User talk:Coretheapple/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coretheapple. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No big deal (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know, I didn't think your edit was "wrong". You were just going by the source. After doing a little digging, I realized that there seems to be some discrepancies on the subject's year of birth. I don't feel like rewriting the article and looking up sources, etc. right now so I just changed the text for the time being. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't taking it as a personal rebuke. Not a problem. I just felt bad about making something wrong. Coretheapple (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the new project, and happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask "How many more hoaxes are out there on Wikipedia?" See Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. — fnielsen (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess one can estimate how many hoaxes there are from how many becomes discovered and described. But the number depends on how large a hoax is. Minor hoaxes may simply be thought of as ordinary vandalism and reverted without being described any further. — fnielsen (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple. You have new messages at Ahnoneemoos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple/Archive1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 17:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

A discussion is occurring at the talk page for WikiProject Brands at Proceeding with automatic project banner tagging using AnomieBOT regarding moving forward with automatic talk page tagging with the project's banner using AnomieBOT. All members of this project will be notified with neutrally-worded notifications about this discussion, and please feel free to contribute to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple/Archive1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by PrimeHunter (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Hello, Coretheapple! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I've seen you talked about Eizengrupen in egypt and you did not have a WS:RS source, I found one http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf that I as I understand is a credible source.109.226.53.18 (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the citation for that source? Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no Idea what that even mean (citation for a source) sorry 109.226.53.18 (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also I found this which I think is the same pdf but in a bigger book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.53.18 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You can add these sources yourself, if you wish, as my expertise in this area is limited. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple. I noticed a bit ago that you saw Special:GettingStarted and had some comments on it. I work on this feature as part of the Wikimedia Foundation's engineering department, and I wonder if you might have some time later this week to talk about it in more detail. As you know the target audience is complete newcomers to the encyclopedia, but I'd love to hear more about what you like, don't like etc. about the tool. Preferably we could talk via something more real time than talk pages, so it's less like an interview ;), but whatever medium you're most comfortable with is fine. Have a good day, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steven. I don't recall making any comments on it, but I do like "Getting Started." I like to use it when I'm in the mood to do some tidying up of an article at random. My only concern is that people using it get a tag on their edit "new editor getting started" which is not always accurate and is a kind of scarlet letter. If you have any more questions you can ask them here and I can respond here or on your page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just meant that I visited your user page after seeing your GettingStarted edit awhile back (since most newbies just are redlinked, it stood out) and saw your notes about it there. Thanks for the feedback about the edit tag. Maybe we can turn it off after you're autoconfirmed (which is 10 edits and four days), or something. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm long since autoconfirmed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. In this case, "turn it off after you're autoconfirmed" means turning it off at that point for everyone. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant once I was autoconfirmed. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

OY we started working on this article at the same time! i was drafting a dramatic reorganization based on formulation .... currently the article is all a jumble, where toxicities are attributed to the wrong formulations. BUT I had an edit conflict with you and LOST all my work. . Argh! I will step away while you are working, but would you pop me a note when you are done? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Made my changes... hope you like them!Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, much more logically organized now. Well done! Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

just had that discussion settled down (i think) on BP talk... so surprised to see you adding more fuel to the fire when you have been complaining that it is not productive! argh. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know I was doing that. I thought that it had some relation to content? I didn't want to be silent on the merits, you see. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your strategy, on a few levels. You are clearly interested in getting more negative stories into the article -- especially as per your last edit note, and you are clearly trying to get people to focus their energy on that. But to be honest it seems to me that you keep doing things to undermine that goal. If the pro-BP people don't like the section on the COI controversy, why would you fight that battle for them? Especially when you have spent on a ton of energy on the Talk page discussing COI issues... And if you think a section is a waste of time, why comment on it? And really most importantly, when the pro-BP people keep throwing the work back on you, why do you accept that, and not demand that they produce sources that refute you? It is a little hard to watch... if what you indeed want is more content on "bad things", my suggestion is to draft content, with really excellent sources that cannot be shot down, and write the content carefully with a NPOV, and then just add it to the article. IF it gets reverted, then go to Talk and ask for reasons for the reversions, and put the work on the reverters. This follows WP:BRD and I think is a much more effective way to get movement on a page. Just my 2 cents. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"If the pro-BP people don't like the section on the COI controversy, why would you fight that battle for them?" Because my feeling (which is wavering as I write this) was that they're right, that the stuff on Wikipedia was too "inside baseball," too picayune in the overall scheme of things, when compared to the environmental rampages that have made BP a symbol of a company that despoils the environment. However, I won't contest inclusion further, and on further thought i probably would favor inclusion if it comes to a discussion.

I don't have a "strategy" at all. I'm not "anti-BP" and trying to get more "bad things" in the article and I hope you don't either. I do think the article is skewed pro-BP, but the problem is that the environmental disasters and legal consequences are downplayed. That should be the focus of editor efforts, IMHO. By the way, i don't understand "when the pro-BP people keep throwing the work back on you, why do you accept that, and not demand that they produce sources that refute you?" I don't know what that's referring to.

I'm not an environmentalist and have little background or interest in BP. However, as you may have observed if you've perused my contributions, I became interested in this article from the BP coverage in the papers and am incredibly concerned about COI. Our mutual involvement in Hydroxycut appears to be an actual coincidence, however. I did read something about that on a noticeboard, but the presence of COI editor there is pure coincidence. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are 'anti-BP' - I was only talking about the kind of content you appear to want to get into the article, as per your own words. With respect to you saying "I don't have a strategy" -- I am kind of suggesting that you be more strategic! We all have limited time, and we all want to use our time well. But here is what I mean. I have read the Talk page carefully, not just for the content but for the dynamic. And the dynamic that I see is that the pro-BP editors are very good at appearing authoritative and making demands - some of which are ridiculous - this dif in particular was an extreme version of what they do: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BP&curid=947750&diff=548268505&oldid=548241595 That comment is really absurd, and the point is to bury you with work and distraction that is irrelevant to the content you want to add to this article. That is what several of them do over and over again, usually in more subtle ways. It is a useful strategy for keeping content out of an article and keeping the ones who want to introduce it distracted. I don't use it but I have seen others do it. I would not call this "bad faith" at this point - I would say that they are working hard to make the article great, in their eyes, and to keep it great. We all want to make it great. There are just different visions of great. and btw, the reason I think the whole COI thing is silly, is that if there is a problem it is not Arturo, but rather the editors who are working so successfully to exclude negative information from the BP article. Arturo has done nothing wrong, and the discussion of COI is a red herring - a distraction from the real issue, which comes down to working things out in Talk with other editors. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Rest assured that nobody is going to give me work, and I totally see and am "on to" what you describe. I have wasted far, far too much time on Wikipedia in recent days, and I think that you are going to find me totally absent going forward for the simple reason that I'm not a paid editor, it's not my job to edit here. I couldn't disagree wit you more on COI. I think that's the central issue. Were it not for rules, editors, projects and top administrators that openly abet and facilitate PR activity on Wikipedia, the kind of mess that you see in BP and in other articles would not be happening. I am appalled how PR has worked its way into Wikipedia, but as you will be finding in coming days, unlike them I am not paid to impact upon them or their clients, so I am going to have to take a brief sabbatical. I am surprised that Wikipedia doesn't get more of a knock than it's getting. It certainly deserves one. Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You should look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Ghostwriting#Concerns_raised I am at the moment the primary author of that section in a proposed essay on ghostwriting. Your input in that essay is welcome. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Crazy - arturo did nothing wrong - the guy is squeaky clean! How can you call this COI, when the guy with the COI has done nothing wrong? Totally confusing to me. You all could simply ignore his requests (which would not be very nice, but you could do it) - it is the pro-BP wikipedia editors who put his stuff in the article. I understand that you are upset, but I don't understand your reasoning. Can you explain to me what Arturo has done wrong? Or do some of the pro-BP editors have a COI that I am not aware of? Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I say he did something wrong? I'm talking about a process and a culture at Wikipedia that allows COI editors to inhabit and in some cases drive discussion on talk pages. Read the COI board discussion and that essay I've linked to. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I know you are trying to get away. Just wanted to make a final note. first, thank you tolerating my getting all meta with you and on the Talk page. You could say "go to hell" and you haven't, so thank you. Second, and here I go again, I really hope you think about being more strategic. If you think a bit, you will see that it is really obvious, that if you describe what you intend to do using inflammatory language, the people whom you know are on the other side from you are primed to hate whatever you end up writing and are more likely to actually look for ways to kill it. Right? And your chances of having a successful negotiation with them are harmed, before you even start. You keep shooting yourself in the foot with that kind of stuff, and I hate to see it. Anyway, good luck with your taxes! Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thank you. I actually was becoming a bit concerned about the tone of some of your posts, which, ironically considering your message, had the opposite effect of what you intended. Nevertheless, I disagree. I do not believe that cordiality is going to win the day here. Civility, yes, I'm a stickler for that. But I happen to believe that it is necessary to be direct in the BP situation. I don't believe that even the most friendly kind of schmoozing is going to result in an improvement of the article when there are WP:OWN tactics employed with such heavy-handedness. Certainly Gandydancer is as pleasant and congenial an editor as I've encountered, and he or she has been trampled upon.

