User talk:Dsprc/Archive 2

Bernie Finn[edit]

Please leave my editing of Bernie Finn's page along. As his media adviser, it is my job. I will continue to delete your views and if I am banned I will take it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmesiti (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pmesiti, what precisely do you mean by "I will take it further"? Exactly what measures it is that you assert you will take? -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Communication Logo[edit]

Hi! Are you still able to help updating the logo on the Rogers Communications page? There are also a ton of edits that I've suggested on the Talk page, your help would be very much appreciated. Christ.clarke (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christ.clarke Yo. Sure for logo. We'll see about the rest. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dsprc Great! I'll use the form to email you here on Wikipedia, unfortunately I can't attach the image to the form but if you reply to my email I'll be able to attach it in a reply to you. We also need a few pages retired, is that something you can help with? They are:

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christ.clarke (talk • contribs)

Christ.clarke, I replied to the last mailing but never recieved a response (maybe was chewed-up by filters or something). What do yo mean "retired"? -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fbreader[edit]

Heya, this is some FBReader content

"FBReader is undeniably one of the best ebook reader apps available on the Android platform" Linux Magazine http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/Transfer-Ebooks-Wirelessly-to-an-Android-Device-with-FBReader

http://news.softpedia.com/news/FBReader-for-Android-Updated-with-Support-for-Slovoed-Dictionaries-252458.shtml

http://goodereader.com/blog/spotlight-on-android/fbreader-adds-drm-to-attract-content-device-partners

http://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/yotaphone-adds-fbreader-to-allow-for-better-ebooks-reading-choice

http://goodereader.com/blog/electronic-readers/top-7-e-reading-apps-for-the-sony-z3

http://www.androidcentral.com/apps-week-fbreader-playerpro-headless-and-more

http://techie-buzz.com/softwares/media-tools/find-and-read-ebooks-with-fbreader.html

http://lifehacker.com/5676480/fbreader-plus-dropbox-keeps-your-ebooks-synced-on-your-android-phone

http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/fbreader-is-brilliant-ebook-reader-manager-downloader/

External

http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/FBReader

http://www.goodreads.com/ereaders/61-fbreader

Cheers mate -- Aronzak (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aronzak: Thanks. I have a bunch of others as well. They moved article to User:Dsprc/FBReader if you want to start hacking on it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor with close connection on transhumanist politics page[edit]

Hello!

I noticed that you added the conflict-of-interest header to the transhumanist politics article. Would you be willing to elaborate on why you did this? I have started a relevant section on the Talk page for the article, so you can respond there if you would like.

Cheers,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FBReader[edit]

essential for epub reading on Linux, only other choice is CoolReader for non-KDE

FBReader & CoolReader are more android focused.

~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hacking Team, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. Scr★pIron^IV 13:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Hello again,

I just want to say that, despite our disagreements, I appreciate the improvements you've just made to the transhumanist politics article. Thank you (and sorry if I caused any problems trying to edit at the same time).

Cheers,

Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Haptic-feedback: The mobile client doesn't spit out any warning messages for edit conflicts like Web version does, it just overwrites them with whatever version I'm editing. Not sure if that is a bug or a "feature" (usually both). If anything, I probably stepped on you.

So much time wasted over that edit and solution was so damn simple: compromise (luckily, there was existing framework to easily do that ;)). I got tired of reading and reverts, so I stuck it up there. Problem solved. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad.[edit]

Gah. I didn't even realize I'd clicked the wrong button until I saw your edit. Apologies. valereee (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: you're good - the rest of the edits should've been removed anyway; I would've done the same. Only that one small section was actually suitable for inclusion. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Authenticator[edit]

Only the Android app isn't fully open source, the other versions are open source so I think it is misleading to users to say it isn't open open source. In addition the code is fully provided for the PAM module, and iOS code. Johnathan.falk (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnathan.falk: It is proprietary as explained by the 3rd-party source provided in citation. Apple TOS for their "app store" explicitly require everything shipped on that platform to also be proprietary. Google themselves have stated all further releases are proprietary as well (the fact that iOS store show updates, but the source tree does not reflect them exemplifies this). The source tree is old and out dated, along with your information. If you object to this rationale, or challenge reliability of source in citation, the proper venue for discussion is article Talk page so other editors can form a consensus. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note this is similar to Chrome and Chromium, where the former is based upon the latter, but none could reasonably argue that Chrome is open source, even if built from Chromium. Unfortunately, Google chose to leave Authenticator with the same nomenclature instead of differentiating them. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of internet forums[edit]

I've worked alongside you on this article for months. I'm not sure it is constructive to revert edits that are policing the list of disqualified sites listed on the talk page. If its already on the disqualified list for months and has been removed by an editor, it would be best to open a topic on the talk page and get consensus. I don't want to see another revert war like we saw last week so I'm writing you here to ask that the you take craigslist and 2channel off the list and lets discuss the matter on the talk page and reach a consensus. I'll open the topics up. on TALK. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus or discussion for "disqualification", just one editor's unilateral decision based upon opinion which does not mesh with global consensus. This has already been discussed. Global trumps local. Just because they wrote it on Talk doesn't make it so.

2channel, which you continue to remove, is not a hosting service, nor is it an image board. 2channel the forum and text board, is not Futaba Channel the image board. It is a forum, it has an article, it goes in the list. CL is also a forum, it has an article, it goes in the list. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that if you're going to police, it is helpful to at least be based upon policy and global consensus. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. dsprc, I want to again encourage you not to revert decisions that are documented on the TALK PAGE and make sweeping format changes when there is an open discussion on the talk page regarding the format. The TALK PAGE is the place to work this out, not revert warring and nor erasing TALK PAGE discussions. Wikipedia is a collaboration.
72.181.218.181 (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions are consensus. There is consensus to remove categories, there is consensus to not have post-count-based inclusion criteria, and there is no basis for including the post counts at all. All of this is documented on Talk. No one has reverted a decision, nor removed any Talk content. There is also no edit war. Global guidance for inclusion has already solved those issues, so I just follow them instead of getting bogged down in a local discussion when we've already answers. The only formatting change was to break off the post counts and Cats; after you remove those, the dates follow. What you are left with is the links. If all that is left are links, there is no point in having a table. If no table, alpha is the sensible way to sort entries. Rather than suggest to not make changes, I encourage you to be bold. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have reverted every edit made by anyone since July 6, in some cases 4 or 5 times - one only needs to look at the history. The article needed to be locked down by he admins last week.

