User talk:Tom Morris/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tom Morris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes
wikimedia.org.
It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Intelligent design
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Intelligent design. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Blocking of User:OwenReeceBaines
I noted the block you have just placed on OwenReeceBaines, and I was one of the editors leaving warning messages. It does however look as though he has got his knickers in a twist about the possible deletion of an article which I suspect he has mostly created. I strongly suspect he would have calmed down anyway - he has just received an more explanatory note on his talk page. Just a suggestion that the block might be worth reviewing. Regards Velella Velella Talk 23:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, he created the article -a promo piece for his own unnotable social website. In addition to deleting AfD notices (even after being warned), he has refactored another user's comments on the AfD discussion (or possibly his own; I opened a sock investigation), and is engaging in personal attacks (I believe that I am the "idiotic editor" he complains of on Velella's page, although I am not actually the only editor to put his page up for deletion in some form.) We're not talking about some editor with a long and respected contribution who went off one day, we're talking about a new editor apparently here only for promo reasons, is facing vandalism and 3RR problems. I'm not seeing where a day off to cool down and think about things is inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- My offer to unblock him if he agrees to not remove AfD templates stands. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Checking in
Hi! Tom,
Just posted this my user page at WP. Thought you might like to know why I disappeared for a bit. Still busy but I will make time this month to participate in the copy editing drive. Below is my talk page comment:
I've been terribly busy with family matters including caring for aging parents and helping a sister with cancer. I plan to participate in the next copy editing drive and hopefully participate more at WP. Real life just gets so busy sometimes.
Quill and Pen (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Quill and Pen. Sorry to hear about your family issues, and I hope your sister the best possible odds. I take the highly philosophical position of "cancer sucks". I try and participate in the WP:GOCE drives, but I tend to suck at them because I'm only really interested in copyediting on stuff I'm vaguely interested in, whereas it is usually the endless supplies of Chinese high schools and Bollywood movies that need copyediting.
—Tom Morris (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Have some tea!
Thank you for your help sorting out the TMIG template sent to people's talk pages. It's always great to have help fixing things (especially when they're on such a big scale). Hopefully this will be the last time I end up sending something incorrect to upwards of 50 people's talk pages. What am I on now... five times? ;-)
Thanks again, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm more of a Red Bull kind of guy, but thanks for the thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
AFD closure
You couldn't have known. I didn't even know. But it has come to my attention, as I watched the discussion (not) proceed with the sadness that I suspected, that one of the two people opining in that discussion is actually involved in the unfolding events. His name hit the newspapers a couple of days ago. I'd like to get more independent eyes on the subject, since otherwise this is an AFD discussion involving just the nominator, one person involved in events, and me (who has been following the news coverage). I'm thinking that deletion review will probably achieve this better than your re-opening and re-listing the discussion. Do you have any objection to my going straight to deletion review? If not, I'll let you know when I do. I'd like reviewers to be able to see the article, and I'd very much prefer not to use my tools to undelete it myself. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I won't contest a deletion review if that's where you want to go. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom, you were right the first time - it's a blatant copy/paste copy-vio. I've left a note on the article talk page, but the current article really needs to go. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 17:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I probably should have held my nerve. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Metrication in the United Kingdom
Tom: I see that you have protected the above-named article, and not before time IMHO. Have you got a plan for what happens next? As it stands, that article is a terrible mess having suffered several massive edit wars featuring a certain editor with a very strong POV and too much time on his hands(!) vs. several other editors trying to do what you normally expect to do on wikipedia (i.e edit things). I've put a few edits into that page myself, but have been lucky to avoid getting dragged into any serious edit wars myself.
But as for what to do next - I've no idea. There is the core of a decent article within MitUK, but currently it's too long, is full of non-sequiter references and is basically a train wreck. And I suspect that given the track record of that certain editor with a very strong POV, the fixed-up article (whenever it comes out) is going to need to remain protected for ever. Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm just an uninvolved admin and saw the request on WP:RFPP. I steer well clear of resolving article conflicts, though I'd suggest if thrashing stuff out on the talk page isn't working, consider taking disputes to the the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, knowing the history of this page, dispute resolution via normal channels won't work. They had an independent adjudicator in recently trying to sort out a ridiculous bunfight - and I notice that there were all the signs that it was about to blow up again just before you protected it! Please consider putting permanent protection on it - not just a week. You'll see what I mean if you look at the edit history or the Talk page for that article. Oh - and gigabytes of stuff has already been archived off the Talk page to make it readable again... Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested by your recent deletion:
- (Deletion log); 05:18 . . Tom Morris (Talk | contribs) deleted page Craig Cooper (disambiguation) (R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)
Why do you consider it an "implausible redirect"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI: (Wikipedia:INTDABLINK#HOWTODAB)
- How to link to a disambiguation page
- To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. (For use in navboxes, see the {{D'}} template.) There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader.