At the same time, while you're being pleasant with pro-BP editors, you were also edit-warring with them over the Wikipedia subsection, which I supported but which was doomed to fail because their position had merit. However, when placed in a larger section, as I did, it was unassailable. So, speaking of "strategy," I don't think my approach has been all that bad. Lastly, please stop with the "be calm" shtick, as I am calm and you're being annoying and condescending, and saying that repeatedly only has the effect of making me uncalm. Now I'll see if I can get away. If I succeed in doing so, I may not be around for a week or so, if I fail, I'll be back in a few seconds. Let's see! Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due, your creating the wider-aimed section was genius. And strategic. I agree. And I will stop saying "be calm". I finally had time to actually read the section that you created and I am going to do a bunch of editing on it. It is too focused on the DWH case and is danger of getting actually getting crushed for UNDUE because of that focus. Will broaden it out tonight. Have a great day! Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (copyedited this comment some hours later. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC))

	First place winner of the 2013 Wikipedia apple coring contest!!!
	It is so good to work with you at the BP article. I hope you stick around. Gandydancer (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Notice the short history of Arturo's April 8th request for changes. No one responded right away. I put up a bit of a roadblock, requesting the  Done tag be used. When, again, no one responded, I decided I would vet and investigate and add them myself. But first I gave each of Arturo's requests it's own thread so that we would have a concise trail of edits and conversation for each of eight seperate change requests. Before, when Arturo made change requests, there was little or no conversation, no management of the change requests, no concern for an accurate report on what was done and by who. So...I decided to manage this 4/8 request and I was actually quite proud of the result. There is no jumbled mess of a conversation. Everything is seperate and easy to follow. Editors are not tripping over each others words. I think I created a proper guideline for future "tweeking" of the article by Arturo and a guideline for paid-editor v volunteer editor collaboration. And I don't take kindly to you saying my efforts were/are not important. As many months as you have been editing, I have been editing for years. As other editors have pointed out to you, it might be a good idea to notice who is in your corner and not bite them. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you've gone way over the top in your misinterpretation of my comments/putting words in my mouth. As for your being in "my corner," you've done a fine job of disguising that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Did I not ask Jdog to stop telling you to calm down! I won't bite back. I'll just move away from you. You don't play well with others. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but I haven't seen you involved in any of the substantive discussions in which I've been involved. More generally, I think civility is important, not "espirit de corps," which in this article doesn't seem possible. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Until 3 weeks ago, my only involvement with BP was what I pump into my vehicles. Civility, or lack of it, is in the eye of the beholder. I behold you to be un-Civil. I'll work on my end. I suggest you work on yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever see The New Centurions with George C. Scott, addressing a new cop on the beat played by Stacy Keach? "Be civil. Not polite, civil." There's a difference. I think that maybe we're both too old for Wikipedia. I know I am. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it did hit the media, and still not one change has been made... the very same editors doing the very same things, in full view of all... makes me think editing Wikipedia is an exercise in futility. When you were the only person who continued to press on at Jimbo's page re the promised analysis, to a crowd of crickets, this became clear to me: corruption at the core can only result in corrupt fruit. It's all about money. BP spin is somehow sacrosanct, but environmentalists are viewed here the same way Fox News treats them. (It turns out the co-founder is a huge Ayn Rand fan, FWIW.)

This is all so backwards when you consider the view people have of this "encyclopedia" (aka, top-ranking website for free covert advertising). You're right, if we can't fight it from within, the only hope is that the outside world is made aware of the truth. Violet Blue tried... petrarchan47tc 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied @ mine. petrarchan47tc 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Again :) petrarchan47tc 23:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, P. I'm watching yr talk page, btw. Coretheapple (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

When you removed this content, had you checked the web and news archives to see whether or not other additional sources exist, or did you delete on the basis of only one source had been presented thus far? For example, in about 15 seconds, I found this to corroborate a source from The Register that you removed. - 2001:558:1400:10:6DE0:56C1:8482:D86A (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did, though it's always possible I may have missed some, and obviously I missed that. If you see other references from RS sources you should insert them, for otherwise it's just not reasonable to say that an article that has drawn the attention of one news source is a controversy. I'm glad at least we agree that there needs to be more than one reference for it to be a controversy. Right now the article has a lot of one-shot stuff that crowds out genuine controversies. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you might enjoy a conversation here. petrarchan47tc 19:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you. I'll look in on it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you catch this? petrarchan47tc 20:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No I hadn't. Thanks. Nice to be reminded of reality when one is wading through p.r. cruft. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Core.:~) In a recent edit at BP you used the term "kill zone". Do we really need to be so harsh, so real. Instead, could we not say "Beware Zone" or "Careful Zone" or "Stay Away Zone" or "Slight Spill Zone". "Kill zone" just seems so, I don't know....truthful. You are aware, I'm sure, that the Supreme Court has said that corporations are people and this will surely hurt BP's feelings. PLease reconsider. How about a "No Fishing, shrimping, clamming Zone"?```Buster Seven Talk 12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That language was in the source, and it was also used in the Deepwater Horizon article (from which I borrowed it). I think that it's OK as long as it has been utilized to refer to the oil spill. I do recall that it has been so utilized. It is a term that is employed for the impact on the oil spill, not my wording. Coretheapple (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I stopped by for something else but I wanted to mention that my entry here was completely "tongue-in-cheek". As Petrachan says below, I often find your synopsis of situations to be "right on the money". I'm confident that the article will be something we can all be proud of. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Also, In my early days I established a cabal As far as I know I am the only member. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

Oh, no problem. How do I get into the cabal? Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Core, I hope you don't mind if I offer some advice about the importance of sticking to the rules when we discuss the COI issues.

The BP article is likely to be headed toward more dispute resolution (DR), first in the form of article RfCs, then perhaps a user RfC, perhaps mediation, and if all else fails an ArbCom case is a possibility.

Wikipedia's DR processes are blunt instruments that often churn out counter-intuitive results. This is in part because most uninvolved editors look at behaviour rather than content, simply because that's the easy thing to do. It's a lot easier to determine whether someone has called people names, than to work out who was right. For that reason, it's important to watch each diff that you post to make sure that nothing is slipping through that will later be used against you. For example, implying that editors are being paid without evidence is an AGF violation, and if you were to try to obtain evidence it would be an OUTING violation, so you can't win. It's therefore better just to stick to the issues, and clunk through them politely.

I think you're doing great work in pointing out the consequences of COI editing. Several of your posts have summed up the problems better than I've seen anyone express them. So I'm not trying to turn you into a milquetoast (not that I'd succeed). I'm just recommending a bit of extra caution to make sure you don't find yourself on the wrong end of our dispute-resolution processes for having tried to do the right thing.