And this is a link to the 1,200 word TALK PAGE erasure that you have now relocated to an archive page. [Removed TALK SECTION] 72.181.218.181 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit (temporarily) to provide an alternative format for consideration. Please do not revert until others have had a chance to comment on the desirability of the this format versus the one you posted or recommend some hybrid. I did not include all you additions from yesterday - time constraint - they certainly can be added. Thanks. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted feedback you could sandbox it, draft it etc. Was never layout which was problematic. Don't lecture me on reverts and then do exactly what you're bitching about. Do whatever ya' want; I'm not wasting anymore time on it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@72.181.218.181: - Please do not revert until others have had a chance to comment - that's not how this works. see WP:CONSENSUS. you can link to old versions, explain other possibilities, and even boldly make changes, but you can't tell people not to revert those changes. Dsprc isn't the only one that has expressed concerns. For the record, I also requested a stop to editing, but not to protect any particular version but rather to focus on discussion and stop this disruptive back-and-forth. The current version is the most basic possible and the only one that definitely meets Wikipedia standards. It would be good to have more information, I agree, but what information to add seems to be a point of contention, so let's figure it out (on the article talk page). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: well, I am not editing that page anymore; absolute waste of time over something so trivial. Already removed from Watchlist so, good luck on sorting it all out. FWIW, I don't think the tools which fire WP:Notifications work for IP editors; probably will have to leave {{Tb}} or {{tbt}} on their Talk. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet forums[edit]

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums]
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping a newbie. Its because of people like you that this place is so great. Thank You Blessedhuman111 (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of applications of ARM cores[edit]

You deleted a delete request. Please discuss, don't just revert. What's up with that? Brycen (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brycen: PROD can be removed (I deleted nothing). If you think it should go then AfD it. Calls for discussion are ironic given PROD which allows for deletions without discussion; what's up with that!? Also, please try to create an appropriate heading or some other indication of what you're referring to. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khayal Abbas AKhtar[edit]

Sir, this person being a controversial personality in his country. His article has been attacked (several times) with vandalism in past. You, being an experienced wikipedian, suggest either to remove it from wikipedia (to avoid expected vandalism in future) or anything else? contact me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabbas (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Imabbas: Please stop recreating this article under different names or you will be blocked. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sir then what i can do why this article attaked servel times.....plz you can aviod him to attacked i will be very thanksful to you.... and later i cant recreate a article....plz aviod him it i my request to you becuse your are an experienced wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imabbas (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Imabbas: The article was deleted per: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). You have created an article, which has repeatedly been deleted because it fails to meet these inclusion criteria. This person is not notable, it highly likely you are writing about yourself. This is an encyclopædia, not a social network. Please stop. Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Digital rights management shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template me; if you've something to say then speak with me as a human being. I wasn't even going to touch it after that and didn't even hit 3r. However, if you're going to come here to harangue me, why don't you also do the same with other editor that has the axe to grind? 3 editors reverted them, so this isn't the place you should be lazily dropping templates. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CyberTeamRox[edit]

stop reporting my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saheenshoukath (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 September 2015‎

@Saheenshoukath: Reported nothing; did however nominate article for deletion as subject fails to meet basic inclusion criteria (WP:GNG). Is just a bunch of script kiddies with zero coverage. Also very sloppy and poor OPSEC to declare association or even edit in a public place like this... better # rm -rf / and grab DBAN.

-- dsprc ^[talk] 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for fixing my edit where I accidentally deleted another editor's comments on the Frederick Brennan talk page and for assuming good faith in the process. I'm on a mobile presently but you can expect a barnstar soon. Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Lucasoutloud (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasoutloud, I know that feel. Experienced this on mobile quite a bit, both in Mozilla Fennec and Wikipedia app. Are serious bugs in how they handle cursor/text selection/input. Is their implementation as others don't have these issues. Save the barnstars and your time; don't worry about it. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lamo Talk[edit]

Hello,

I've posted on the Adrian Lamo talk page regarding your recent reversion(s).

Best Regards,

— Adrian Lamo ·· 17:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quack[edit]

@Valereee: Does this look like a duck to you? Nym, language and objections are similar, especially in context. (ping you here for, reasons.) -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yow...yes, it does resemble one. Certainly it's an interesting set of first edits. :) I've just edited, maybe a little more rope? valereee (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quack is too different. Which is very interesting...why would a clearly experienced editor who hasn't been editing this article or the talk page suddenly sprout a sock for it? Just their idea of fun? valereee (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility. SirYoureWrong (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: They™ do it all the time (who knows what for... like the gazebo ceiling-fan spammer; forever mysterious). Could be meatpuppet, axe-grinder or just plain inexperienced (maybe I'm too jaded ).
@SirYoureWrong: practice what ya' preach.[1] WP:CIV wouldn't apply here anyway; WP:AGF is probably more apt... And yeah, I'll go back read both of 'em -- you should as well. With that said, tellin' people they're wrong every time you sign posts really ain't gonna' help your positions much. Mayhaps WP:CHU/S? -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No politicization[edit]

It is very wrong to bring your political views and enforce opinionated classifications. [2] [3] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assalaum alaikum, Mahmudmasri. Both Radio Nederland and VOA are State controlled media organizations, so Category:State media stays. For VOA specifically, propaganda is what they are chartered to do; just like RFE/RL, RT, Al Jazeera, Press TV, CCTV, NHK et al. My philosophical leanings are of zero consequence or importance (you're not even privy to them). The objective facts speak for themselves. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We alekom el salam. Though, CCTV isn't categorized as such. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmudmasri: Category:China Central Television is already a sub cat of State Media. I just removed State Media from VOA as is also already sub cat'ed. Radio Nederland has no categorization like this so I left it in. Cats are just for people to locate related stuff anyway. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NYC Resistor.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:NYC Resistor.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freelancer.com, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privacy Act. 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) 09:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at the NPR article[edit]

