User talk:Reguyla

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[change source]

Hello! I noticed that you may have come here from another Wikipedia, so you know a little about how things work here. I hope you like it here and decide to stay! Here are some links to help you adjust:

There's a lot to do here. Most of it is writing articles that do not exist yet, which you can do by translating from other Wikipedias, but have a look around and see what you want to do. Thanks for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need any help. Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for the sake of clarity and before someone comes here with wild accusations, I am the editor formerly known as Kumioko. Since a couple of the main admins here voted for me to be banned there to make a point of what happens to editors who question admin authority, they will likely be along shortly to block me here as well. I locked my other account permenantly so I will not be using it here. This is the account I will be using from now on Reguyla (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, I myself am banned from EN.wp for similar reasons as you.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok good to go. Thanks fof the understanding. Hopefully I can edit here without being hassled too much. Reguyla (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh no you won't be hassled for things that occur on other wikis. You may wish to read this page though.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I've seen that. The reciprocal note was the one I was inferring above. One admin in particular is active here and will undoubtedly find a reason, or try. I'll cross that bridge when it comes I suppose. Reguyla (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2015[change source]

Hello! Thank you for creating a new category. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I was just trying to clean out some of the wanted categories redlinks. Let me see if I can fill a couple of those in real fast. Reguyla (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with wanted categories. I regularly keep an eye on those myself. Just be sure there are at least three entries before you create a category. Also keep in mind that even if there are entries for a category, it may not be a category we actually need. Feel free to ask if you have questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

2Bobule[change source]

Regulya, is this film really notable? The only Wikipedia page with references is the Czech one, and I cannot read them. Are there any other references? StevenJ81 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, I truthfully don't know for sure. Right now I am trying to learn the rules here and was starting by importing and rewriting some small articles from the English Wikipedia. Its possible its not notable and if not feel free to delete it. I had to copy the reference info into Google translate to see them. Reguyla (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for an honest answer. And please don't misunderstand me: You did everything the right way so far.
This is actually a tricky problem at Simple English Wikipedia. If a Czech film passes the notability test for Czech Wikipedia, does that mean it is always notable for all other language Wikipedias? Maybe ... or maybe not.
For now, I think I will mark the article as patrolled, and as needing more references to support notability. Let's see if anyone can find some.
Thanks for joining us and for making an effort here. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all. In fairness, just because its in ENWP doesn't even mean its notable there. It just means no one has brought it to AFD yet. I have been busy IRL the last couple weeks so I haven't been able to do much but that should start tapering off soon and I'll be able to do more. Reguyla (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've taken long Wikibreaks (and semi-breaks) myself because of "busy IRL." (smile)
You're right about the ENWP issue, too. I have to admit, though, that I usually give the benefit of doubt there more than anywhere else. Clearly English is the best candidate for "global language" that we have, so there is some reason to treat ENWP as being a global WP of record for notability, even beyond the world of native English speakers.
I don't feel the same way about this WP, though. I see this Wikipedia first as needing to provide a real core set of articles in Simple English. I see it second as providing a more specialized set of articles that are relatively unlikely to appear in other-language wikis, at a level of English simple enough for non-native speakers who are not technical experts. Articles that are likely to appear in other-language wikis, on subjects not really notable outside the group of speakers of that other language, are about the last thing we really need to focus on here.
Just my two cents, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that all makes sense. I don't really think this one has to be different than ENWP as far as article set goes but I do agree that it needs to be easier to understand which makes it hard to have a lot of technical subjects like Math, Biology, Chemistry and the like. Its better to keep those in the ENWP side. I have to admit though my personal feelings about ENWP are pretty low. I find it to be a very hostile and toxic environment and the admins there (including the Arbcom) seem to want to keep it that way and have no interest of making it better. Unfortunately the WMF also doesn't seem to care about what goes on there even though its the flagship of the organization. Oh well, what can you do? There is a lot there to do (I see vandalism and stuff all the time that needs to be fixed but can't change it)but if they aren't interested in building the project I can't make them I guess and I'll just edit around it in other projects like this one. Take care. Reguyla (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[change source]