Feel free to archive this once you're read it, by the way, if you want to. All the best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good advice! Thanks very much. It's appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Several of your posts have summed up the problems better than I've seen anyone express them" co-signed petrarchan47tc 01:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't get an email. Try again? petrarchan47tc 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried again. Maybe they're going into your spam directory? Coretheapple (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple,

I checked the link you removed from the wall of citations at MaM and it appears to be working for me -- I'm able to browse it in annoying html form without signing in or having academic credentials. The section that was being referenced is on page 8, but if you have some other issue with the source feel free to revert me. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had failed to navigate the page properly. Sorry about that. However, the executive summary does not support the statement made in the article. It does not say that such products are safe. It says that no adverse effects have been reported. I think that we need to either remove that source or alter what it says in the article to reflect that. Given that the parenthetical is excessively sourced as it is, perhaps it should just go. Coretheapple (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Given what the other sources say as well, I've altered the language in the parenthetical. Too sweeping. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coretheapple, I believe you misunderstand Wikipedia guidelines on red links. Red links themselves in articles are not errors, although excessive red links should be avoided, as they can dilute the user experience. Editors should make judgment calls on the likelihood of a topic having an article in the future before leaving a red link, which can admittedly be a subjective process. One trick I like to use is using the What links here tool to see if there are already existing links to the target; if so, there's a good bet that it's a good use of a red link. In fact, at RFD, we frequently delete redirects when a red link is judged more helpful—which happens more often than you'd think.

In this case, the subject is moot. I had tested the link by simply typing "Gordon Duff" in the search box, and I was redirected since Gordon duff had been established as a redirect to Veterans Today, of which Duff is an editorial board member. But actual links named Gordon Duff weren't working. I've established that as a redirect as well, so it should work now. But in general, make sure you're familiar with the policy on red links before you remove them. Best, BDD (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was aware of the guideline. Since the Gordon Duff article had been speedily deleted in 2010, it clearly indicated that an article was not forthcoming. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

...is awarded to User:Coretheapple who has diligently worked to close the gender gap on Wikipedia and related projects through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. One of the bright spots of the last year was meeting and working with you. I happened to read threads above and want to apologize for my calling you un-civil. I was way off-base. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

		Mind the Gap Award
		For saying the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. Buster7 (talk · contribs)

Why thank you! That's very much appreciated. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Core, would you be interested in doing a copy edit for the 2012 Delhi gang rape case article? To my great surprise it has been nominated for a GA review and I have a high edit count for the article. My larger edits were mostly in the medical sections and reactions but I did a lot of copy edits as well because most of the active editors were Indians and it was, well, interesting... I welcome a review because I strongly believe that this tragic incident is as important to the woman's movement as the murder of Emmit Till was to the African Americans fight for justice. The problem is, the article seems to (perhaps) read like a tabloid account ("He ripped her intestines out with his bare hands..."). However, I learned that the English speaking news articles did report the incident in that manner, a manner in which it would have not been reported in the American press, and that's what there was to go with. Plus, it should be remembered that it is mostly their article. I'd appreciate any comments on that aspect of the article as well. Perhaps you would even like to help with the GA? I will also ask Binksternet to help with the review as I know that he has a lot of interest in woman's issues. Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks,just back. I'll take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it, and frankly it doesn't seem to require any major copy editing. Do you have any specific concerns remaining? Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The day you came back another editor took it on who is doing a great job. S/he had probably gone through most of it before you checked it out. Good to have you back! Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

...my talk page. There may be a conversation of interest to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, got your note. I'm putting the health article on the back burner till you have time. Some people like to work alone--I'm not one of them. It helps me to bounce ideas off another person and hear what they have to say. I see that there has been an objection to the CorporateM Chevron article split, something that I was not at all happy with either, so I may spend a little time there. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My contributions have been and probably will continue to be a bit sporadic over the next few months, but I'll do the best I can. If there's anything specific you think needs to be done on the health article perhaps I can do it. Anything specific come to mind, please let me know, especially concerning gaps in which peer-reviewed MDRS-compliant studies are needed. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have time, please stay up to date on the Chevron article even you don't have time to participate. Also see my notes on CorporateM's page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look in on that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just got your message and have watchlisted the Troy Boyle article. I've been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but will try to keep an eye on this article over the next few days. So far, so good. :-) DoorsAjar (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Somebody seems to have a personal dispute with him. Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

... for your support [1]. I guess walking on the same side of the street (BP) and saying "Hello" every now and then makes us "wikifriends". That's good news for me. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Looking forward to the next RfA. Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Wikipedia is such a conflict-ridden mess Jimmy Wales is in no position to throw stones at the media. At least the media has some grasp of the concept of "conflict of interest." Wales is totally out to lunch on the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You can read about how you were canvassing and organizing outside of the BP talk page on my talk page. Be sure to bring your tinfoil hat with you. Gandydancer (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest disengaging with that editor. It's just pointless, the arguments become endless, and it's an immense time suck. Coretheapple (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vic Morrow 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:

• }</ref> an episode that resembles the later [[Clint Eastwood]] film ''[[High Plains Drifter]]''). Morrow later appeared in the third season ''Bonanza'' episode ''The Tin Badge''.<ref>{{cite web |

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

hello!

I cannot reconstruct what I intended to edit on that page. It was meant, I think, to be a vandalism reversal, pure & simple. But it now seems more complicated indeed. Be assured that I never will delete things like tags or anything just like that - my actions in the main are meant to be clean cut reparations of obvious vandalisms (using Twinkle). Note also, that the log says: reversal to version as made by 76.18.48.76. But where on the list is that user? Not in the vicinity, so very strange indeed; actually, he/she is on 29 August 2012.... Something went terribly wrong: buttons? twinkle? me? Sorry, I try to take care in the future!Super48paul (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly - over a year of edits! Strange indeed. You may want to inquire at the Twinkle help page, as perhaps there's a glitch in the system. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing with regard to your edit on October 10, 2013, changing "he or she" to "the person" with the comment that you were removing "awkward phrasing". I do not agree that "he or she" is awkward phrasing. I think it is only poor writing if it is overused within a paragraph. Here, it is the only "he or she". (There is one "his or her" later in the paragraph, but that is different.) I think using "they" when the antecedent is singular is also poor writing. I would prefer if you would change it back to "he or she".CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice you've done some further edits since then so I'm not sure what to change back, but anyway please feel free to make whatever changes you'd like to clarify. I'm actually less concerned with the syntax and writing than I am with the deficient sourcing of the article and the rampant original research. As a matter of fact I was going to do some trimming when I got a chance, and I was a bit concerned that you may be doing a lot of work on sections containing original research that really shouldn't be there at all. It appears that for large stretches this article is little more than the personal reflections of some past Wiki editors or editors. While quite possibly correct, it's still original research. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I was just going to add the space between "science" and "and" and then got started editing. I've only gotten through the first few paragraphs. I found that the writing was verbose and contained a lot of unnecessary words and inelegant wording. I have cut out a lot and re-worded some sentences. So, now the first few paragraphs are shorter. I look forward to seeing more of your editing. I don't know what's original research and what is not, so I'll leave that up to you.CorinneSD (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It is definitely not written well, but more importantly a lot of it seems to have just been made up. I just don't see any sourcing for lots of what's there, and when I do look at the sources they don't support what's in the article. The article has been around for a while and it has an authoritative tone, so people haven't dealt with these issues very much. But I question whether some of this stuff is even accurate. There not being very much sourcing, despite it being tagged for sourcing for some months, there is no way to determine that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone with a background in history will see the article and add some sources and correct any errors in content. I can only improve the writing.CorinneSD (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think so. Coretheapple (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've pretty much done all I can regarding improving the writing. I thought I'd ask you about two things. In the second-to-last paragraph in the section "Related terms", I found the following sentence:

"The term seems to be used especially when a person has made lasting contributions in at least one of the fields in which he was actively involved, and when he had a universality of approach."

