonsense without qualifying it with that it's their nonsense, and not a generally accepted view.
1.The purpose of this booklet is to describe the basic process of money creation in a
"fractional reserve" banking system
2.Finally, it must maintain legally required reserves, in the form of vault cash
and/or balances at its Federal Reserve Bank, equal to a prescribed percentage of its
deposits.
3.Under current regulations, the reserve requirement
against most transaction accounts is 10 percent
4.Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they
receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the
borrowers' transaction accounts.--Wouter Drucker (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/educate/everyday/money.pdf
5.Banks actually create money when they lend it. Here’s how it works: Most of a bank’s
loans are made to its own customers and are deposited in their checking
accounts. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does,
the bank . . . holds a small percentage of
that new amount in reserve and again lends the remainder to someone else,
repeating the money-creation process many times.
You have completely misunderstood that booklet, and the other information you have. I'm not here to teach you monetary economics or debate with you. I'm prepared to do my best (which will probably not be very good) to explain this to you, but Wikipedia, even my talk page, is not the correct place to do that. Better places to do that could be a forum like http://www.econpoint.com/forum.php, or even simply email. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree creating money out of thin air is not the main problem. It is this combined with interest rate, which results in greater debt, more printing: a pyramid scheme. The only way this can end is in default or hyper inflation. Off course you are free to add your own opinion to this.
Can I at least go edit the page?--Wouter Drucker (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
wouterdrucker@gmail.com send me an email explaining how I am wrong.--Wouter Drucker (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or it can end in not printing and no hyperinflation. Yes, you can edit the page, if the things you add are neutral and reliably sourced, as per above. This means you can not state any of your opinions as facts. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring for a recent merge to the article. Note that editors are expected to discuss changes and reach consensus before re-inserting. Please self revert. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss it, you have not taken to heart the feedback and the explanations of why you are incorrect. You claim for example in the deletion review that the Delete conclusion means we have to delete all mentions in the corresponding article. That is simply incorrect, it is not what it means at all, and this has been pointed out in the discussion several times already. You also claim in a comment after my comment that the inscriptions were only mentioned in the merge, this is also factually incorrect and that has also been mentioned, even in the comment to which you replied. You can't just ignore all explanations and arguments, revert and then claim that *others* are edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions are only in the article because they were inserted during an improper NAC. Re-inserting bold changes to an article without consensus is edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.
If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Orphaned non-free image File:Clavia DMI AB logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Clavia DMI AB logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hei,
I have transladed into english the approved italian page for "Single thought" Pensee Unique and I have added a few minor things.
It has been totally erased after 20 mins. What are your reasons?
Chiari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiari.sol (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that you want to help with Wikipedia, welcome!
I reverted your edit because it did not follow Wiki formatting, it did not add any sources for the new additions, it was more of an essay than an encyclopedic article, it was clearly not finished, it added links to pages that didn't exist, and randomly ended with isolated and arbitrary the word "Panda". And that was the errors I found just after a brief check.
Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful to lesarn how to contribute. It's hard work, but worth it!
Just checking, was there a consensus for Kosovo as well as Palestine, or was it just Palestine alone for now? I need clarification. Thanks.--Neve–selbert11:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit Ethanol alleges that it has already been discussed. I have myself searched through the talk page and there is no such "consensus" that he has referred to, on the scale of that for Palestine. Going along the lines of WP:STATUSQUO, I strongly contend that Kosovo should be retained underneath Serbia for at least a temporary basis until we can get some clarification on the matter. SE made the edit on 18 March.--Neve–selbert11:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what are we going to do about this? Despite what he seems to think, neither of us has the ability to block him unilaterally, and even if we did we would already be too WP:INVOLVED not to face potential repercussions. I fear the ANI thread might have already reached TL;DR territory (sorry...). But he clearly thinks that in creating gibberish spellings of English words that don't even conform to any logical system of diacritic usage he is actually being smart -- in his most recent post he tried to lecture me about how you (OpenFuture) don't know about etymology and he and I just have a disagreement on the usage of diacritics.
He has expressed regret at some of his more egregious attacks on IPs and on User:Walter Görlitz, but he clearly hasn't learned anything. You wanna try mentoring him? Or should we just reopen the ANI discussion once it gets archived with no result despite fairly broad agreement that he needs to be blocked? (I know technically User:In ictu oculi opposed a block for the moment, but he also said his opinion was inspired by your analysis of the situation, and you shortly thereafter supported the block, so...)
If the thread discussion closes without action, we'll just have to see if he reforms or if he continues as before. I don't actually think he is going to insult people either his first apology was a cut and paste from In ictu oculi, which makes me think it wasn't honest. But we'll see. If he continues he will end up blocked sooner or later. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