Information.svg Hello, Reguyla. When you revert a user's changes, like you did earlier, don't forget to leave the user a message on their talk page. You may find Template:User talk page warnings/table useful when doing this, to let them know that the change was considered inappropriate, and to direct them to the sandbox. Thank you. ABCDEFAD 13:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Your right, good catch. I'll try and make sure I do that from now on. Reguyla (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please use simple headings[change source]

Hi, Reguyla. You might have forgotten, but on this Wikipedia we have different standard headings. For example, we use "Other websites" instead of "External links", and "Related pages" instead of "See also". You used enwiki's versions of those headings on some of your recent articles. Please remember to use the simple ones. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah thanks, I did forget. Reguyla (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

3-entry rule for categories[change source]

I saw that you created Category:Modules in beta with a note that it had three categories. That's actually a maintenance category, and maintenance categories are exempt from the 3-entry rule. I regularly watch the wanted categories page, and there are quite a few other redlinked maintenance categories. If you can figure out the right categories to put them in, you can create those, too, if you want. Just be aware that there are setup considerations with maintenance categories, such as including the backlog template if appropriate (it doesn't need to be on everything), the hidden category indicator, the "don't delete even if empty" notice if appropriate, etc. Also be aware that some categories show up as wanted because of coding errors, and those shouldn't be created. (For example, if someone puts an invalid date parameter on a maintenance tag, there's no verification, so you could see a category like "Articles needing additional references from June 23, 2016", instead of just from June 2016.) --Auntof6 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok good to know thanks. I partially posted that comment because it was showing as only one item on the wanted categories page. I'll try to create some more later tonight. Reguyla (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[change source]

Information.svg Hello, Reguyla. When you revert a user's changes, like you did earlier, don't forget to leave the user a message on their talk page. You may find Template:User talk page warnings/table useful when doing this, to let them know that the change was considered inappropriate, and to direct them to the sandbox. Also, if you turn on Twinkle Warn (user talk warnings), it will give you a tab to se:59lect a warning message or a notice that is appropriate for most reversions and QD nominations. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'll try to remember to do that. I do use twinkle most of the time when I submit for quick deletion but oftentimes if I am just reverting one edit I just use undo. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Answering[change source]

Sorry to hear this, but sometimes I think you are very hard on the admins -- they are not all Bad Hombres, you know. At least you don't have some guy who is into sodomy-related articles shadowing your edits trying to collect details on you. :/

The autoblock is a problem, I agree. It certainly jeopardizes anonymity, especially if you don't know about it in advance. Someone who was stalking you would be able to find out if you are in the same room with them. I brought this up once over at WP:BADSITE (you know the one), even though my edits were being tracked there as well, and NYB seemed very concerned. I thought he would look into it, but I don't think he did. There was also a situation when someone brought down the internet connection for an entire conference, but I don't know if that is the same technical glitch. The easiest work-around is probably to just copy the section to your clipboard before you sign in. Actually I have pretty much stopped using enwiki articles as a basis for this wiki at all, they tend to have a lot of cruft and I can write better stuff from scratch, not to mention having more recent sources.