I feel that the phrase "and when he had a universality of approach" is poorly written, and poorly connected to the rest of the sentence, and approaches meaninglessness. Do you know what was meant? And do you have an idea of how to incorporate the thought (if it should be incorporated) into the rest of the sentence?

Also, in the last paragraph in the section "Related terms", I found the following sentence:

"This designation may be anachronistic, however, in the case of persons such as Eratosthenes whose reputation for having encyclopedic knowledge pre-dates the existence of any encyclopedic object."

I wonder whether this sentence is necessary. (Also, I don't know why "encyclopedia" couldn't be used instead of "encyclopedic object".) I kind of think the sentence is really unimportant. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Corinne. You might enjoy User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. Have fun. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are very well-constructed exercises.CorinneSD (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Good idea,Buster. CorinneSD, those are indeed some awful passages. They are not only poorly written but also an example of what I call "Wikipedia is not The Economist." In other words, it's not as if we're highly paid writers who don't get bylines. We're volunteers who are not supposed to be expressing our own ideas, but reflecting what is in reliable secondary sources. When I have time I think I may want to pare down the entire article to remove all passages like that, not because they're poorly written but because they just don't belong there. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Core,

This really is a bright moment in the conversation that began nearly a year ago. I didn't mean to rain on your parade! I do have high hopes as well, actually. petrarchan47tc 06:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how high my hopes are myself, as I haven't looked in on the discussion on Jimbo's talk page. I hope it's not just a venting exercise as it was in the past. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

An AFD for Troy Boyle--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this would work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess my first reaction is that it would not address paid reps creating articles through the AfC process, or becoming de facto article "managing editors" by making innumerable requests on the talk pages that are executed by cooperative editors. Given Jimbo's recent statements expressing concern about article creation, should not that at least be added? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to keep it simple or it will never get through. The problem with this in the past has always been people wanting to expand the basic idea, then others objecting to the expansion (or using the expansion as an excuse to object). So I think we need to focus on this single point for now: paid advocates should not edit affected articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I have some concerns about this approach. See my comment in the RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are making the perfect the enemy of the good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd see your point if wasn't for two things: first the immense body of opinion taking a "who cares?" attitude on COI, which calls into question whether this will pass and second, the abdication of responsibility by the persons most directly affected by the impact on the Wikipedia brand. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is that the Foundation creates legal problems for itself the more it becomes involved in content, and they may not able to sort this out without effectively turning themselves into a publisher. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what I see happening here is the beginning of a tedious, lengthy discussion that will stretch on for a lengthy period of time, consume large amounts of space, and at the end of the day is not likely to result in consensus. It might actually be harmful, and it will just serve as cover for Jimbo and the foundation continuing to do nothing. It would not surprise me, given the extensive pro-COI sentiment, if a rule is enacted that is weakened from what you've drafted and worsens the current situation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Since opposers are piling on for the usual stupid, ignorant reasons, I've decided to support it. I think this apparent doom for the proposal is for the best, a blessing in disguise, as it puts the ball back in Jimbo's court, which is where it belongs. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
128		Breaking (martial arts) (talk)						Add sources
61		Nia (fitness) (talk)						Add sources
69		Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (talk)						Add sources
4,642		Atheism (talk)						Add sources
3,473		Electronic dance music (talk)						Add sources
4		Stuart H. Smith (talk)						Add sources
408		Bareilly (talk)						Cleanup
368		Body horror (talk)						Cleanup
2,013		Surfactant (talk)						Cleanup
486		Planned Parenthood (talk)						Expand
9		Murray-Wright High School (talk)						Expand
15,772		United States federal government shutdown of 2013 (talk)						Expand
372		Christian terrorism (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
777		Surrender of Japan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
292		Environmental impact of the petroleum industry (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
831		Head cheese (talk)						Merge
65		CGG (company) (talk)						Merge
12		Changi Murals (talk)						Merge
6		St. Mary's Convent Inter College (talk)						Wikify
166		CH2M Hill (talk)						Wikify
10		Matthew Goldstein (talk)						Wikify
0		Mahi (village) (talk)						Orphan
0		Tarwai (talk)						Orphan
0		Pachdevara (talk)						Orphan
222		Midstream (talk)						Stub
3		Whiteside, Tennessee (talk)						Stub
15		Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran) (talk)						Stub
2		Oxygen SpA (talk)						Stub
20		C. Vernon Mason (talk)						Stub
12		Sorkheh (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have posted it on my user page also. Ask yourself, "which is more important to a paid editor? A paycheck or Wikipedias' rule book? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that Jimbo has responded so favorably to it. I hope he and the Foundation follows up. Coretheapple (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note the rejoinder that I posted on Jimbo's talk page and copied to my own. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit to Greenland in which an editor changed "favor" to "favour". Since I am aware of the sensitive topic of British and American styles of English, and of the WP:RETAIN policy, I decided to look at the article to see if I could determine which style is predominant in the article. (I had read the entire article about a week ago and made a few edits to improve syntax, word usage, and conciseness, but had not noticed differences in style.)

I found that one edit changing "favor" to "favor" in either the first or third paragraph of the lead, and one more instance of "favour" in the lead (one is in the first parag., one is in the third), and I saw the British "defence" in the third paragraph of the lead. I then skimmed the rest of the article and found no other British spellings. I also felt that the syntax was more American than British. I know from seeing other editors' comments on this issue that one solution is to look at the first complete version of the article after the initial Stub article to see which version was used then, but I don't know how to find that version. I wondered if you had time if you could look at this article and determine which style is predominant throughout the article and decide whether those two instances of "favour" and the word "defence" should remain or be changed to "favor" and "defense". I'd be interested to learn how you reached your conclusion. CorinneSD (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be amalgam of British and U.S. usage, with an emphasis on the latter. For example, double quotes (") dominate throughout, as do words with U.S. spelling ("recolonization" instead of "recolonisation"). I would lean toward changing the "favour" back to "favor" unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First I want you to know that where I live, the awesomes are almost all worn out from overuse. The pristine, shiny examples I have managed to hold on to are so valuable that I only very occasionally raid my precious little stash.

This is awesome.

This is awesome.

This is awesome.

You and Atethnekos are awesome.

I, and surely many other users here, respect your ethics, share your concerns, and feel gratitude to you and Atethnekos for your outstanding contributions to the debate—as would WP's readers if they knew about the practices that are concealed from them at present. Writegeist (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you! When I saw the "you have new messages" indicator I assumed I was going to be yelled at, so that was quite a pleasant surprise. Coretheapple (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, thanks for your kind words about me, they are appreciated. On the subject of my contribution to the discussion, I simply don't think that slowing down the progress of a conversation is necessarily a bad thing. To stop progress, of course, but not to slow it. We can't afford to rush to decisions, especially when very little evidence is actually used to support our conclusions. The first time I faced this issue was in the Manning naming dispute where editors were throwing around accusations of hate speech without supporting it with diffs. It seems to be becoming a stronger issue here on Wikipedia. Personally, I feel this is the more imminent threat than paid editing because we are all aware of paid editing, but the community is not aware of this growing trend to really delve into mob rule. The worst part is that we created these requirements for diffs to avoid having mob rule and it's become sort of a joke whenever anyone claims to be a victim of it. But our arrogance in thinking these rules have protected us from mob rule are now preventing us from being aware of how we're loosing our strict adherence to the requirement for strong evidence.