Hi, DSPRC. I'm heading over to the WP:AN3 noticeboard to file an edit warring report. It should only take me a few minutes. Please let me know before then if there is any reason why I should not do so. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic Fine by me. 2 reverts hardly seems warranted but be my guest. -- dsprc ^[talk] 00:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. I've reverted your bold problematic addition to the article, and would appreciate it if you would resolve the concerns raised on the Talk page rather than attempt to edit war the content into the article. A report shouldn't need to be filed if we can do that. Thanks in advance. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. We have been here before when you outright objected to the usage of "advertising" and coverage of advertisements within this subject previously (even though numerous 3rd-parties and the subject itself uses such terminology). At which point you reverted others contributions, wrote an objection, and then simply stopped responding (so it's just gaming the system). The "D" only works if there is an actual discussion, and if done in good faith w/o throwing sticks into spokes; the latter of which is questionable given your previous blocking in this regard. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. We have been here before...

By "been here before", do you mean Wikipedia editors have had disagreements before this one? That comes as no surprise. Editing Wikipedia is a collaborative effort involving many people, so disagreements are to be expected. Also to be expected is a sincere effort to resolve those disagreements. If there is a specific NPR-related matter from the past that you would like to revisit (and renew discussions on), we can certainly do that.

...given your previous blocking in this regard...

I do not understand what you mean by that. Could you be specific? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) You specifically; your ideological diversion to language used by sources and previous gaming are already explained above. -- dsprc ^[talk] 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't explained above. You cast an unspecific aspersion, and when I asked you to explain specifically what you mean, you deflect. Of course I can't force you to back up your unsubstantiated comments, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NPR controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diversity. 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) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist politics dispute resolution[edit]

Hello! I have filed a dispute resolution request on the dispute resolution noticeboard, as per your request. I sincerely hope that we can resolve our differences and get the transhumanist politics page cleaned up. Thanks for agreeing to this. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer note: Hi there Dsprc, I just want to ask if you will be joining the DRN discussion? If you are, could you please post a summary of the content dispute (DRN is focused on content disputes, not conduct). If not, could you please indicate, on the DRN case, that you do not wish to currently participate in the discussion. Participation is voluntary but helpful in resolving content disputes. You can join in at a later time by simply commenting and/or creating a section for your response. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I need some details clarified and explained about the reasoning for the contention about some of the sources. See here for the list of sources I gathered together from one of your comments during the talkpage discussion. Some of these sources may have been resolved, but I have not fully read the talkpage discussion except to gather periphereal knowledge. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth round of statements are now up. Discussing the IEET sources. Please respond in 48 hrs if you won't be responding to this section. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NRDC bear logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:NRDC bear logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Dark web. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! TvojaStara (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical vs. horizontal citations[edit]

I'm just curious, why change vertical cite formats to horizontal ones? Either are considered perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia. For example, Template:Cite_news has the vertical style listed right along with the horizontal style. Just seems like you put a lot of effort into that for no reason. Rockypedia (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockypedia: Vertical make editing more difficult for various user-agents, in particular mobile and text-mode (lynx, Emacs eww, etc); also fills display with useless whitespace that could better be filled with text. Vertical is compliant, horizontal is Standard. Almost zero effort. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that just your opinion, or is that mentioned somewhere that I haven't seen? I use it because to me, it makes editing easier, as horizontal cites are so jumbled that it's difficult to spot individual elements. Rockypedia (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was discovered from reading user feedback/discussions on-wiki as well as developer comments on gerrit and phabricator; plus extensive firsthand knowledge after assaulting two dozen user-agents with WikiMedia Web servers (scrolling giant text-input fields in a frame turns out to be difficult problem to solve). If all cites were vert it would be even more jumbled; imagine the clusterfuck if large articles were all vert, or if multiple cites after just a few words in paragraph. Some template have vertical as Standard: Infobox, galleries etc but every tool outputs cites horizontally (plain C1 cites ((non-tenplate)) often break if vertical).

If you have difficulty reading then enable syntax highlighting in Special:Preferences, try WP:WIKED or simply use Ctrl+f to instantly jump to content. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - recent (talk page stalker) - Sorry to butt in, but the typical practice is for horizontal citations for singular citations being ref'd, with possible vertical citations for multiple citations in a single ref tag. It is, of course, easy to manipulate the code to separate multiple individual citations. For example, a single cite in a single ref tag,^[1] as opposed to a double cite in a single ref tag,^[2] or two cites in separate ref tags.^[3]^[4] This is a kind of non-issue considering that no-one is being really affected, it's just a technicality in editing. Agree with turning on syntax highlighting as it makes it much easier to edit, though the "elements" (I assume you mean the Citation template's parameters) are highlighted in the same colour as the whole template. But at least you can tell where the citations and reference tags are. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 23:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^
- Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
- Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

What was the purpose of this edit?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sci-Hub&diff=719213895&oldid=719213438

Does this have any purpose? The template was fixed for now, so why did you remove these links that are properly sourced? Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:Vormeph[edit]

User talk:Vormeph, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Vormeph and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Vormeph during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Vormeph (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (nightclub)[edit]

Hi there. I completely missed the original move request at Pulse nightclub talk, so you could check that, out, too. -Mardus /talk 04:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibrePlanet[edit]

Hi. Please don't forget to use edit summaries, especially when you're reverting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have missed my ping. Could you please respond to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Coat Systems[edit]

