I really don't know the answer to that. I think that it originated on the Internet independently of Wikipedia. As to exactly what it means, I am guessing that it is derived from something like "thread of conversation", but that is purely a guess. I really do not know.
Thread (from the Online Dictionary of Computing) n. [Usenet, GEnie, CompuServe] Common abbreviation of `topic thread', a more or less continuous chain of postings on a single topic. To `follow a thread' is to read a series of Usenet postings sharing a common subject or (more correctly) which are connected by Reference headers. The better newsreaders can present news in thread order automatically. Not to be confused with the techspeak sense of `thread', e.g. a lightweight process.
Interestingly, this is far from a neologism. The OED says: "That which connects the successive points in anything, esp. a narrative, train of thought, or the like; the sequence of events or ideas continuing throughout the whole course of anything;" Citations are given going back to 1642.
Sweet! I just always assumed that it originated with the internet. Thanks Iridescent! J.delanoygabsadds 15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Why wasn't I indefed or blocked?
On most websites, you can (and will) be banned for simply being annoying. Even if you mean well, people will ban you just to get you off their hands. On Wikipedia, a block is only used "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." (from WP:BLOCK). Most people who get blocked are blocked for repeatedly vandalizing pages. Basically, vandalism damages Wikipedia's articles directly and can compromise Wikipedia's integrity, so repeat vandals are blocked quickly to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. More than 99% of blocks on registered accounts, for vandalism are indefinite. Another common reason people are blocked is for edit-warring, which is a violation of the three-revert rule. Edit wars disrupt the encyclopedia by wasting editors' time and energy and by making it nearly impossible for other people to improve the article. Edit wars also confuse readers, who will not think highly of an encyclopedia which keeps changing what it says in its articles. Thus, people who edit-war repeatedly are temporarily blocked (usually for 24 or 31 hours for the first offense) to force them to stop disrupting the article. The way to change an article is by discussing it on the talk page, not repeatedly changing the article back to your preferred version.
Now that I have said all that, I will actually answer your question... ;) The reason you were not blocked is because you were not intentionally damaging or disrupting Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we have a rule called Ignore All Rules. This rule means that if following a rule to the letter will harm Wikipedia, ignore it. Perminently blocking a good-faith editor always harms Wikipedia. Always. Although the things you did, particularly creating another account to circumvent your huggle ban, were violating policy, you were not using huggle to revert edits that were not vandalism, and it was very apparent that you were not consciously trying to do something wrong. That is why you were not blocked for sockpuppeting. And although you made a lot of mistakes with huggle before Metros removed your privileges, they were just that: mistakes. Huggle is a very powerful tool, and it requires a lot of experience with vandal-fighting to use it properly. Even for people who used Twinkle or other tools for a long time before getting Huggle, it still takes a while to get used to Huggle's immense power. I made quite a few mistakes when I first got it, and although I have been using it for more than 3 months, I still occasionally revert an edit that was clearly not vandalism. It was (and is) obvious that, unfortunately, you are not experienced enough to use huggle yet. However, it was just as obvious that you are here to help out. Thus, the solution is to prevent you from using huggle, not to prevent you from editing, period. Basically, as long as you continue trying to do the right thing, you will never be permanently blocked from Wikipedia. If you follow policies such as the three-revert rule, accept any sanctions received, (While you are allowed to challenge sanctions you think are wrong, you should not violate them, no matter how wrong you think they are.) and listen to any warnings/nudges you receive, you will never be even temporarily blocked. What will get you blocked, however, is if you repeatedly ignore people when they tell you that you are violating a policy.
What happened while I was sleeping?
Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate a little more?
On ani,the discussion admins' decisions,etc.
Nothing much, just some random comments about me adopting you. J.delanoygabsadds 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Next batch of questions please!!! Iri you can ask too!!:)
Please note that there are no hard-cut right or wrong answers to these questions. They are merely for me to get a rough feel of where your opinions lie and to see how well you understand various procedures. Some answers are obviously better than others, and it is not impossible to totally miss the mark with a few of the questions, but you cannot "fail" them. Also note that my opinions are different than others in some areas. I am not consciously trying to impose my views on you, but I will inevitably base my responses to your question on my interpretation of various policies and guidelines. If something I say makes no sense at all, tell me. If you would like someone else to get involved in this, please feel free to ask them for their input/advice/whatever. J.delanoygabsadds 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Q You accidentally revert and warn someone who wasn't vandalizing. Specifically, what actions do you take?