I think it's more important that we get it right than get it done. Ideally, both would be perfect but I'd rather be right than expedient. Take the recent accusations of racism on ANI. Some may say that I derailed that thread. I don't think I did. We had a user who made some comments that could be seen as racist in a light wanting to see it as racist. However, the user was a very passionate amateur historian and he wanted to know why reliable sources weren't being used that challenged the status quo. We came very near calling a real living person a racist which is a very powerful accusation. Slowing down that conversation, which was heading toward a topic ban at the least and a community ban at the worst, saved the community's morality; in my view. It's very important that we get it right. If we have solid evidence they are racist, we call it. If we have to stretch or assume anything about their words, motives, or intentions then we do not have solid evidence. We also have to look at our own intentions too. When we identify racism, is it an altruistic "I can't believe this stuff still happens" in our mind or is it a self-serving "One badge on my fight against racism." If we're fighting racism, and discrimination in general, because it's awful then we're doing it right. If we're fighting it to make ourselves feel good, or maybe as a way of pointing and saying "Look, I'm not racist, see how much racism I've fought" then the cause is good but our motivations are poor.

So like I said, when I get involved in these, it's because I want us to get it right. I'm not playing any kind of 'devil's advocate', I'm playing a community morality advocate. That guy may actually be a racist and I've stopped him from getting appropriately labeled one. But even if he is, we're still morally wrong to call him one on weak evidence and until we have all of our ducks in a row first. If we don't, we need to take more time to be thorough. Hope this helps.--v/r - TP 17:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually have changed my mind about your participation in that discussion, as I do think that your contribution was helpful. However, candidly, I feel that its helpfulness was inadvertent. That is, you were seeking to inhibit discussion of paid editing and had the opposite effect.

I agree that it's important to get things done right. In the discussion of paid editing, the current tendency is to write a policy with such gaping loopholes that it would actually make things worse than they are now. The current system makes it almost impossible to either identify or to challenge paid editing, because doing so runs afoul of strict policies that were adopted before paid editing even existed. I hope that you can come around to seeing the problem that this practice causes for Wikipedia's integrity and can become an advocate for abolition of paid editing or at least meaningful disclosure to readers and editors alike. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone has made a useful change of terminology to identify the problem as "commercial editing", which excludes editing by professors in their areas of expertise. (It does, however, quite properly, include editing by professors who are receiving grants from pharmaceutical companies.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that as a semantic change it's a good idea, and may reassure academics who otherwise might support strictures on paid editing. However, I think the underlying issue is knotty and can't be resolved by all the endless talk, and that Foundation attention to this will be needed if anything is to be done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

May I ask for your opinion on something on the article on Pánfilo de Narváez? Please see my Talk page. CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Curious why you changed my revision, what evidence you used. Jim in Twain's Tom Sawyer is a boy Tom's age who works for Aunt Polly, or as Twain puts it, "Jim, the small colored boy..." Jim in Huckleberry Finn, which takes place right after the events in Tom Sawyer, is a man, or as Twain puts it, "Miss Watson's big n----r, named Jim..." Reading the opening chapters of either book confirms they are different people who share a name. Please review. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.172.168 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Coretheapple, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Faizan 07:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I notice on your user page that you tout the notion that WP should be a "leader in transparency." This starts with real name self-identification. It's patently ridiculous for anonymous persons to participate in transparency campaigns. Best regards, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA //// Carrite (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you a paid editor? That's the only thing that I think people need to disclose. I don't give a damn about their real name, age. weight and sexual orientation. There is no contradiction between a common-sensical rule to prohibit the corruption of Wikipedia and continued anonymity for contributors. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition, of which there are few in life.

We ask a great deal of contributors already: that they adhere to standards of civility and neutrality, especially the latter. Asking them not to be corrupt, not to sell their souls to the highest bidder when they edit this site, not to put the pursuit of a buck over Wikipedia's interests, not to stain Wikipedia's reputation, not to perpetuate a cancer that is a con game being played on readers - yes, that is reasonable to ask of contributors. Don't you think so? Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your "(restore indentation)" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=580924221

Entirely appropriate, but I just wanted to let you know that there is a template

{{od}} precisely for this purpose.

sample usage

next

More

Getting indented

...

Very indented

back to left --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know. Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching the article on Carl Sagan for a while, and I've seen quite a few silly, inappropriate edits that have been immediately reverted with an edit summary usually saying "Vandalism". At what point should an article be protected from such constant vandalism? Is there anyone who can take a look at this? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If the problem persists, you can ask for semi-protection at a certain point at WP:RPP. WP:Twinkle can automate the process for you. I'm not sure we're quite at that point. If it happens again, you can ask. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Core. I see that you are a copy editor. When you have time, would you be interested in doing an edit of one of "my" articles, Pullman porter? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it I'll do it I'll do it I'll do it! :) Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Something is totally FUBAR! I kept getting the ERROR TRY AGAIN message---so I did! In fact I still am, but at least now I know that actually my messages are being printed. I will get rid of these extras, but I need to leave the site each time since it's the only way to get around the ERROR message... Strange... Gandydancer (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read it in a long time and just did... The lead seems too short. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes definitely. Much too short. I'll see if I can do anything about it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Coretheapple! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's a great tool. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I commend and support your efforts and your 'moxie'. At one time, I was sandboxing everything I could find on the subject of "paid to edit". Now? I just read it and shake my head. Like you, I inadvertently found two COI editors, just today, while I was doing some welcoming and WP:Snuggle stuff. Keep up the good work. You seem like one of the few that is speaking up for the reader. I'm not sure who said it but, "I'm not out to convince you. I'm out to convince the audience" comes to mind. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's very educational to watch the comings and goings @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help. Buster Seven Talk 08:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Why thanks for the encouragement and support! It's appreciated. That Snuggle is interesting, I will take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I just read your "resume" analogy on Jimbo's page and I thought it was totally on-target. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A while back, when the BP talk page was hot and heavy, I could never understand why some editors were so vehemently supportive of The Corporate Giant. All the time, for every issue, they took the side of BP. It just didn't make sense and it still doesn't. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

BP was its own special universe. There I think it was affinity for the petroleum industry. As for paid editing generally, I think it is a desire by editors to be able to edit for pay if they so desire, even if they don't do so currently. The problem is that the more editing-for-pay there is, the less appealing it is to edit for free. There is also a general "trolling" and "arguing for arguments sake" class of editor, which is independent of everything else. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"I think it was affinity for the petroleum industry" - this may describe a few editors, but certainly not the problematic ones. The main one originally carrying BP's water, who was manning the page after an OTRS request was handed to them from an Admin (the original recipient), and who was there before BP admitted to its presence, is now permanently banned for sockpuppetry. The second water-carrier most assuredly worked for the industry and spent every day, all day, creating, protecting and overseeing oil/energy-related articles. No way they were doing it for free out of some affinity. No way. I had to oppose the recent proposals meant to ban paid editing simply because they excluded the very behaviours that I come across - and excluding them meant solidifying their acceptance. I'm holding out for a proposal that would also address the real world situation: 97% of the promotional editing here is done by folks who have not and will not declare their motives (whether it's money, feeling important, free ice cream or porn downloads). The minuscule percentage who would fall under the proposal would be those who out themselves or get busted, like the recent PR company did. I realize "you gotta start somewhere", but the requirement that an exchange of money must be proven for the proposal to take effect doesn't seem like much of start, and seems like the underground situation would only become worse. What am i not understanding? (I know, you don't have time to write a novel!) petrarchan47tc 23:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I understand what you're saying totally. However, re paid editing, what I've been encountering is a degree of hysteria, even though they seem to be winning, which indicates to me that this is an immense and intensely profitable enterprise. The opposition has run out of arguments and is starting to get personal. That's always a sign that something serious is amiss. True, there is a tendency of some people to get personal just because that's they're style, and that can't be discounted. But I've noticed people observing that the arguments tend to get personal after a while whenever paid editing is discussed. This indicated to me that the problem is bigger than is appreciated, that people's livelihoods are at stake. What's really needed, to fully understand this, is some kind of quantification of the extent of the problem. That is, however, impossible. But perhaps some student or intern at the Foundation could prowl through Internet venues, such as Craig's List, to find out how extensive the cottage industry is. There are also websites outside Wikipedia that may or may not be reliable in tracking the extent of the problem. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and as MastCell pointed out - it is telling that the arguments have been reduced to, and rely upon, personal attacks against the messenger - every time. They are showing their cards. It would be lovely to get an estimate of the scope of this problem. To me, it was enough to see CNN hint to their readers that they should seek out one of the many "Wikipedia editing businesses", and that someone in the comments section is bragging about his. Not only is it well known to be entirely legal, but the practice is so pervasive a milquetoast media outlet like CNN knows of it. petrarchan47tc 23:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Just found this article in IBT, from a week ago:

The site, which is devoid of advertising and free of charge to readers, relies on tens of thousands of volunteer editors to maintain its entries. The number of active editors is falling, down almost 40 percent from 2007, from 51,000 to 31,000, which gives existing editors even more clout over an increasing number of entries on innumerable subjects around the world. Most of them believe in the mission of founder Jimmy Wales, which is to provide unbiased, accurate information.