If you want some help copying over MOH articles, let me know, but I don't know enough about the topic to do it on my own, or pick out which ones are most important. Don't underestimate the google-cred of simple wiki, the algorithms do seem to be able to pick out well documented and maintained articles no matter where they are, and sometimes people even use the info on other wikis once they have good links. —Neotarf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but really it was a long time coming. I should have done it a long time ago. Really I should never have started editing at all but the project was a lot better back in the 2006-2007 timeframe when I started. You are right, I am hard on certain admins who feel the rules do not apply to them and disregard policy whenever it suits them because they know, as does everyone else, that it's nearly impossible to do anything about it. Most admins are fine and in fact it's really only a few (probably about 20 or so) that are the problem, they just happen to be some of the most active.
Yeah you got me on that stalker comment. I do still get emails from some but for the most part they have figured out that I am not their enemy. I used to think very highly of NYB but to be honest I think he is burned out. He just doesn't seem to have the interest he once did and since he advocated outing me to get me to quite fighting my ENWP ban, I really don't have any respect for him at all. So I would take whatever he says at this point with a grain of salt...a very small grain of salt at that. With regard to porting over articles you go ahead. I really am pretty fed up with the WMF wiki's from stem to stern. I truly believe that there are more problems than solutions and no one, not the WMF, the Arbcom, the Admins nor the community seems to even acknowledge the problems exist let alone actually fix them. Heck, the WMF just took 500K from the Craigslist founder to fight bullying and harassment on the WMF wiki's but they refuse adamantly that the problems even exist. Mostly because the problems stem from the admins and functionaries and god forbid anything be done about that. Anyway, take care. Reguyla (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There's really a limit to what they can do, see for example Ellen Pao. I am quite hopeful about the new initiatives actually, it means the volunteers will no longer be made responsible for fixing a broken system.
What articles need to be ported over? I see there is already Medal of Honor and I think it quite good for this type of wiki. Also List of Medal of Honor recipients -- there are more than 3000 recipients? How do you limit a topic like that and do justice to it? You were working on List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients? All recipients are blue links on enwiki, no? So what is missing? —Neotarf (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest if they wanted to do something could and I am hopeful that the new tools will help too, the problem is that the WMF won't admit there is a problem and until they do they cannot define it. There is a saying, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." and until they are willing to admit there is a problem it will be impossible to define the parameters of any scope of work that would be required to even start building a tool to fight it. Even then, the problems are cultural and procedural and not something a tool can do much about. It's like building a tool to decide of someone broke the law. You can't really build an app for that. My fear is that this will just be another policy mallet for the abusive group of bully admins who already have too much power as it is to use their own "discretion" to beat up on editors they don't like, "broadly construed". And again, the WMF, the diminishing number of good admins and the community won't be able or will be unwilling to do do anything about it.
With regard to the Medal of Honor recipients, there are over 3000 yes. The only red links left are in either the Indian Wars of the American Civil War. There shouldn't be any redlinks left on the Jewish recipients list or most of the others. I got the Jewish one, the African American, Asian American and several others to featured status a few years ago. Unfortunately a lot of the articles have severely degraded since because no one has watched them and every attempt by me to revert vandalism or improve them was itself reverted by vandals. So as it stands, the whole group of medal of honor articles is in a pretty sore state and I wouldn't trust any of them without reviewing them before importing them here. Reguyla (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure they studied it, see the 2015 harassment consultation and the 2015 harassment survey, pretty definitive results, (and surprise, surprise, surprise, they had to ask anonymously to get the data) but in an organization like this you need community buy-in, also there are very long budget cycles, plus there has been a huge amount of staff turnover, so lots of challenges. Not gonna happen fast, but probably gonna happen.
I spot checked a couple of links on a couple of the MOH recipients' BLPs here and it's pretty bad, nonexistent links etc. Here is List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Indian Wars and on enwiki en:List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Indian Wars, which has a ton of red links. Here is List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients and on enwiki en:List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, which doesn't look too bad, at least with a quick spot check. I usually set up a page on my blog with a list of red links on enwiki I want to create articles for here. I don't know if simple wiki does projects, but if you like, I can make such a list here, probably on one of my user pages. My own priorities right now are towards finishing articles for people who are in prison right now, but I can find time to make such a list. —Neotarf (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I just did this. Also I should mention there is not a lot of vandalism and edit warring here, so that is one less headache. —Neotarf (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
They don't really use WikiProjects here. Yeah sure they generated some paper and burnt some time but they really didn't learn anything because the WMF isn't listening. Even if they were, they are too cowardly to actually act on it. Hell, I could list about 10 names of problematic people on EnWP alone that if banned would make the project 10 times better overnight. Most of which have long records and have shown years long patterns of abuse...Floquenbeam is right at the top of the list, followed by HighinBC, Binksternet, Fram and BeyondMyKen just to name a few.
With regard to the MOH articles, you might start by recreating this page I created years ago. It is missing a bunch from WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea and others but its a start. I also created a bunch more lists that aren't on EnWP at Wikia military here. If you try to add one of those expect to have it vandalized or deleted and be accused of proxy editing on behalf of a banned editor (me). Honestly though, I think you're just wasting your time with these projects at this point because no one cares about building the projects anymore. That's why people who can't write and don't respect the editing community are routinely promoted to admin and the editors who are building content and doing the work are driven from the site in droves and treated like second class citizens. Reguyla (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Forget the project, this is for the readers...and the veterans. Of course they know there are problems out in San Francisco, Jimbo said as much in his Wikimania speech, and he took a lot of heat for it, but he also got a lot of spontaneous applause for saying it. It won't be easy, but you have to give them a chance. There's no point in singling out individuals for badmouthing, either. Anyone who survives in that system has to be able to blend in with it.