A:Undo my reverts and apologize and strike out the warnings.
Follow-up: That is probably the best answer that you could have given.
Q You revert someone and warn someone four times. They make another edit which you revert, and you report them to WP:AIV. Before an admin acts on your report, you realize that all of the edits you reverted were, in fact, legitimate, and you were in error. What do you do?
A:Put a comment on AIV saying edits were legit and apologize to the warned user and strike out the warnings and pray I don't get blocked.
Follow-up: First, you will never get blocked for isolated mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone. Just read WP:STOCKS. The Main Page has been blanked/replaced with something else/deleted more than once. User:ClueBot's block log is not empty. The thing is, everyone is human, and humans make mistakes. If you didn't make mistakes, (especially since you are relatively new here) that would be weird. It would most likely mean you are not human! :) The issue is not how many mistakes you make, the main issue is how you respond when you find out you made a mistake. If you kept making erroneous reports to AIV, someone would ask you WTH you were doing, but they would only block you if you ignored them when they told you that you were making mistakes.
Note:Village stocks is HILARIOUS!!!!:D LOL!!
Q Someone creates this page, and you come across it. (assume it was named Jacob Paterson, and was in the main article space) What actions do you take?
A:Immediately csd it {{db-bio}}.
Follow-up: Excellent response! That is exactly correct.
Q Suppose the person in question 2 creates the page and then blanks it 5 seconds later, before you have a chance to do anything. What do you do then?
A:Mark it {{db-author}}.
Follow-up: Also perfect!
Q The first sentence on the page about dolphins reads "Dolphins are marine mammals that are closely related to whales and porpoises". Someone changes it so it reads "Dolphins are marine mammals that are closely related to whales and porpoises, and they are cute". What would you do?
A:Revert and warn the user {{test}}.
Follow-up: Just so you know, this follow-up is purely my personal opinion on the matter, and you are not required to follow my advice here. What you said is correct, but it is not, IMO, optimal. If it was their first edit to Wikipedia, or if they did not have any warnings, I would undo the edit with an edit summary of "Undid good faith edit by XXXXX" and probably not say anything to them about it. If they added it again, or if they already had a warning, I would most likely revert their edit and warn them for adding unsourced material to articles without citations. ({{subst:uw-unsourced1}}) If they kept adding even after I warned them, I would increase the level of the uw-unsourced warnings until I reported them to AIV. Basically what I am trying to say here is that while this edit is vandalism, it was not made with the same intentions that an edit that says "Derek Jeter is the worst baseball player EVER!!!!!!1!!1" is made with. Thus, I try to treat it differently than "common" vandalism by assuming good faith. (WP:AGF is a must-read for any vandal-fighters. I read it around once every two weeks to try to keep my focus on what Wikipedia is trying to do.)
Q Someone adds "Peter is the fattest kid on earth because he eats here too much" to the article about McDonalds. You revert and warn the editor for vandalism. The editor posts on your talk page asking why you reverted his edit, because it is the truth, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to tell the truth? What do you do?
A:Oh my.....That guy has problems. ?But tell him yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but not a notebook full of gossip or secrets or secret attacks against others.Don't do it again.
Follow-up: That's good, but what would you do if he responded by pointing you to an article like Criticism of George W. Bush and said that that article attacks someone, so why can't his attacks stay? If that happened, you should tell him that everything in Wikipedia has to be backed up with a citation to a reliable source. Also, articles have to be written from a neutral point of view, and his edits were inappropriate because he was making a personal attack on someone. The best way to answer questions like the one I (cheatingly) asked in this follow-up is to include links to relevant policies.
A:You know I've actually watched that movie before.Must be famous.;)
Follow-up: I knew that all those other questions would be somewhat boring, so I decided to give you one for free. :D I love that movie, and it has an awesome question, so I asked it. :P
Q I you saw someone revert an edit that was obviously not vandalism, what would you do?