And then there is Mike Wood. The 37-year-old Wikipedia editor is paid by companies and individuals to create and maintain articles that present them in the best light. Sometimes, he is even asked to remove negative information from a client’s page. Wood likens himself to an attorney in court, advising a client on what course of action they can and cannot take. He charges as little as $50 for a small Wikipedia edit, up to $2,000 for the creation of a new article. Wood says that Wikipedia is his main source of income, and he makes more editing for hire on his site, LegalMorning.com, than from any other work he has pursued.

Wood is just one of an army of paid editors who are busy tweaking Wikipedia entries to serve their clients' interests. The ability of corporations to edit their own Wikipedia pages, or hire someone to do it for them, has called into question a core Wikipedia policy: that articles be written from a neutral point of view. It also means the world’s most-used repository of human knowledge is not always the most reliable.

For every firm like Wiki-PR and others like MyWikiPro and Wikiexperts, there are thousands of freelancers available on sites like Freelancer and Elance willing to do work on Wikipedia. These freelance editors charge as low as $15 for a simple edit, while firms like Wiki-PR tend to charge higher rates to create an article and monitor it as time goes on, promising to protect against its deletion or other “vandalism”.

petrarchan47tc 00:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just appalling. How Jimbo can say "they've already lost" is beyond me. I appreciate his encouragement, but the entire discussion on his page seems increasingly pointless. My hope is that at some point the Foundation will take action since the "community" is hopeless in addressing this issue, because too much of the community is on the gravy train. What I mean is that a consensus against paid editing is structurally impossible, because there are a large and active number of editors with an undisclosed conflict of interest who will always oppose rules against paid editing. So if he's trying to stir up some kind of groundswell, if he thinks that people can be "persuaded," then he has another think coming. Assuming this problem goes nowhere, I think the proper route is not to "go back to content editing" because I am no sucker, and I don't want to edit alongside paid people. The proper route is to find another hobby. Or to stay and get on the gravy train. Paid editing is a zero sum game, in that it requires attention from people who are not paid, if you see my point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] That is the very reason this is such a core issue (no pun meant). Not only will we loose readers by slipping them ads instead of info, but the very editors Wiki relies upon to make this site into something folks are willing to pay for, will leave. I feel the same way. I am considering the creation of a couple of articles, but knowing I could legitimately be paid a few thousand dollars for it, and that some (many?) are doing just that, takes all the wind out of my sails. I completely understand what you are saying, and I know it isn't hyperbole on your part. I'm highlighting your words because this is crucial. petrarchan47tc 00:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and when people say "paid editing is here to stay," what they really mean is, "nonpaid editors can take a flying f---k." Seriously. If you plan to stay, and you don't get paid, part of your job description becomes the care and feeding of paid contributions. Some people are willing to do this but I don't find it tolerable. Also I can't think offhand of any area of Wikipedia that can't potentially have paid editors. Certainly every subject that involves companies and living persons. As the CNN article says, it is now conventional wisdom that you have to "control" the article about you. Coretheapple (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Only within the past 24 hours have I begun to feel like chump for even considering offering my time and service here, making the Wiki even more valuable for those taking cash. I do think this is a loosing battle, and that it seems to make more sense at some point to make a concerted effort let the masses know what has happened here. I wouldn't feel comfortable walking away quietly, is my point. petrarchan47tc 00:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's also keep in mind that if one can prevent articles of high readership and importance from becoming press releases, that is a potentially worthwhile endeavor. On the general issue, I think the best thing to do is to keep one's powder dry. While editing Wikipedia in general may seem like a fool's game, individual articles can sometimes be worth one's efforts. For instance, I think that BP and its related articles have been improved. It's the other articles, where paid editors have not been identified, where there are potential problems. Coretheapple (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

[Later edit: this comment is a reaction to your edit summary of above entry rather than its content (long day)] Well, I could use the money ;) No worries, I'm not talking about quitting, just that when I do, I won't be quiet about the reasons. But I do feel like a chump. It should be that everyone gets paid, or no one does. petrarchan47tc 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Petrar, going back down Memory Lane with you, you said, "The main one originally carrying BP's water, who was manning the page after an OTRS request was handed to them from an Admin (the original recipient), and who was there before BP admitted to its presence", I assume you are talking about Ocaasi and Rangoon. I never did fully understand how that all came about, do you? Did Ocaasi ask Rangoon to work on the article? Is this still being done? Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. And as you'll remember, neither of them ever stated their edits were done at the request of the company. They together wrote that horrid fourth para in the lede that attracted all the attention. At a certain point in the questioning process, O stated they felt picked on (or something similar) so the whole thing was dropped. The farthest we got was that everyone admitted these things should be disclosed, and that as yet, no rules are broken by not declaring because none exist. So yes, I have to assume it is still happening. petrarchan47tc 18:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Part of the convo is here. I will dig up the rest later. petrarchan47tc 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

just saw this from Jimmy Wales in his talk page - note that the use of the OTRS ticket system doesn't seem to be included...

petrarchan47tc 18:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting how he phrased that, as their numbers aren't "weak," they appear to be "astronomical." He has this way of phrasing things that just seems counterintuitive sometimes. But OK, whatever, let's see what that statement is. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"The arguments they have made are not carrying the day with the community." Oh boy. I have to lie down. I'm dizzy. Coretheapple (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Putting all that aside, based on Jimbo's subsequent talk page posts it looks like the Foundation is about to do something about paid editing. It's not clear what. Look, this is a step in the right direction, and I think it might have a kind of cultural influence if done right. So we'll see. The Foundation owns Wikipedia, and "hands off tradition" or not, what they say goes. As you guys know, changes on paid editing are absolutely, positively not supported by the community. So if they actually do something to keep PR people and corporate types out of the article space, even if they don't prevent future BP situations, they've definitely taken a correct stance. Got to give them credit for that, even if it is very much in their own personal interests to take such a stance. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It can only be good in the long run. I have to admit though, I had a lot more support when Arturo was a declared presence, an outed COI, than when Rangoon was working as a supposed independent editor. S/he argued with me for four solid months, probably earning money the whole time while my time was wasted, and even with the DRN, only one editor came in to help. But once it was known that BP was officially trying to influence their page, many editors were there agreeing with me. Now that we are officially saying, in all reality, "time to go back underground, folks", I expect it will be more difficult again, and the editors who get hired to be Wikipedia attack dogs for large companies will be even bigger jerks. That's who we'll be working with. At least Arturo had to be nice. Are you privy to what Rangoon put me through? (Actually, it was nothing compared with the undeclared Monsanto people.) petrarchan47tc 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, look at it this way: it seems that Arturo will not be affected by whatever they're doing in any way. But I do get your point. For example, I was totally unaware of the BP article myself until it was publicized. Coretheapple (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