The reporters without borders stuff is pure POV crap. It does not belong in the article. I have tagged it as POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.213.246 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how WP:NPOV works; sources are allowed their own opinions and positions. Please sign your posts. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unbalanced and weighted and a patently false statement Blue Coat is an enemy of the internet. Blue Coat Systems is not an "enemy of the internet" because a trolling group simply says so. Blue Coat is a reputable corporation. ~~I hate to say it Dsprc, but you seem to have drank the reporters without borders kool-aide. It seems almost like a vendetta because this company does deep packet inspection and you don't like that.~~ If anyone is an enemy of the internet its the governments using Blue Coats technology. I mean, you don't hold the gun manufacturer responsible for the Orlando Pulse club shootings, Mateen is responsible since he bought the guns and used them. This designation is unfair to the subject of the article, and flat inaccurate. Blue Coat makes network analysis tools -- how these governments use the technology has nothing to do with Blue Coat, it's all on them. Please stop being so myopic and step back and think about it. It's POV and unbalanced. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree with Dsprc. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising considering what's on your user page. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your opinion just as RSF are. Blue Coat as well, this is why I've left Blue Coat's statements intact, even when you removed them[4]; we've an obligation for them to be heard too; you can expand on that area should you be so inclined. It was Flavor Aid, BTW. Am not particularly keen on some of RSF's positions to be honest, a bit too collectivist at times... but that's OK. DPI is great! I run DPI, analytics, modeling and anomaly detection against all of my networks (have a miniature NSA/GCHQ going on over here). The sources are entitled to their POV, all we do is square the pegs. Articles get knocked off balance as part of expansion; I just took out a chunk of History section because it wasn't sourced; if want to bulk up article that's a place to start (and help fix that damn product list). -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring. Please stop. 166.70.213.246 (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Women in Vietnam page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bump 'n' Jump does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.55.52 (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2016‎

Bold link in "See also" section?[edit]

Hi~ I'm not completely familiar with all of the style, format, layout stuff on Wikipedia yet, so I'm just asking out of curiosity. I saw this edit, and was a little confused. What is the purpose of making a wikilink to be bold text in the "See also" section of an article? I'm just wondering. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeniff: No clue. Emphasis? IIRC, at time was using modified mobile client with custom "syntax autocomplete"-ish functionality hacked into it (markup is pain on mobile); possible is typo (or a bug; had plenty of those). Is OK to remove. -- dsprc ^[talk] 11:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Thank you for explaining:) Zeniff (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rogers tm rgb.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rogers tm rgb.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the links and add other sources, from books.[edit]

The broken links I posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&type=revision&diff=739888548&oldid=739839195 (which you removed) were not intentional. I'll fix them, and/or put in the article other sources from books. I'm a libertarian myself and I know the topic very well. :) --151.47.207.137 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just get sourcing correct, and be mindful of WP:BLP. You can try using the Wayback Machine; See: WP:WAYBACK. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White House Correspondents' Association[edit]

Hi - you replaced the {{prose}} tag that I'd removed on the table of performers. Why do you think that section would be better presented as prose? I personally think that the current table format is much more accessible; a comparable prose section would either end up being something more like proseline, especially considering the scarcity of extra notes in the first half or so of the list, or would become much harder to find pertinent information in. ansh 666 21:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ansh: Prose is the default and preferred format of Wikipedia. We've already partial prose in use on this article. For entries without sufficient prose or notes, separate list is acceptable, even a bulleted list if properly presented. May even simply increase content for entries found lacking. Lengthy text should not be shimmed into a table as it is now. It creates new problems, for example: some versions of the widely-deployed Opera Mini browser can not pan or scroll the tables left and right in the default configuration, making content unaccessible to these users. Also a usability issue for users of mobile clients which render much of tabled content off-screen and under collapsed buttons instead of a unified flow.
What other ways could we present the info to ease discovery of specific bits? -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What if we kept the table, but removed the "Notes" section and converted the entries there that don't fit into the main table (i.e. the "X also performed") or aren't pointless bits of trivia into prose paragraphs beneath the table? ansh 666 07:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied[edit]

Just letting you know that I replied here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Woods#Sourcing If you have other questions for me, just ask. --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GL. If want to reach consensus is easier to do line-by-line and one step at a time. Will require compromise and concessions be made as well. Otherwise may end poorly for the both of you (WP:BP). If interested in working together on a draft let me know; can hack one out in user space instead of spamming article or user talk. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. L., do we at least agree that NYT, Boston Globe and Reason are reliable sources? We don't even need the Prof.'s piece in AlterNet since those other three back statement. I'm gonna start hackin' it out under Dsprc/woods, paragraph by paragraph if would like to collab. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. They're both reliable sources. But I want also to include the source from the book, since it is academic press coming from the Uni of Texas. I'm referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Woods#Other_source_demonstrating_Woods_was_a_founder_and_member_of_white_supremacist_neoconfederate_LoS

--‎G. L. Talk 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G. L.: (Sorry, have been swamped with life lately.) Above U.T. is fine and we can use it (please include ISBN in ref?); ref-bloat/cruft is something to be mindful of however. Rationale for preference of NYT is the piece being much older and predating partisan "back-and-forth" emerging circa 2004 on internets; latter more likely to result in contention, which I've not time to bother with presently. -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behind what notes[edit]

I got your message about editing the table, but I'm not sure what you mean. What do you want behind notes?

The one thing that I did notice is that the new adblocking columns are in a different order than the rest of the page. Was this intentional?