A:Undo and talk to them,figure if they just weren't paying attention and it was an honest mistake or if they were unaware of policy on something.
Follow-up: Good response. That is the correct way to handle that.
Q If you saw someone revert an edit that you were pretty sure was not vandalism, but was in the gray area, what would you do?
A:Ask for an admin's opinion or another editor's.(Like you):)
Follow-up: Also an excellent response. Often, when I can't figure something out, and not just in vandal-fighting areas, I try to find the answer myself, and I waste a lot of time. If you can't figure something out, (and this is directed more at me than at you) just ask for help. Simple, easy, and very effective.
A:A musician modifying an article about himself to make himself more appealing or removing criticism or negative content(drug use,arrests,lawsuits,embarrassing moments)
Follow-up: Very good.
Q What do you consider to be the most important of Wikipedia's five pillars?
A:The first.Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia.
Follow-up: This was an opinion question, so no follow-up. Because if I did, I would just look foolish... (Actually, since this is technically a follow-up describing my reasons for not giving a follow-up, I guess I am making a fool of myself, so I'll shut up now :P )
Q Please explain and elaborate your answer to the previous question.
A:Without this pillar Wikipedia would be an "indiscriminate collection of information".
Follow-up: I have to say that I did not know it was possible to answer this question so well, and at the same time so concisely. That was, IMO, an unequivocally AWESOME response, and it deserves a cookie! (which is below, because it formats weird if I put it here...)
Q Have you ever created an article? If so, what is its name?
A:No, at least not one I remember.
Follow-up: That's fine, and I did not ask this question to try to make you feel bad. I just wondered.
Q What is your main purpose for editing Wikipedia?
A:To improve it, to have something to do,to contribute knowledge everyone should have.Ask Jimbo Wales why he founded Wikipedia,lol.
Follow-up: Again, a question just for my own curiosity. Since I asked you an insanely difficult question like that, I think it is only fair that I answer it for myself as well.
My primary reason for editing Wikipedia was, until just a little while ago, to become an administrator. I had convinced myself subconsciously that unless I had the +sysop flag, I would never mean anything here. I am not sure exactly what changed my opinion. I think it was when I passed 45000 edits, which is as far as Wannabe Kate can count to. In the weeks prior to that, I was obsessed with my edit count, thinking almost solely of reaching that threshold.
When I did reach it, nothing happened. There were no fireworks, celebrations, or anything. That made me ask myself the question I asked you here. I realized that I had been lying to myself, that I had been trying to convince myself that I was editing for some "noble cause" like "preserving what others have written" or something like that. When I reached my subconscious goal, it made me admit to myself that that was the reason I was editing Wikipedia, and I realized that that was not a very good reason to be here.
I decided that my new reason for editing Wikipedia would be to try to help anyone I could with anything I could, regardless of how much time and effort it took me to do it. Even though I still fight vandalism frequently, I watchlisted WP:AN and WP:ANI and tried to give input whenever I thought I could. (I'm never fast enough at the help desk) When Iridescent posted the thread about you, I looked into it and realized that all you needed was someone to help you out and point you in the right direction.
When I started this adoption thingy, I did not realize that
You would teach me more than I taught you,
You would help me to understand myself in a more meaningful way.
