User talk:Mathglot/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Let's try SuggestBot once
This ( {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}}) should get me some suggested articles to work on, if I've followed the SuggestBot doc correctly.
Now let's see what happens. Mathglot (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
List of state leaders in 1947 - French Co-Prince
Note to self: User talk:Zoltan Bukovszky edits many articles about world leaders. He claims Léon Blum was French Co-Prince of Andorra and I claim there's no WP:RS that supports that
Re: following
My sincerest apologies. I just couldn't believe Sandra would go out of her way to repeat her claims on a topic that had nothing to do with the train attack article (and therefore, herself (she didn't even get herself involved before then)). I was pretty frustrated. Versus001 (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Versus001:, in response to your message: No need to apologize to me, I didn't see anything offensive to me personally, I just thought you'd be a more effective advocate for your own cause by staying calm. I understand your frustration, but believe me, it's the best course of action. After you log off, you can go crush a beer can, but try to keep a lid on it while in Talk. Again, I'm not castigating you, it's not my place to do so, and there's no reason to. This is just friendly advice, you'll be happier for it.
- By the way, check the note at the top of my page; if we interact again, I prefer to keep conversations in one place, so if I talk to you on your page, just respond there with a ping, and if you talk to me on my page, I'll respond here (like I'm doing now) and ping you (like this:
{{ping|Versus001}}) so you'll know there's something here for you to read. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
May I ...
ask if you do paid editing? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: Not a chance, sorry. Not sure whether to be insulted, or complimented because you feel my writing is of such quality that you think highly enough to want to compensate me to promote your company or for whatever pet project you have going on. Or are you picking editors randomly, and asking them this? I think WP policy seriously frowns on this sort of thing. Whatever possessed you to contact me about this? Mathglot (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Now I see what this is about; an accusation—of me!—being a paid editor! See User talk:Smallbones#Recant your accusation of Paid editing immediately. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's a question anyone can ask, it is not a slur we just ask that if you were a paid editor to point out the COI. It's a matter of good faith that works in both ways, SPA (Single Purpose Accounts) are allowed here if they edit within the guidelines. Demanding apologies for earnest and good faith questions is as ludicrous as forsaking those other editors merely because they are paid to be here. This place is like a fungus and grows on you so one day a paid editor may sample the other roses and just as often some take medication to eradicate the fungus that has grown ;). There are a few long term editors very esteemed (depending on who you ask ) that are paid to edit. An example is one of our site admins User:Jehochman I'm linking his userpage as you can see he puts what he conflict of interests are which is a little different then paid editing it just puts it on the table for everyone. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I reject your analysis that "it is not a slur [if] we just ask if you were a paid editor." It's only natural that a statement like that appearing on this page might lead respected editors reading it to stop and wonder about my possible status as a paid editor, and wonder why anybody would ask such a question if there were no truth to it, whereas up until now no one has had any reason to wonder about that. "Where there's smoke, there's fire", right? Of course it's a slur if made without evidence, it's absurd to imagine that it is not.
- I don't believe that there is any decent, respectful way to ask "Are you (or, were you) a paid editor" on someone's talk page with zero evidence, that doesn't leave a taint or odor of possible serious misbehavior. (However, I would totally be fine with the placing of such a statement if instead one had written, "We believe you may be a paid editor based on your work on Article due to these diffs[1][2][3][4][5], are you?" if a good-faith effort had been made to investigate and find evidence and include it on the talk page along with the question.) However, this was not what happened. No effort was spent, no investigation was done, it's a bare question/accusation with no evidence whatever. Perhaps (and this is pure speculation on my part) it was done out of a desire to save time by skipping the time-consuming investigative part on the part of a busy editor who has done plenty of good work rooting out paid editors, based on their sixth sense of who is likely to edit on a certain type of article (Vemma, for example). However, nobody is perfect, and they made a mistake in this case by skipping the minimal investigation which would have quickly demonstrated the truth of the matter. By their misstep, they harmed my reputation, and they must take responsibility for undoing the harm, as I cannot credibly delete the accusation myself. I'm simply asking for recantation of a baseless accusation and an apology for the bother; that's it.
- If you believe someone might be a paid editor, the proper way to do that, imho, is to do a bit of investigation, find some evidence of paid editing, and only then make the accusation (or "ask the polite question" if you prefer). I affirm your statement of "good faith works both ways" if by that you mean that when I defend my reputation and demand a retraction for a baseless accusation I am entitled to the very same assumption of good faith that I am making my demand for legitimate reasons based on policies and guidelines, and that it is right and proper for me to do so. The other editor has accused me falsely of something which is a violation of WP policy, however I have not accused the other editor of anything at all other than making a mistake, which is something we all do on occasion. Furthermore, this error can easily be rectified and it should be rectified, and then we can all go back to editing with no harm done. Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That's your choice I suppose but its a mountain out of a molehill in all reality, none the less its up to you how you percieve it, most members here will think it is a non issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the comment immediately above. I just saw this discussion, such as it is, referenced on Smallbones' talk page. I don't know the background to this or how it came up, but sometimes one has to ask questions like that. I don't understand why you are making a fuss, and doing so seems to be an unwarranted accusation of bad faith on the part of the questioner. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- "sometimes one has to ask questions like that"? How about... What is your real name, Coretheapple? I just have to ask. - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:B15A:74E8:F4BB:162B (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's movement at Template talk:Incoherent which needs my feedback. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)