Teeks99 (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teeks99: Yes it was intentional. I would like to move the website column so it is behind notes, but in front of the API column; kinda like this (Move A to position X). Whenever I try to move them with simple replace, nesting goes all bonkers. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments/feedback[edit]

Hi dsprc,

My name is Brittany Lai, and I'm currently a second year university student. As part of a class assignment at my university, I am planning on making revisions to the article Women in Vietnam, and I noticed you've been quite active in improving the article this past year. Thus, I would love to receive feedback from you concerning my plans and revisions for the page. Specifically, I plan on revamping the "Contemporary society influences" section of this article, and details of my plans and sources I have culminated so far can be found on the article's talk page, where I have included an annotated bibliography. Furthermore, additional information regarding what I plan to add can be found on my sandbox page. One of the huge revamps I want to make involve the organization of the article; primarily, I would like to merge current sections 4-9 to be subsections under the "Contemporary society influences" section. I can send you the specific tentative outline I have if you would like. I look forward to hearing back from you, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions or requests for additional information. Thank you! Brittany Lai (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Brittany Lai. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Much of my contributions to this subject were related to copy-editing, source verification or auditing, and vandalism-related cleanup. Must profess I've limited knowledge on subject. You are free to make any constructive additions or redactions you see fit, and we welcome your contributions to the project. If you need specific guidance I can offer that, but you don't have to ask us for permission, just get in there and start editing! :) -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question...[edit]

How can I get other editors involved in the discussion over at Thomas Woods? --‎G. L. Talk 16:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GL, can try WP:RFC and stuff; are a couple other resources listed on my user page. Give Stub all the rope they need to hang themselves; disruptive editing will lead to them being blocked. Has to be first time I've had a simple edit request completely hijacked and overwritten as well. :) If continues there is WP:DR/N or simply WP:AIV. Also may be a sock or meat-puppet in user 'Rampantbattleship'. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thomas Woods[edit]

Hatting was a nice try, but I see Stubbs reverted you. I have deleted the section again and made references to the talk page guidelines. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do dislike moderation. =) Hopefully they read warning against behaviour and decide to heed your advice as well--so far seem to have ignored most of it. We know where that road leads if advice is rejected. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Shoreman: Now they appear to have reverted you. [5] =) -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NRDC bear logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NRDC bear logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dsprc. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NYC Resistor.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NYC Resistor.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More of those student projects[edit]

Just a heads up that I've PROD'ed some more of the POV-pushing Berkeley student projects (see User:Train2104/PROD log) and G11'ed one (US-Mexico Agua Prieta pipeline). To help with this cleanup, these 6 lists are all the articles the students edited. Feel free to go through and find any that I missed. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] – Train2104 (t • c) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Srich32977: – Train2104 (t • c) 22:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on talk page of primary instructor and also ping'd two other instructors involved; one can review here--feel free to chime in. Ultimately, instructors are responsible for what students do. Was gonna bring it up at Education noticeboard but others already beat me to it and over at ANI. At least there are eyes on it now. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017[edit]

Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration

Your recent editing history at Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The article is under a 1RR restriction because of Discretionary Sanctions, which you just ignored. Moreover, you failed to explain your action (or your initial page tagging) at the article talk page. Recommend you self revert to avoid sanction. Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm good; tag stays until issues are resolved. Relevant info is above. Don't template me, if have something to say, come speak with me like a human. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, many sources are shit, biased opinion-pieces. WikiEdu class-project participants are treated as a single entity. Edu proj in question is openly biased and state intent to push particular narratives from particular political view points, whilst also openly flaunting BLP to turn Wikipedia into their battleground and ax-grinder. Majority of "contributions" emanate from that single problematic class-project; and since they are basically all meat-puppets and treated as one under the direction of user 'EJustice' (who has other COI aside from those stated), DS are better directed toward them. Anyone literate giving the content in question an objective read would also find it clearly problematic and biased; when taking into account statements and material collectively published prior to this point, the clarity is even more so.

If you'd have taken an extra 30 seconds to poke around this talk page, such matters and justification for tagging would have been apparent. Since you like spamming boiler-plate templates: take info provided by Train2104 in above links, and start notifying those users with {{Ds/alert}}. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I think to start mass-templating these students {{Ds/alert}} when I found their articles...I'm not going to do it myself since I don't know enough about DS to answer the torrent of questions that will probably come. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly try to avoid the ArbCom and Vogon stuff. [[File:|18px|link=]] Slapping DS around is like inviting the demons in. It's Somebody Else’s Problem™ now. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true you have commented on that article talk page, you have not actually discussed the tag you applied at all. Nor have you offered any reasonable justification for breaking the 1RR restriction. And I'm sorry you didn't like being templated, but it was the logical step after you had committed multiple reversions without explanation. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report me then: WP:AE -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI re: Mark Dice. There has been a lot of discussion around the term on the talk page, and the page is currently under discretionary sanctions. Changes to the lede, especially using those sources, should be discussed first. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for actually writing something and not just dropping boiler-plate templates. Note taken. Nothing wrong with those sources, however -- aside from Wikipedians' biases. "vlogger" is/was unsourced but, NYT -- generally considered reliable by Wikipedians -- have "commentator"; Thus, their description is used instead. -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DS template on user's talk pages comes off as aggressive so I hate using it without explanation. The Dice article lede and the media analyst term in particular have been a subject of much controversy largely due to him sending meatpuppets here via Twitter, so because of that anytime a EC editor who has not been involved gets in, I think letting them know of the situation re: arbcom is neccesary, and the templates are needed for that (its technically under pseudo DS too, but I hate double posting templates).

If you wouldn't mind posting an explanation for your change on the article's talk, it would be appreciated. The Daily Caller and WT sources have been discussed before, but I don't recall the NYT source. Since there has been so much discussion about the lede, making a note on talk is always good in case any of the regulars there have thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has a tad bite to it. I mainly reserve templates for newer contributors (mostly vandal warnings due to apathy and repetition); if I notice someone is established, generally will take an extra 30-45 seconds to write something instead. Also: I think there might be triple DS (or even quad) applicable to this as well. (what a mess!)