I can't really think of many other questions to ask, since you now know (if you didn't already) most of the basic basics now. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page, I'll have both watchlisted. I guess the assignment [sic] I'm giving you now is to get out there and do some good old-fashioned vandal-whuppin'!!! I'll frequently look at your contribs, and I'll let you know if I see anything that seems iffy. Eventually, after observing you for a few days, I'll probably come up with some very difficult questions to ask you... <thunderous evil laughter/> I'll post on your talk page if I add any more questions to this page. Right now, I want to thank you for being so enthusiastic and for your excellent answers. Here's a little something to add some sparkle to your userpage. J.delanoygabsadds 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Response:What in the world could I have possibly taught you? How did I help you understand yourself? What about the rest of the basics? Please define iffy. I do believe the essay editcountis does say there is no "applause" for reaching a certain number of edits. For question number 5 I quoted "What Wikipedia Is NOT....". How was that answer soooo "awesome"?(Then again in the past I was one of the best writers in my class,not much writing in the 7th grade.) I know more about than what most people here seem to think. Okay if I know the basics, teach the advanced stuff.(all that fancy code,creating templates,creating userpage designs, you might want to get other tutors,E and R5 know about userpages,I know R5 knows how to create templates,stuff like that). When I began editcount and adminship was all I cared about too...we're quite alike. Note:I am not your average adoptee. Hit me with everything you got.I love challenges.Don't worry if you have to ask "uncomfortable" questions(apparently R5 just got a girlfriend,see his userpage,;)), i can handle them easily. I am Aries by zodiac,a fire sign(which is most definitely my definition), and am thick-skinned, able to take the worst of insults like they were well... nothing.Cheers!(Kodster,R2,R5)Happy Editing!(W89 or W8)L33t!(Xp).;)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Award of First Success
For completing the first stage of your adoption program with a degree of success that FAR surpassed my most optimistic expectations, I, J.delanoygabsadds, hereby present you with this Award of First Success. Congratulations, and keep up the good work! J.delanoygabsadds 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And here's the cookie I promised you!
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Q Suppose you found out that someone here on Wikipedia was idolizing you with an almost religious zeal and they said as much on their userpage. What would you do?
A:<laugh>I saw this on your talkpage.<laugh> I'd tell them that here,everyone is equal, and that no one should be worshiped.LOL!
Q Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate, biased, poorly written and slow compared to other information sources, has a culture of "anti-elitism" that discourages experts from writing, and has some gaping gaps in important areas whilst covering relatively minor things in obsessive detail (Chronology of the Harry Potter stories is, at present, a longer article than History of China). Why is it the eighth most popular website in the world? – iridescent 22:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A First off at my school(And I'm in honors) Wikipedia is known for having mistakes and vandalism but is not thought of as a an encyclopedia written by 3-year olds! Bias, perhaps but anybody with an IQ over 100(which is average) I think would be able to recognize bias as bias and either ignore it or fix it. Poorly written, perhaps for the majority of stubs but most people I know go on Wikipedia to find stuff out that's usually in articles start-class or better that aren't as bad. Anti-elitism although unfortunate, is just a consequence of "anybody can edit Wikipedia". Thus experts realize their work will likely be changed in ways they don't want it to be changed or otherwise destroyed by vandals and stay away. Iri your suggestion of forcing newcomers to choose a nickname(create an account when they first edit) is an absolutely genius idea(I strongly suggest you propose it to Jimbo)! It will allow blocking of vandals(indef,unlike IPs) while protecting people's privacy(No ip address, in all hacking games i ever played you hacked into someone's computer by finding their ip add.) and letting them receive credit for their work. (Barnstars) And as for your last two questions. It's human nature, my classmates are more likely to know more about(I'm using music as an example) song titles,the artist,concert times,how "hot/cool he/she is", rather than the physics or history of music. Why the 8th most visited? because of the vast ocean of knowledge of facts here. They like the ability to learn something,check a fact or learn more about something. People also don't stay away because they know (I hope) that Wikipedia is a work in progress and always be a work in progress getting better over time. Indeed I do not consider contributing to Wikipedia a waste of time, because I know I'm helping a lot of people.(I hope) :D Hope this is a good answer in your opinion.
Section for Random Ramblings, Discussion, and Advice That Is Not Technically in the Form of Interrogative Sentencesedit
Huggle ban evasion. When Metros told you that he had removed your huggle privileges, you did what I probably would have done if I had been in your shoes, namely, try it to see if it was really un-usable. So cool. Apparently, however, your huggle privileges were not revoked, due to a bug, some random glitch, or whatever. The correct response there would probably have been a note on Metros's talk page to see if he had reconsidered his ban, in which case he would have told you that he had not, and likely would have tried to figure out what was going on. In any case, you should not have continued using huggle, even though you were technologically capable of using it. Also, you created several other accounts in order to use huggle when Metros's huggle ban actually "took". That is practically the worst thing you could have done, and that is why Iridescent was considering banning you. (see WP:SOCK. That is what he thought you were doing.) I believe you were acting in good faith, and I believe you did not mean to sneakily bypass your huggle sanction. However, your actions were, umm, not prudent. The proper way to handle something like that is to discuss the issue with the person who imposed the sanction, not trying to continue using huggle regardless of what anyone said.