You want to do medal of honor, for the people who google it? Google "Luke M. Griswold" right now and tell me what you see. That's the article I just wrote a few hours ago, isn't it, in second position, on the first page of a google search. Now, if someone wanted to find the same information that's in the article, what would they have to do? It took me more than 3 hours to find and put together the information in User:Neotarf/Medal of Honor red links, all information that is not searchable. Look for example at the pageviews for Loren D. Hagan, that was up for deletion in 2008. Since the beginning of this month, 281 people have looked at that page. In the last year, it's had 4,676 page views.

But I wanted to ask you about the User:Neotarf/Medal of Honor red links page. I've only put up the first Civil War group and some sources, are these the most authoritative sources? I'm not so sure about "Find a Grave", maybe I should take it off. And I did the first article, Luke M. Griswold. (Great shipwreck drawing, yes?) Is there anything else that should be in an article? Okay, if you don't want to deal with it, I understand, but if you want it, there it is. —Neotarf (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah sorry to be honest I am pretty done with the WMF projects. The WMF and the Arbcom are corrupt or incompetent, most of the active admins are nothing but egotistical bullies on a power trip and no one cares. People keep citing all these problems with vandalism, lack of editor retention, bad press, etc. and they are all second and third level effects of the real problems. Incompetent people at the WMF who don't care about the projects or the community, admins who are bullies driving away editors or justifying and enabling bad admins instead of supporting the project and the victims. No one wants to work in a hostile environrment and these clowns who are in charge are causing 99% of the problems they are supposedly trying to fix. The fixes are easy, hire competent people, clean up the abusive admins and provide oversight, eliminate the Arbcom and if necessary replace it with a competent group instead of unqualified children. Do those three things, and the vast majority of the problems will go away in short order. I really don't have the time, patience or inclination anymore to help try to fix a system where the people in charge, including people like Djsasso are more interested in holding people down and pushing editors out and justifying the poor behavior of their friends than building an encyclopedia. So yeah, as you can see I am pretty disgusted with the projects these days. So no matter how much I believe in them, I obviously can't do much about the folks in charge who don't and want to keep them the way they are who have an incentive to continue to bully editors and control the community. Reguyla (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought the medal of honor was something that mattered to you, otherwise you wouldn't have gone to all the trouble of putting it on the fandom site. I can't figure out how to navigate that site, by the way, and I don't think it's searchable either. I don't understand why you wouldn't want such information in a public place where it could be googled, and available to people, no matter the staleness of the links (which are easy enough to find in the Wayback Machine, once you have the URL), and anyhow you would be able to monitor any articles on this wiki. And I don't agree with your theory that WP's problems are caused by bad people. It's caused by mimicking bad habits. If you see people constantly complaining about other people, backbiting, blaming, and jumping to conclusions without having the facts, then you can start doing those things automatically without thinking. It's hard to see evil and not respond by lashing out; it's much harder to respond with kindness, but that's exactly what needs to be done. Oh well, if you ever decide to write some stubs, there is now an official WikiProject for it. The only thing missing is an official user box, but I have never made one of those. Cheers —Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest it does matter to me, but I also don't want to see the articles get vandalized either which is what is happening on Wikipedia. The fact is Wikipedia used to be about building knowledge and now it has more people creating drama and making enemies of the project than in building content or trying to improve thins, myself included. I just wished I would have seen a lot earlier how badly I was wasting my time. I could have been doing a lot of other things of value with my time rather than wasting it here. I would much rather be creating content than fighting a ban, but after almost 4 years and repeated attempts to get unbanned only to have that undone by liers and policy violators I'm, simply burned out. There are too many working against policy and the system and not enough admins with the morale courage to do something. It's far easier to just ignore it and look the other way. Especially when the people in the Arbcom and at the WMF who are supposed to be doing something are incompetent or don't care. If the community and especially the WMF and the Admins who are supposed to be working to improve the site don't care enough about it to do something about the minority of problematic admins tearing it down then there isn't much I can do. But good luck to you all the same and I can't tell you what to do but I recommend you stop wasting time on these sites as I am doing. They aren't worth your time and you deserve better. Reguyla (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, you could be right, but I keep thinking about the people in prison just for blogging. Wikipedia has been a horrible experience for me, true dat, but those people have it so much worse, and if the articles I am starting can help just one person, or even prevent the same thing from happening to someone else, I think it worth while.