If Dice' muppets come back to muck things up, discussion can crutch on "commentator" -- with NYT cite -- being all-encompassing of analyst, critic or whatever other cruft they wanna shoehorn into lede. Would rather avoid drawn-out opinionated discussions; if I get dragged in there after this point, guess I'll begrudgingly pile on. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my normal rule too re: templates, but DS notifications are supposed to be done with it, and since there are DS banners on talk, letting everyone know the official way seems best. Followed by a message stating that it was actually just informational and not meant to bully :) . Anyway, I'll put a note on talk and ping you and the other editor. Thanks for being so level-headed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop reverting edits[edit]

Please refrain from reverting edits, like you did at Middle East Eye here. If you do not stop doing so, you may provoke an edit war between us two. Zakawer (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Copy-editing and otherwise cleaning-up biased or undue content is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. If one should take exception with any particular contributions, please make note of specific edits or contributions on articles' talk page for discussion so we and others may reach compromise and consensus. Regarding MEE: your contributions were poorly written and structured for that particular article (copy-paste from other articles without attribution is also a copy-vio). Rewrite in draft (or wherever), seek consensus on talk page (which you lack, btw), then try again. -- dsprc ^[talk] 06:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't restore text Antifa moments that has no sources linking it to the subject[edit]

You seem to know about our sourcing requirements and original research. I removed that as the sources don't discuss Antifa and that's not an article about anti-fascist movements in general. If you disagree, you should use the talk page, not restore. Doug Weller talk 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article Talk per your request.

(Additionally, there may be content you could possibly take exception with as well at Platformism; an article related in scope to the aforementioned.)

Namaste. And thank you for your contributions. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm on my exercise bike watching tv but it looks like some of that should indeed be in the article. I looked at Platformism briefly and got dizzy. :) What a terrible article. Only one book used as a source and that is published by a partisan press. I can see better sources at GBooks. I see it has its own template also. But it's too far outside my interests. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in the United States[edit]

So, are you going to explain what you think is given undue weight, or are editors and readers supposed to guess? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other commentors have expressed their position on talk (is reason for tag); namely, article has disproportionate bias toward "left" anarchism; with topics as Anarcho-Capitalism or views on other portions of spectrum, etc. are completely absent. You discount previous discussion simply because it is "old" -- which is not a valid rationale. If issue has persisted this long, then potentially bringing it to attention of other contributors for remedy with tags seems warranted. Maybe instead of reverting to protect one's preferred biased version, one could instead work toward incorporating the requested content. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears other contributors may also enjoy article being devoid of said content. Should note prior revisions from many moons ago contained content related to both Anarcho-capitalism (An-Cap) and the works of Murray Rothbard but have since been purged. I'm very busy helping less privileged individuals in my community prepare for and secure themselves from Hurricane Irma at the moment so am unfortunately unable to incorporate these changes myself (some matters are more pressing and important). As it stands, article is heavily biased toward "left" anarchism and socialist schools of thought, which result in deeply unbalanced coverage of topic. (comparable to having only Marxism covered within politics.) Mayhaps an RFC (or $DEITY forbid, AIV) is warranted should problems persist.

This may be asking a bit much, however... @kencf0618, if you could keep an eye on this in the mean time or offer valuable feedback it would be most appreciated. -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are deep waters. Certainly Anarcho-capitalism bears some mention, but I'm not inclined to add yet another wall of text at the moment. Maybe later. kencf0618 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: As you're active on ArbCom, could you advise if WP:ARBAPDS partially applies here since Rothbard/An-Cap is circa 1970-present? — Preceding unsigned comment added by dsprc (talk • contribs) 08:26 (UTC), 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz and C.J. Griffin: what are your specific objections for inclusion of these issue templates? Details on how article suffers bias has been provided as requested. Onus for demonstrating reliability of a source is upon parties supporting inclusion of it. anarkismo.net --used extensively in article-- doesn't appear particularly reliable nor independent of subject; likewise ainfos.ca, infoshop.org, www.marxists.org, ncc-1776.org, againstallauthority.org, anarchism.pageabode.com, bopsecrets.org, etc. etc. etc.

If one could provide valid justification for removing {{expand section}} from §The late 20th century and contemporary times that would also be most appreciated. Seems odd that we should exclude contemporary forms of anarchism in a section specifically dedicated to that scope. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Stormer[edit]

Namaste, Mitzi777

Regarding the URL on The Daily Stormer: it utilises an alternate network protocol for routing and resolution other than standard DNS. Namely, the Tor overlay network's Directory Authority and it's Distributed Hash Table. This URL has been specifically whitelisted by maintainers of the blacklist as it is the official link for the service given pervasive corporate censorship of the service due to it's highly controversial content. To access the resource, one needs to have a protocol stack capable of communicating with the overlay network; information about that is provided along side the link itself.

Similar alternate protocols often linked to are git, FTP, and -- somewhat more common for radio station live streams -- the Real Time Streaming Protocol.

Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. If you need additional help or information feel free to ask here, or even on article talk page.

Please note: May take some time for a response from myself as I'm volunteering to assist locals, particularly elderly and indigent, prepare for Hurricane Irma -- we've a tight schedule with a great number of people to secure. Thank you for your contributions, and your understanding. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts on removals of non-personal talkpage shared material[edit]

Good Day, Have you any thoughts on recent removal of 3,863 bytes of shared material on Talk:Cybercrime countermeasures, on sanctioning intellectually impeded gross-removalists, and/or restoring some sense of transparency/accountability/credibility of the encyclopedia in progress?126.209.40.121 (talk) 09:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dsprc. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMO topics[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

This is just a courtesy notice about the DS and 1RR restiction since it doens't look like you've edited in the topic prior to your edit on the Non-GMO project page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Tutanota does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dsprc. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dsprc. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARS[edit]

Hello User:Dsprc In May of 2017 you inserted several tags flagging concerns about the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) article. It appears that over the past 18 months these concerns have been significantly resolved (by others, not me) and also it seems that you have focused on other topics. I believe the tags have served their purpose and so I am removing the final tag. Thanks, GeeBee60 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Hail, El Algo![edit]

SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!

-- dsprc ^[talk] 16:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. 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 in the consent information sheet.