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Restored My mistake. Sorry about that. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Metrication in the United Kingdom - unprotect please
Hello Tom. As User:Steve Hosgood metioned above, Metrication in the United Kingdom still needs an awful lot doing to it to neutralise the POV and remove OR/SYNTH. As an enthusiastic editor, who has done much to improve that page recently, I would like to be able to continue working on it. Would you consider un-protecting it now please and see how it goes? -- de Facto (talk). 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I must agree with de Facto about neutralising the POV and OR/SYNTH in MitUK. However I and about 50 other editors would I think agree that Mr DeFacto here is the *cause* of about 90% of it, and should be allowed back in to "improve" it about a week after Hell freezes over! Sorry, DeFacto, but your edit-history is there for all to see... Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Amen to that!--Charles (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Without wishing to side on either wing of the editing disputes, given the strong views of everyone involved and the long-standing issues with editing on this article, I'm going to leave it protected for now. I'll tell you under what circumstances I'll unprotect this article: if all parties to the dispute can go back to the talk page, make a good faith effort to discuss changes there, and when disputes arise, handle them calmly, sanely and without recourse to personal attack. Discuss things based on the sources, and discuss content rather than the personal views of your "opponents". And if you can't agree on something, try and find a way of agreeing to a process for seeking agreement: that might be getting a third opinion, or perhaps having a mini-RfC on the topic.
Plus, if I give 2.54 centimeters, you'll only go and take 1,609.344 metres. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Let's see how it goes on the talkpage then. It seems though that some parties are happy to see it remain protected, so that changes cannot be made - it'll be interesting to see if they engage too. -- de Facto (talk). 12:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've set the ball rolling by adding a new topic to the talkpage there. -- de Facto (talk). 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Tom: we took it to the talk page as you suggested and have reached a non-unanimous consensus. We are 5:1 in favour of removing the paragraph reading "In May 2011, Asda stated [.....] online shopping service gives only metric weights." This is the 4th paragraph down in Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom#Retail. Assuming that you agree that we've fairly sorted out our differences over this, would you please delete the above-mentioned paragraph. Thanks in advance Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of the five of us).
- Switched to semi-protected Let's see how this goes. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've just done the edit in accordance with the 5:1 consensus as mentioned above. I'll now request that you reset the article to Protected as various of us start debating the next fix on the Talk page. Thanks in advance. Steve Hosgood (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
when foo (disambiguation) is a redirect
I was very surprised to see that you thought Craig Cooper (disambiguation) was worth keeping. Perhaps you would care to restore Frederick Hall (disambiguation) to confirm that you are consistent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or, alternatively, you and Pdfpdf, who supposedly agree about all this, could agree between the two of you on what you want before coming and pestering poor Tom Morris in two contradictory ways in two successive sections on this very talk page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Page Triage newsletter
Hey guys!
Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).
In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar |
| For the awesome "We can edit!" image :) Sarah (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Dave Camp
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dave Camp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Augustine theodicy
Hi Tom. A few weeks ago, you reviewed this FAC for Augustinian theodicy. I have since made the changes you suggested and was wondering if you had any further feedback. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
New article on Libertarian Paternalism
Hi Tom,
You recently reviewed my proposal for a new article on "Libertarian Paternalism". You rejected it noting that there is an article on "Soft Paternalism" to which "Libertarian Paternalism" now redirects. This is the first time I submit an article to wikipedia so I may have gone about this the wrong way, but here is the thing: The term "soft paternalism" has many meanings but typically does not refer to "libertarian paternalism". On one meaning of "soft paternalism", libertarian paternalism is a kind of soft paternalism, but they are never (as far as I have seen) used synonymously. I took the best from the old article on "soft paternalism", updated and added, and made it into the new proposed article on "libertarian paternalism". What would make sense to me is to remove the redirect, approve the new article and either delete or change the old one. But then I don't know how you veterans usually deal with this sort of thing.
EDIT: For more, see my worry about this on the talk page on "Soft Paternalism" that I wrote a while back.
EDIT 2 (do I need to say this?): For my best short description on the concept of soft paternalism, see the section on this in Paternalism. Let me know.
Thanks.
Filofil (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
GLAM projects
Hello Tom, it was great to see you at the Wikimeet on Sunday - sorry I didn't manage to chat to you. It's now my second week at the Wikimedia UK office and I thought it would be a good occasion to say hello. I am the new Events Organiser here, working with volunteers across the UK supporting the events they are involved in, and helping make things happen. One of the areas of my work is GLAM engagement. I'm looking forward to cooperating with you in the near future! Please let me know what would be the best way to contact you Daria Cybulska (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nosson Zand
Hello Tom Morris,
Can you tell me why don't are well my contribution, please? I don't know how more to put them. Please say me suggestions...