I have found out how to start a WikiProject here, and have created a userbox for Medal of Honor.
This user is a member of the
WikiProject: Medal of Honor.
I don't think it's worthwhile to worry about what might happen to the articles after they are created. People die, and cities crumble to the ground, but people keep having children and building cities just the same, it's how things work. Something might happen, or it might not happen. Everything's in the edit history anyhow, if someone really wants it. I think you deserve a barnstar for starting the project, and getting people involved in it.——Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well the truth is I did get a lot of barnstars and thanks but at the end of the day if a few people are willing and allowed to violate policy to get rid of someone they don't like and not only do the admins and arbs not do anything, but support and justify poor behavior, it doesn't matter. I maintained more than 100 WikiProjects, a collaboration of the month, a newsletter, created articles, created and maintained templates, did more than a million edits, etc. and some people actually believe and have convinced others I am a disruption. It's absurd, but if people are stupid enough to believe it, and apparently they are, then there isn't much I can do and I am finally ready to stop contributing to a project or group of projects that support and allow that behavior. If the admins like Djsasso here are so trustworthy, then let them do the improvements! Of course they won't, and they want to bully me and you, but they want to act all high and mighty when they want to push their own POV and don't mind using their "trusted" access to get their way. There is no place in these projects for editors anymore with ego's like those. Reguyla (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, no one here has bullied me, at least not yet. If you think you have been bullied by someone here, you should really ask someone else to look at the diffs. Sometimes it's just a misunderstanding. My email address is very public, and intentionally so, so I can get email from IP users. If it's really bothering you, feel free shoot me an email. —Neotarf (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No I really haven't been bullied here and for the most part any bullying that occurred on Commons was resolved long ago so I am not speaking on this project specifically but of a general culture of bullying on the WMF projects as a whole. So even if I was bullied here, I do not feel like anything would be done about it anymore than it was on other projects. Unfortunately there are a lot of untrustworthy people in positions of trust (Floqeuenbeam, RD, AlexZ, HighinBC, just to name a few). As long as thugs, bullies and POV pushers are in control with no oversight, the projects are going to suffer and so is the community. Reguyla (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion request[change source]

Would you care to weigh in here? Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2017/Luke M. Griswold

:"Gordonrox24 has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Doesn't appear to be notable. I do not think we create articles for everybody who has earned a Medal of Honor."

I'm pretty sure it's notable, but you would know the background better than I would. —Neotarf (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, they can delete them. I don't care anymore. The bullies on EnWP hate me so bad for trying to change an abusive system that they now accuse any new editor of being a sock of me if they edit or create a Medal of Honor article and because of that the topic has been turned into a political minfield no one wants to touch. So now we have articles with vandalism, broken links, spam and just badly outdated info because the people in charge want to create drama to justify the ban on me that never had any validity nor justification. It was just a bullying tactic to shut me up and to show the community what happens when they criticie admins or the system they control. It's unfortunate that no one cares they are driving the projects into the ground and the Arbcom and WMF are too incompetent to do anything, but that's life I guess. So to be honest, at this point, I would rather they delete them than to leave them with vandalism, spam and in decay. Reguyla (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Wikiproject Medal of Honor Barnstar!

In appreciation for your tireless contributions and research on Medal of Honor. There is now a Wikiproject Medal of Honor and a tutorial for writing articles based on your work.—Neotarf (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)