Please place any comments here
Kay thanks for the info.
Edit count. Although it is not nearly as bad as the above, updating your edit count as often as you do is somewhat looked down at. While it is not technically wrong, most people will get the impression that you are obsessed with how many edits you have, that you care nothing about quality, only quantity. Since you have a few thousand already, I would advise updating your count at most every 500 edits, and less often (e.g. every 1000) would definitely not hurt.
Please place any comments here
Wow really?But kay.
Huggle. Huggle is an excellent tool for dealing with vandalism. It is also insanely powerful and it is very difficult to get used to. Almost everyone (including me) that I have seen start using it makes a lot of mistakes for at least 4-5 days. Many continue making sporadic errors for several weeks or even more than a month. I have been using the tool for just over 3 months and I still make errors. For a long time huggle was only available to a few people. When it went "public", it got so bad that there was very serious discussion about permanently banning huggle from Wikipedia. It was eventually decided that huggle would stay, but abusers would have their privileges revoked quickly if they made many errors. That is apparently what happened to you. I think that you should try using Twinkle carefully for a while to prove that you understand what vandalism is. My advice is, if you have any question, just move on. There are hundreds of people who patrol recent changes, and odds are someone else will remove any borderline vandalism which you decided was to close to call.
Please place any comments here
Can you tell me more about huggle's origins/story/legacy/saga/disaster?:).
Huggle started as an anti-vandalism tool that User:Gurch made for his own personal use. Apparently (I wasn't vandal-fighting at the time, but I have seen some old conversations...) people asked him how on earth he was reverting and warning so fast. When he told them, they apparently asked if they could use it, and he started distributing it around via email. I believe that other people than Gurch started showing up with huggle between last December and the middle of last January, but I am not sure of the exact details. Gurch then left on extended wikibreak, and huggle was distributed to trusted users from other users who already had it upon request. Thus the hugglers were a small group. This was the case when I first got huggle near the end of February. For a while, this status quo remained in place. Then Gurch returned (as User:Gurchzilla) and started expanding huggle's capabilities and, to some degree, its speed. I seem to remember a push to let Huggle go "live", that is, anyone who wanted to could use it, just like Twinkle. Eventually, huggle did go live, and many, many editors began using it. Unfortunately, it takes a steady mind and a lot of vandal-fighting experience to handle huggle properly, and many of the new users simply were not experienced enough. It was bad. I mean, really bad. People were filing reports to AIV for trivial things like typing "hi" into a page, people reverted anything that even remotely resembled vandalism, even edits that were clearly not vandalism, like good-faith attempts to change American English spellings to British English spellings (honour instead of honor, yogurt instead of yoghurt, etc.). Eventually, it got bad enough that Gurch started a thread on the administrators' noticeboard to see if people wanted him to ban huggle completely. (If you want, I can dig through the archives and find it for you) It was eventually decided that the tool wasn't the problem, it was the inexperienced users who were misusing huggle's power. Administrators were encouraged to swiftly deal with any abuse or misuse of the tool. I believe that the next version that comes out will require people to have rollback before they can use huggle, so that will change a lot. I hope that answers your question. If there is anything that you want to know more about, just ask.
Sorry to hijack your adoption page (which, for obvious reasons, I'm watching). The discussion J.delanoy is referring to is here; although it's quite complicated and technical, it would probably be worth your while reading it to understand exactly why so many people reacted in the way they did to you. (Because of archiving, the link in the discussion to "the conversation that led up to it" no longer works; if you want to read the original discussion that led up to this thread, it can be found here). — iridescent 16:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Time zones and work Just so you know, I live in the Eastern Time Zone, and I have a part-time job, so I may not be able to answer your questions or follow up your responses immediately if it late where I live or if I have to go to work. I do habitually check my watchlist whenever I get on Wikipedia, so I will answer/follow up as soon as I can.
Please place any comments here
I live in southern CA,pacific standard time.Offset from east is -3 hours.+3 hours for me to know your time.Offset for pst from utc is -7 hours.Cheers!