Thank u! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbieMatise (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
New Page Triage newsletter
Hey all!
Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).
In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
MSU Wikipedia adminship process interview
Hello, my name is Kyle Zunker. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. I am contacting you in order to set up a date and time for the interview. Please contact me at zunkerky@msu.edu with the dates and times that work best for you. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact myself or Dr. Jonathan Obar, the principal investigator of the project. I look forward to hearing from you! Zunkk (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Donna Eden AFD discussion
This topic recenty popped up on the Fring Theroies notice-board. I thought you might enjoy weighing-in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination). --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Bosco
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Bosco. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi,
Thank you very much for replying to my message. You send feedback out on a lot of sites and you never know if anyone sees it. I'm also a student and juggling 25+ page papers so my time to noodle around in my account is limited for the next couple of weeks. I'm going to dive in when I have more time and try to muscle through my first page, lol.
What is ironic is that I remember a year or two ago there was so much chatter around the 'net about how Wikipedia was looking for more female contributors. While there are many women who are programming savvy enough to pick this up in a snap, statistically speaking, there are likely to be many potential contributes who aren't. (Ack, sorry to vent)
Anyway, thank you again and I hope to be back and learning the ropes soon.
Regards, Cinemababe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemababe (talk • contribs) 08:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
help triage some feedback
Hey guys.
I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.
This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).
All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Request for block adjust
Hi, I noticed you blocked RedheadJoe (talk · contribs) for 31 hours for vandalism. I would like to request that this block be extended to indefinite, as the user contribution history indicates that he is not around to contribute to the encyclopedia. I have had to request Revdel on 3 of his 5 non-deleted contributions, and the other two were definitely vandalism. One of the three edits for which I have requested Revdel was used to attack a user who reverted one of his edits. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, seems reasonable. Done —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Rajneesh movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rajneesh movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of First fire women officer in India
Tom, I feel you took incorrect action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First fire women officer in India. In my view, A10 should almost never be used as it makes way more sense to redirect instead, and that is the case here. Making it a redirect instead helps prevent the accidental creation of duplicate articles. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to make it a redirect. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me
Hello Tom Morris.
I wrote the article Shigeru Nakanishi for the first time. Because I did not know Wikipedia:NotabilityWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the making method, the article was deleted. So I used deletion review of the article. Today I noticed Delete of User:Alpha Quadrant in the AfD discussion and the article was deleted. I studied this time and added the source to the English Wikipedia at 07:54, 18 March、but he looked at 19:42, 17 March. Surely he will not look all. Is the article deleted in one opinion? If you can not understand my English, I'm sorry. Please tell me and help me.--Hiroko Yamamoto (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is comment of User:Alpha Quadrant as follows.
- I'm sorry, but it appears that the deletion discussion has been closed, and I can't see the article now. If you'd like, you could add the sources here, and I could take a look at them. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please display the article once again.--Hiroko Yamamoto (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles on Wikipedia need to be verifiable, and for this, they need to use reliable sources and be notable. When there is any doubt about whether those criteria are met, editors are free to open a discussion through the articles for deletion process. In the case of the article you refer to, the AfD discussion was closed as delete without enough consensus: one person saying that an article needs to be deleted is not consensus. The deletion review concluded that the deletion should be relisted, basically the equivalent of a "retrial".
I deleted the article today because I was satisfied that consensus had been reached to delete the article. If you think that the community has made an error in deleting the article (for instance, that there's sources we haven't considered), I'll be happy to hear your reasons why and if they are convincing, I'll be happy to restore the article. I hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind answer. I created the article. But, because Wikipedia is complicated and I cannot understand English explanation immediately, please wait for deletion.--Hiroko Yamamoto (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
AfD
Looks like this AfD also included a second article, Ismail Seremba, which didn't get deleted. Could you take a look and decide to either delete it, or remove the AfD template from it? Thanks. —SW— comment 14:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
DameWare Deletion
Ironic that I should come to Wikipedia looking for DameWare on the same day that it was deleted. I know that the discussion is now closed, but had I been able to add my comment I would have said 'keep' DameWare for the reason that it is the third most utilized Remote Control software in the world with only VNC and Terminal Services being utilized more frequently.
The reason that I came to look it up however, was to give citation on why it should not be used. The version(s) of DameWare that are used so widely are not the current versions that are owned by SolarWinds but older, and often very old (like 1996 old) versions that have very serious security vulnerabilities. These old versions are used all of the time for two reasons: 1. They were (are?) free to use. 2. They install without prompting the user whether or not to install the product.