:) I actually didn't mean that I wanted either option. I would rather not work with POV editors at all. My point is that I am not head over heels about the possible banning of something that should have been banned in the first place. BP can use the OTRS ticket system, once it's got some dang rules about transparency, to correct any misinformation and what-not. There is no reason I should have a BP representative coming to my talk page, asking me to review anything. Unless an Arturo-sized paycheck is in the mail first. That's just common sense, no? If Wiki chooses to cater to businesses and their desires, then Wiki should cover all aspects of it. Perhaps, as we talked about on Slim's page a while back, a group should be set up to handle COI requests, and they should be paid by Wiki for their time and to keep things NPOV. They would take requests, and handle the needed edits and talk page interactions. In other words, the hours upon hours that dear Gandydancer put forth fact-checking BP's drafts would instead be done by one of this group. Imagine if this had been the case, and if that paid Wiki helper had also dealt with the bullshit that was Rangoon11: it would mean that Gandy and I would never have had to dedicate months to the BP article (nor would the rest of you). This would mean that Gandy and I could have continued our work on the BP oil spill articles, which have gone entirely ignored since we began our work at BP (which all began because of the greenwashed intro and the resistance to any change toward NPOV). I know, I should be grateful for the great strides forward on the BP page and even with the topic of paid editing in general. But the encyclopedia has gone stagnant with regard to the largest ecological disaster in US history all because editors were taken away from their work in order to deal with something that Wikipedia should have dealt with at its inception. petrarchan47tc 20:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Rangoon11 is still around. petrarchan47tc 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion here. -- Stylecustom (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't looked at this in any detail, but at first blush, and I may be mistaken, but this seems like somebody doing some article editing on his company but not specifically assigned or asked to do so by his company. It's not like what we're seeing, with editors hired to edit Wikipedia articles or companies assigning people to do that, or to haunt talk pages to influence articles. I'm not quite sure what this was supposed to illustrate, and what policy changes the person raising the issue would recommend. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi core, are you aware of any data on paid advocacy editing, to show the extent of the problem? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding discussions on conflict of interest policy: to be honest, I don't see a very strong effort from those looking to enact a policy to understand the underlying concerns raised by others. There are attempts to put in various exemptions to address specific examples, rather than looking for a way to codify the points where there is agreement. (For example, a number of people have pointed to the existence of WP:COI as being enough; maybe then more effort should be placed into positioning a proposal as being a clear evolution of WP:COI into a policy.) Unfortunately, I don't think your comment is useful in bridging the gap. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the chances of reaching a consensus with the vast numbers of editors opposed to any restrictions on paid editing are nil. The various objections voiced on these pages are simply variations on a theme, "no." Not "maybe," not "if there are changes," not "we'll meet you halfway," but "no." N-O. If you skim through the efforts in the past that have been made on this you'll find that has been the situation. As a matter of fact, one of the proposals that were rejected would have done positive harm by permitting paid editing, and even it didn't pass muster with the paid editing lobby and their enablers. So sure, let's make this proposal now underway as good as possible - I think a powerful preamble may sway some people - but let's also be realistic that it isn't going anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is so, I don't believe the diff I pointed to was conducive to reaching an agreement. I appreciate your frustrations, but your aside makes it appear you have prejudged the views of others, which does not encourage them to collaborate, and makes it harder for those who are looking for ways that can make some progress. If you look at the history of pending changes, it was the source of many heated exchanges, with more polarized positions than for paid editing, and an approach going forward was found. isaacl (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes hasn't been a nagging issue for eight years, and resolving it isn't going to cause economic harm for hundreds or even thousands of people. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And yet, the conversation regarding paid editing is less polarized. WP:COI enjoys strong, broad-based support, which can be the start of a way to progress. isaacl (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems totally polarized whenever there is an effort to prohibit paid editing. There is no sentiment toward that. Neither is that something that can somehow be slipped by the effected parties. Either it is banned or not; there is no halfway. You either amputate a limb or you don't. Originally Jimbo Wales favored that, and then backed off. I don't want to discourage your optimism, and am glad you're working so hard on this. However, as you know others who worked on this in the past have already given up and have had no participation in this latest effort (except maybe for Jusdafax, and he has not been active). My feeling is that there will be no progress unless Jimbo and the Foundation take the initiative, which they may yet though it does not seem likely at present. Doing this ground-up just doesn't seem effective. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One other thing about pending changes. Haven't followed it, but it does not seem to have happened. It is hard to effectuate changes in general. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; I am not acquainted with pending changes so I couldn't say if that would help or hurt. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I previously pointed you to the discussion where, after a trial of pending changes ceased, consensus was built to deploy pending changes. As I indicated, it provides an example of how diverse opinions can be shepherded towards an agreement. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't see how you derive any comfort from the pending changes discussion. It's totally a different ball of wax, as it deals with a set of problems that people wanted to solve or were at least not opposed to resolving. There are a large number of people who are very happy with the status quo on COI, not interested in moving it an inch, not convinced there is a problem requiring resolution through policy. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you haven't reviewed the earlier discussion threads... Many people were/are adamantly opposed to pending changes, believing it to introduce a separate class of editors that could hinder contributions by those without the reviewer privilege. There was also a lot of angst caused by the trial, which unfortunately did not end when it was originally supposed to, and so the discussion got swamped by calls to end the trial. Finally the trial was ended, and through a structured discussion, the key contentious issues were identified and agreements reached on what approach could be best taken to reconcile them. I realize that reading through old discussions can be tedious, but it's the best option if you'd like to investigate for yourself how consensus agreements can be built. isaacl (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I skimmed through that. But while there were serious concerns about creating a new class of user, the end result desired by all parties (mainly to keep crap out of articles) was not contentious. Here we have a difference concerning what the meaning is of "crap." By the way, Mike Cline, who opposes the latest proposal, has an interesting post, which I've responded to. Let's see where that leads. I don't think there's anything wrong with tossing around ideas, but what concerns me is that eight years of tossing around ideas has not worked, and the scandals keep coming. I can tell you personally that my own interest in Wikipedia has totally nosedived since I became aware of how many hundreds and hundreds of Wikipedia editors, among them administrators, are cashing in on the project. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mike's post is an excellent one, and along the lines I suggested are necessary: isolating the points of disagreement and agreement. Your reply also aligns with my earlier suggestion of trying to build upon WP:COI. Perhaps I'm just more cynical: I've always been aware that Wikipedia's principles are double-edged swords. They've led to a huge influx of content from many sources, but struggle to shape this flow into effective articles. It's a basic problem with every large community in existence: some people will always seek to promote their own goals, and managing interpersonal interactions is hard. If you haven't read it already, Clay Shirky's talk, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", is an excellent dissertation on this subject. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I thought I was being more cynical. You're right about double-edged swords. The word I would use is "contradictory." The epitome of that is WP:IAR Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Put another way, I've always assumed there are editors seeking to profit from editing Wikipedia. No, it's not the contradictory rules that I am referring to. It's how, for example, the Assume Good Faith policy hinders frank discussion of editor behaviours, or how anonymous editing keeps some preventative actions from being enacted, or how Wikipedia's consensus model (in its current form) makes it easier for discussions to be derailed. All of these have their positive points, particularly when everyone in a community is there to help, as is the case upon its genesis. But as any community becomes popular, it attracts new people with different goals, and the original rules that served well at the time may no longer work effectively.