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.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
679	Great Firewall (talk)	Add sources
925	Tlatelolco massacre (talk)	Add sources
2,256	Email address (talk)	Add sources
41	Traveling the Stars: Action Bronson and Friends Watch Ancient Aliens (talk)	Add sources
638	News Corporation (talk)	Add sources
529	Rose Wilder Lane (talk)	Add sources
613	Alpha Group (talk)	Cleanup
27	Steven Horwitz (talk)	Cleanup
41	Bizzle (talk)	Cleanup
1,455	United States involvement in regime change (talk)	Expand
778	Franklin Graham (talk)	Expand
92	Carmen Ortiz (talk)	Expand
499	American Enterprise Institute (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38	Cisco NX-OS (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
46	PeerGuardian (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
565	Internet Research Agency (talk)	Merge
20	Undergrowth (talk)	Merge
585	Disinformation (talk)	Merge
7	Environmental issues in Appalachia (talk)	Wikify
61	COVID-19 misinformation by the United States (talk)	Wikify
64	LightDM (talk)	Wikify
4	Will Santillo (talk)	Orphan
4	FileSonic (talk)	Orphan
4	Aden Mohamed Ali (talk)	Orphan
13	Susanne Latimore (talk)	Stub
18	Tianya Club (talk)	Stub
10	Torservers.net (talk)	Stub
7	Helen Lowry (talk)	Stub
7	Northern District Times (talk)	Stub
12	Jacinta Tynan (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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Thanks for the helpful reminders! I'll remember to use the same caution typical of the honey badger.

Also: Both of these templates are incorrectly applied, btw… As an aside note: one should go reread WP:NPOV to understand what it actually means.

P.S. Don't template me. If you have something to express: speak with me as a human, with your own words.

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are required notifications, per Arbcom's recent revision of procedures for enforcement and sanctions in these topics. You can read the entire documentation at the Arbcom pages. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO WP:CTOP specifies they may be used; not that they MUST. (§Awareness of contentious topics)

I noticed {{alert/first}} documentation does state it MUST be used however. This might be a problem if WP:CTOP doesn't reflect actual policy… Do you have a page which definitively states the policy on alert templates, so WP:CTOP could be corrected if CTOP is erroneous?

Happy trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner 209er external link[edit]

Hi dpsrc. I removed a link to the Miner 2049er emulation at archive.org. You reverted that change, saying that the site is a "globally-recognized library." While I agree that that's true of archive.org as a whole, the emulations are much less clear. They don't have copyright permissions, even for games still being sold in retrogaming packages. and no one is validating the accuracy of the emulations. I don't know if there has been a project VG discussion on this, but sounds useful. Dgpop (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgpop – I basically think the links are useful for people wanting to explore these legacy works in an interactive fashion; that's why I put it back.

I won't necessarily argue heavily on the clarity point… (It hasn't been litigated yet but, similar is ongoing… And we kind of do have robots running around, linking up copies of Web content basically wholesale and without permission as well – m:InternetArchiveBot… That's all sanctioned soooo…)

Libraries do have certain carve-outs to byzantine monopoly copyright privilege, however. IANAL. Maybe it's a question for Wikimedia Legal instead of VG? (C:COM:VPC is the better community to ask copyright questions to).

Validation is a different matter. There are multiple open source projects driving emulation at The Archive: MESS (https://github.com/jsmess/jsmess) and DOSBox. Volunteers and staff (Jason Scott) do curate these collections, and make fixes to system and support files at The Archive if necessary (they're all within individual, single purpose, self-contained zip archives – listed toward the bottom in HTML page source…). If errors occur: users can report to the open source projects or submit a patch(!!) – Archive has forums where patrons can reach out if problems arise and volunteers/staff assist, or upstream reports to JSMESS, DOSBox, et al.

It's not a warez site. It is a library… and no library wants to serve its patrons busted up media. Whether that be print or pixels. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion. My own experience has been that the archive.org emulations feel janky, often because of lack of information about how to play games for different platforms. Looking at Miner 2049er, it took a bit to figure out how to start a game, and then it was for the wrong zone (I pressed 5 instead of 1). I have an Xbox 360 game controller connected, but the game doesn't use it. Arrow keys don't work either. Eventually I found I need to use the arrow keys on the numeric keypad and 0/Ins to jump. Not the best experience to link to. Dgpop (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dgpop Speaking of fragmented platforms <grin>: There is a version for the Atari 8-bit family of machines if you'd rather that one be linked? DOS version was selected here for graphical superiority, and (ironically) keyboard support.

Your troubles sound like the typical native experience, not necessarily The Archive's fault. Remember: technology was exponentially more primitive and clunky back then – the devices on our desks are ergonomic and engineering marvels, with more computational power than all computers of that era combined.

You did (eventually) figure it out! and got to experience it in an interactive way. (there is a Reviews section on each exhibit page at The Archive – users typically use those to provide helpful information to fellow patrons; such as which keys to use in the games… *nudge nudge*)

Gamepads won't work because one would have to make extensive changes to dosbox.conf, which is not immediately accessible to users from within the browser (all sealed up in those self-contained zip files). Then it's passed to MESS, browsers and their sandboxes, then the OS – all needing special tweaks to support a single gamepad…

Still: nothing is perfect, and sometimes Good Enough™ is all we get. "Not the best experience" is better than none at all. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I legit own Doxbin[edit]

I am editing a wikipedia about me. C1cws (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C1cws – Oh, and you legit run this international malware and hacking group too?[12] No one legit involved in this would practice such terrible opsec and publicly out themselves this way… Either way: it's unsourced, and not permissible – please see: WP:V. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 08:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C1cws: Let's be real: If you're connected to these subjects, you should know how Wikipedia works. We need an RS to make a claim first, before we can include anything.