This means that they propogate like wildfire throughout an environment and without an active cleanup effort to remove the product the propogation will continue. I personally call this 'virus like' propogation though that terminology is more metaphoric than a truely accurate description.
I am currently contracted with a large government agency and found an old version of this product on one their servers. I wanted to cite some of the vulnerabilities so that they would remove it.
Anyway, I'm disappointed that this article was removed. Should it ever be replaced I will be sure to add some content on it. I tend to consider myself a 'reliable source' on security items. Feel free to google me and determine that for yourself.
- Mark Randol 152.131.11.68 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Mark, it's unfortunate that the page has been deleted, and someone who has had to deal with IT systems of dubious security, I can certainly sympathise.
- That said, I base my decisions in articles for deletion debates solely on the arguments presented, how those arguments fit into Wikipedia policy and so on. In the case of the DameWare decision, it was pretty clear that it should be deleted and I think I called it right.
- If you've got any sources that could be used to establish notability, I'd be happy to overturn my decision and reinstate the article, but on Wikipedia, all articles need to be sourced so that readers can verify claims that we make. If you know of sources we can use, please let me know. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| Thanks Tom for helping me with my first Wikinews article. I never thought it was so easy...but wow...it was. I can't wait to do more =) And thanks for all of your awesomeness in general. I need to start a I <3 TM fanclub =) Sarah (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Sarah. Oh god, please no, I don't need a fanclub. I'm able to inflate my ego perfectly well on my own, thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There's a conversation building that relates in part to an AFD close of yours. The AFD, and the discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For closing the particularly ugly RfA against the requestor's wishes because it was right to ignore him is easily one of the best Admin decisions I've seen anyone make. Achowat (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you. It's not often I pull rank and WP:IAR, and on the rare occasions I do, it's not often I get a lovely barnstar afterwards. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
RonJohn RFA
Per WP:NOTNOW I do not accept the early please allow me my the same right as anyone else and not treat me differently. Please allow this to run it's course even if it has no way of passing.--Ron John (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about "rights". I've closed it for a mixture of WP:NOTNOW, WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. WP:NOT tells me:
- Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
- I'm sorry, I'm not reopening that RfA. It's a waste of everybody's time, and part of the reason that administrators exist is precisely so someone can step in and stop such pointless charades. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Universal Life Church
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Universal Life Church. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Give a review please?
Hello, Tom. Can you please give me a review? (Wikipedia:Editor review/Dipankan001) Thanks. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 14:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
"Non-automated edits" tool
Please check this example for Willdude123: please recognize and remove edits by STiki. Regards, mabdul 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
New Statesman
Thanks for adding semi-protection to the New Statesman article. As expected User:Tottingham123 started making exactly the same type of edits within 3 hours of the protection being introduced, even suggesting the inclusion of the circulations figures is malicious. I've given multiple warnings to the IPs previously and they didn't have the slightest impact, so if it is the same person then action probably needs to be taken now. Thanks. Update - I just noticed they've even removed mentions of the circulation peaking in the 1960s, they've never gone that far in removing such material before.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I also now strongly believe User:Robbyyy to be Tottingham123's previous account (technically not a sockpuppet due to the lack of overlap).--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Are you able to take a look at this please or find someone else who can as I haven't had a single reply on ANI[1]. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I've reverted the edits, left Tottingham123 a user talk page message warning him to not revert without using the talk page. Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. If Tottingham123 reverts again without using the talk page, feel free to approach me or another admin. That said, if he uses the talk page, I hope you can engage productively. Right, admin duties done for the evening. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your assistance and for reverting, I decided against doing that myself again as I felt they would react more positively if someone else did it instead. My only outstanding concern would be the possibility of all the edits being by the same person, which, being the case would mean they're probably due some sort of sanctions, particularly as there also appears to be a possible serious COI issue.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Closed audio/video chat proposoal
I just looked at the closed VP proposal from January to include audio/video chat capability in wikipedia - and saw that this was something you were arguing for recently. I think there is huge potential to improve the project with this. A pilot could be conducted using off site tools. Not sure how much interest you have, but maybe we could gather some like minded folk to flesh out a tight, limited, pilot proposal for alternative discussion modes on a few busy pages - and see were it goes. I see potential to diffuse disputes, improve productivity, and improve a culture that has caused a large contributor gender imbalance[2]. Let me know if this interests you. LaTeeDa (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:
coding
- Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
- Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.
All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.
Stuff to look at
We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.
I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.
I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Geonotice for Wikimania UK 2013
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi again. Any thoughts on this? Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