There is also a structural problem with trying to make all decisions by consensus: good-faith editors can have genuine differences in opinion on how Wikipedia should operate, where one view is not preferable to another, just different. For example, one editor might think English Wikipedia should be written at a grade 5 level, to broaden its appeal, while another might think it should be written at a grade 8 level, to allow for greater concision when discussing complex topics. Neither view is wrong; they're just proceeding from different assumptions. A large group discussion typically isn't an effective way to make these kinds of decisions (witness the endless debates on writing style; because ultimately the choice is arbitrary, it's really hard to build a consistent view by trying to aggregate the arbitrary choices of everyone else's style guides). isaacl (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think you're right on all these points. I hadn't really paid much attention to the rulemaking or bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia and am appalled. In a sense, it's out of control. Wikipedia's owners and board have, by consent, no control over it. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's another one of those cuts-both-ways principles: Many longstanding Wikipedia editors highly value the absence of centralized control, which helps encourage editors from all walks of life to contribute, versus a more curated incoming flow. Thus a lot of core contributors to Wikipedia don't want to see edicts from above, or a more hierarchical form of decision-making. isaacl (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(stalker comment) Incredibly good points from Isaac. This is what I'm observing also. We are trying to make rules about those seeking to spin articles but including those very people in our discussions. And because they have incentive, their numbers and stamina trump the independent editor by 5-10 times, from what I have seen. But we have administrators taking money for editing, so the hierarchy is to some degree also tainted. petrarchan47tc 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators also seem to be in the forefront of throwing up incredibly weak arguments against controls on paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators: another topic that is difficult to have a frank discussion about. I think, but am not sure yet, that there may be a 'good ole boys club' thing going on. Or, more like the brotherhood that exists between police officers, where protecting each other and the status quo rules the day. I recently saw an example of this but of course, I've no idea how pervasive this is. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think just a reluctance to change. To get back to Isaacl's initial point, the pattern is that not very well thought-out criticisms of paid editing proposals are made, they are responded to in full, and then discussion just ends or there's a new objection. That just happened on the policy proposal discussion page. The obstacle to collaboration and consensus in this area is users saying "no" and not being reasonable or flexible, it doesn't happen from saying the obvious. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what initial point you are referring to, but I think the first post in this thread is applicable: rather than trying to understand the reasonable points Mike Cline has just made, you seem to be looking for reasons for the discussion to fail. To expect everyone to be instantly converted by your arguments to your point of view is unrealistic. Flexibility is needed from everyone. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've shown plenty of flexibility, but that is just twisted into another argument to oppose restrictions on paid editing. Pretty hopeless and not worth any further expenditure of time. In any event, I'm away for a week, so let's see all the great breakthroughs that happen in my absence. Best of luck. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to add that this is not the optimal place to be discussing this. There is the policy page. Perhaps you can find a common ground with the opponents there. Hopefully there will be some movement in the next week and possibly that WMF statement that Jimbo promised. However, I think it's more likely that the cease-and-desist letter was that statement. Reading the letter carefully, it indicates that paid editing is OK as long as the firm abides by the weak current rules. Overall not an encouraging situation, and I see that the paid editing lobby is already gloating, and with good cause. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been discussing specific policy but individual behaviour, so I thought it would be better discussed on your talk page, with the hopes of improving the collaborative atmosphere. If progress is to be made, an understanding of how your actions are perceived is needed. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've been yelled at a lot on this issue. When I return after the holiday, I'll do a better job of pretending that it's possible to have a meeting of the minds with editors who have already prevailed in the discussion, have an overwhelming majority, and have no intention of budging. Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

... if you can easily view these videos (especially the 2nd one) or does it take too long to download.

I'm also wondering whether these might be put in the endmatter at WP:COI, or even maybe put the 2nd one in the body. Do, please, let me know what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
24		Talukas of Goa (talk)						Add sources
2,797		Dred Scott v. Sandford (talk)						Add sources
2,040		Scopes Trial (talk)						Add sources
6,522		United States Constitution (talk)						Add sources
4,396		IOS (talk)						Add sources
3,255		IOS version history (talk)						Add sources
370		Nokia N9 (talk)						Cleanup
187		Wayne LaPierre (talk)						Cleanup
222		History of Georgia (U.S. state) (talk)						Cleanup
1,525		Mobile operating system (talk)						Expand
14,340		Android (operating system) (talk)						Expand
3,626		BlackBerry (talk)						Expand
144		Road to … (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
926		Spartacus (film) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
482		Creation–evolution controversy (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
32		Multitasking (iOS) (talk)						Merge
218		Hacker (term) (talk)						Merge
18		Control Center (talk)						Merge
13		Communications in the Isle of Man (talk)						Wikify
6		National Business Center (talk)						Wikify
2		Stock Catalyst (talk)						Wikify
1		Martha Rofheart (talk)						Orphan
5		Mobiola (talk)						Orphan
13		History of network traffic models (talk)						Orphan
6		Jean Mauzé (talk)						Stub
6		Sol Linowitz (talk)						Stub
46		Rosshan Andrrews (talk)						Stub
6		Margaret Rockefeller Strong (talk)						Stub
1,064		Kodaline (talk)						Stub
38		Steven Pagones (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I've started to pay attention to the many Walmart articles. Specifically the Family wealth mentions and making sure they are kept up-to-date. Heck, just a few days ago there was $40 Billion dollars missing. A billion here, a billion there...pretty soon you're talkin' about some real money! While investigating, I ran across this...[2]...which reminded me so much of what we are afraid of regarding paid advocates/editors/operatives. Love the Collaboration discussion above. Don't know who said it but consider "I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to change the audience's mind".' Your polished discourse makes editors think. Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. TRA!```Buster Seven Talk 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster. That's interesting! I'll look in on it. Given my already short attention span, and failing eyes, I've mainly been focusing on articles for a tenth of a second at a time on STiKi. You ought to try it! Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP EDITING ROCKEFELLER HE DID NOT HAVE OVER 600BILLION NETWORTH. THAT WOULD MAKE HIM THE WEALTHIEST EVER, WHICH HE IS NOT. MANSA MUSA THE FIRST IS THE WEALTHIEST EVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredromenesko (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see List of wealthiest historical figures. That is the link that is used at the Rockefeller article in the infobox to explain the $663Billion dollar figure. When considering the real value of his wealth, Rockefeller is widely held to be the wealthiest person in history. There are 7 specific references to substantiate this claim. Mansa Musa is mentioned in the article but not with any specifics. If you can provide verifiable facts relating to Mansa Musa's real wealth then changes can be made. Also, maybe you are not aware, but using ALL CAPS is the equivalent of shouting. No one likes to be shouted at. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: it was Mike Cline who suggested that editors acknowledge a Code of Ethics, on the same talk page. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. Then I guess we're a stone's throw away from kumbaya. Coretheapple (talk) 04:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Recently the following notice was sent to some editors:

• I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page.

I know you edited that page and I wonder if you were included in that announcement mailing list. ```Buster Seven Talk 10:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, but I was actively involved in the discussion. You should have been notified. I couldn't help but notice that the majority of the people Martin canvassed were people who had previously agreed with him on this subject (and you hadn't). Coretheapple (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

at WT:COI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SantaCon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Village (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
756		Derek Bentley case (talk)						Add sources
1		Yolaina Natural Reserve (talk)						Add sources
6		Streamliner cars (rail) (talk)						Add sources
2		Makantaka Natural Reserve (talk)						Add sources
13		Laban (Book of Mormon) (talk)						Add sources
238		Vijayanagara (talk)						Add sources
34		Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori (talk)						Cleanup
125		Super Chief (talk)						Cleanup
707		Toxoplasma gondii (talk)						Cleanup
4		Cabinet of the Cook Islands (talk)						Expand
49		The Dead (Higson novel) (talk)						Expand
1		Yaatra (talk)						Expand
54		Bloke (word) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
187		Skulduggery Pleasant (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
38		Degenerate music (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1		Maramar Deuta (talk)						Merge
4		Admiral (train) (talk)						Merge
3		General (train) (talk)						Merge
11		Deepwater Horizon oil spill response (talk)						Wikify
9		Volume and extent of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (talk)						Wikify
10		Anuradha Sharma Pujari (talk)						Wikify
1		Assamese Response To Regionalism (talk)						Orphan
6		Mary Lizzie Macomber (talk)						Orphan
2		Dharam Pal Sabharwal (talk)						Orphan
1		Kligna Natural Reserve (talk)						Stub
35		Ruger Model 77 rotary magazine (talk)						Stub
29		Leader of the Liberal Democrats (talk)						Stub
6		B.ay A.rea D.erby Girls (talk)						Stub
464		Koochie Koochie Hota Hai (talk)						Stub
5		Raja of Muktyala (talk)						Stub