One could assume an individual that is closely connected would possess more intimate knowledge of the subject, and shouldn't have difficulties scrounging up existing sources – or even inducing journalists to create them if they don't yet exist… -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbin is legal, sorry but are you dumb? Doxbin is legal so i’m not ‘snitching on myself’, since it’s a legal site, all my names including my telegram etc. Is on the website, including our contact Email, so what does that mean i’m ‘outing myself’? C1cws (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C1cws – Note that zero claims were made about Doxbin's legality… Please also see WP:CIV…

Back on topic: Wikipedia still requires some remotely semi-reliable, quasi -independent, third-party source to vouch for this material before it can be included. It's simple: Just drop a <ref> on it from an RS, and we're basically good to go. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron LaCroix/Draft moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Cameron LaCroix/Draft, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra You do understand this is a workpage for updating a currently published article so that a new layout can be hacked on collaboratively before going into the parent, and not a proposed new article, correct? (hence the big {{workpage}} banner at the top, and not the hideous {{draft}} foolishly slapped on now.) It does not require incubation, and it's time-span could extend for years, not the maximal 6 months. As such, Draft space is absolutely not the correct location for this. Maybe the WP:Subpages should be renamed to alleviate such confusion? Then again: onus is kinda on your end to not make this mistake… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it into Talk – not Draft – where it's actually supposed to be. You can tag the spiderweb of redirects for deletion if ya want… -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance on workspaces says, right at the top, not to create them in mainspace, which is what you did. As long as it’s not there I don’t mind where you put it. All the best Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra – We'll they're not supposed to go into Draft space either, now are they?… How about we both take ownership of our mistakes… and maybe slow down and double check work when using automated tools? So long as you're not being sloppy: I don't care what you automate.

I now know what workspace says and that is why it's been corrected. Own your shit too. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mobile browser, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDML. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuous Pedophiles[edit]

I have removed a link to a pedophilia advocacy organization you added. Please read WP:CHILDPROTECT Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Underwoods Witch, That's not how this works…

Absolutely nothing within WP:CHILDPROTECT states that we can not link to the home page of an article's subject (even if they may be abhorrent).

It pertains to user conduct (for example, the shit occurring on Talk:Victor Salva a few years ago – which is probably too old to be actionable at this point)

Shouting "protect the children" isn't a magic wand or incantation that allows one to censor material they find objectionable.

Please see: WP:OM, WP:WINC, WP:ELOFFICIAL

Also: you better be on extremely firm footing, with copious, and relevant evidence, before you go waving WP:CHILDPROTECT at people… It's borderline WP:NPA territory. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most other recent editors who were sharing their pro pedophile "research" links were recently banned. It isn't a magic wand, it is community consensus. Propedophile positions are not welcome Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They got banned for socking. If you continue with this tendentious and disruptive behaviour (after just being unblocked recently), you'll be joining them.

There were two changes made to article: one to include additional references to mainstream publications (reliable sources) which cover this topic. Two was creating and simply linking related articles in the see also section. Nothing about that violates our child protection guidelines. Nothing about that is advocacy of anything.

You've not demonstrated in any way how any of this material is violative of policy. You don't get to blank pages because you don't like an article's topic.

Child protect is a conduct policy. Thus, if you're going to continue with bullshit accusations that I'm advocating in any way for pedophilia: please report me to an administrative notice board ASAP, then – with all due respect – kindly fuck off. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the original poster, Underwoods Witch, turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. In case you weren't aware. --Yamla (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Am aware. Even before the block, sock was obvious – editing patterns and linguistics(!) are tells of not being a new contributor – it's simply too difficult and cumbersome to raise an SPI on mobile (input fields are perpetually broken etc.), plus I'm lazy and also don't really care. Thanks for the follow up, however (it's really good community engagement!) -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I challenged your addition. Take it to the talk page and stop edit warring. Read WP:BRD Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Timeline of Internet conflicts[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Timeline of Internet conflicts, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated source tags[edit]

Please don't tags sources as deprecated (which has a very specific meaning beyond "unreliable") if they are not explicitly deprecated (e.g. this despite 1 and 2). Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[1] Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] 
Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[3] Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[4] Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[3] Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "Draft:Reel Canada", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[4] Drcrazy102 (4 February 2016), Changes in "User talk:Jeppiz", retrieved 4 February 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[5] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[6] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

Bernie Finn[edit]

Rogers Communication Logo[edit]

fbreader[edit]

Contributor with close connection on transhumanist politics page[edit]

FBReader[edit]

July 2015[edit]

Thanks![edit]

Sorry, my bad.[edit]

Google Authenticator[edit]

List of internet forums[edit]

List of Internet forums[edit]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

List of applications of ARM cores[edit]

Khayal Abbas AKhtar[edit]

September 2015[edit]

CyberTeamRox[edit]

Thank you[edit]

Lamo Talk[edit]

Quack[edit]

No politicization[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

License tagging for File:NYC Resistor.png[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Edit warring at the NPR article[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Transhumanist politics dispute resolution[edit]

License tagging for File:NRDC bear logo.png[edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Vertical vs. horizontal citations[edit]

What was the purpose of this edit?[edit]

MfD nomination of User talk:Vormeph[edit]

Pulse (nightclub)[edit]

LibrePlanet[edit]

Blue Coat Systems[edit]

Reference errors on 24 June[edit]

July 2016[edit]

Bold link in "See also" section?[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rogers tm rgb.png[edit]

I'll fix the links and add other sources, from books.[edit]

White House Correspondents' Association[edit]

I replied[edit]

Behind what notes[edit]

Request for comments/feedback[edit]

Question...[edit]

Talk:Thomas Woods[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:NRDC bear logo.png[edit]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:NYC Resistor.png[edit]

More of those student projects[edit]

April 2017[edit]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Just stop reverting edits[edit]

Please don't restore text Antifa moments that has no sources linking it to the subject[edit]

Anarchism in the United States[edit]

The Daily Stormer[edit]

thoughts on removals of non-personal talkpage *shared material*[edit]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

GMO topics[edit]

Edit summaries[edit]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

ARS[edit]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

All Hail, El Algo![edit]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

Miner 209er external link[edit]

I legit own Doxbin[edit]

Cameron LaCroix/Draft moved to draftspace[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1[edit]

Virtuous Pedophiles[edit]

Edit Warring[edit]

CS1 error on Timeline of Internet conflicts[edit]

Deprecated source tags[edit]

thoughts on removals of non-personal talkpage shared material[edit]