User talk:Winged Blades of Godric

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

th:สุธิตา ชนะชัยสุวรรณ[edit]

You have redirected th:สุธิตา ชนะชัยสุวรรณ to th:เดอะวอยซ์ไทยแลนด์ ซีซั่นที่ 3 with the reason "BLP with no clear evidence of notability...See Ticket:2017080610004386 before reversion" (I can't even access).

There is a mention in th:วิกิพีเดีย:แจ้งผู้ดูแลระบบ#Image The Voice why you redirect since the old one have meet the criteria en:WP:MUSIC (reliable sources) --Sry85 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Err...there does not seem to exist a thai-wiki queue at OTRS.My assumptions of notability was based on the standards.Also, the actions executed were under the ambit of existing en-wiki BLP policy.But there's no denying that standards at other wikis vary (possibly are far lower.) I will be shortly asking some OTRS admin to look into the issue and take any corrective measure as deemed to be fit.As a side-note, do you know of any experienced user (He/she need not be a sysop etc.) in Thai-Wiki community who has OTRS access?Thanks!Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Were you "Andreek" on English wikipedia?

Nope.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirements[edit]

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”[edit]

Logo Feedback round in the Technical Wishes project.png

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons deletion notification bot[edit]


You are receiving this message because you supported the Commons deletion notification bot in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

Commons deletion notification bot is ready to be deployed to any Wikimedia wiki that wishes to use it. If your community is interested in the bot, you can leave a request on the project page on meta-wiki. The bot messages are available for translation on, as part of preparing the bot for release.

Thank you for your participation in the Wishlist. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Hey, I saw the argument over on the bugmaster's talk page. You doing okay these days? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):-Thanks for stopping by:-) Weirdly, I missed your post, for all these days.......:(
Aklapper blocked my phab account, (primarily because a f-word, used in an exclamatory sense, stayed for a few minutes before being self-removed by me) for a host of reasons that seems too high-handed and intentionally tone-deaf to me & communicating with him is terrifically difficult, at-least for me.
At any cases, he has successfully managed to prevent me from signing the confidentiality-agreement; which is mandatory for OTRS purposes and any help, in that regard will be appreciated.
On a miscellaneous note, that you have seemed to be one of the most reasonable guys with the WMF signature, I will like an answer to the question:--.......what are your (It's a generic you, for the devs; not you, in specific) responsibilities (if any), as to the implementation of any off-wish-list request....... I mean, it's beyond doubt that WMF employs certain number of developers in it's payrolls, under a variety of teams. Barring CommTech, how are the works chosen/allotted for the rest of teams? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It's too bad that you and Andre got off on the wrong foot. In my experience, he's scrupulously even-handed, but you know – it's a different community over there. Stuff that doesn't even raise an eyebrow at our home wiki is grounds for insta-banning there. The devs want a "no drama" kind of environment, and they mostly get it. One side effect is that some long-time editors from the English Wikipedia, especially among our occasional meatball:VestedContributors, have been surprised to find themselves blocked. The other thing to know is that Andre's a pretty soft touch when it comes to block appeals, unless the user has been spamming. (Sometimes even then. Back around 2015, he granted a general amnesty to everyone that was blocked, even spammers.) His blocks tend to be short anyway, but if you're still blocked, then a small apology and a claim that you understand the norms are different and won't do whatever again usually goes a long way.
Your main question is more timely than you could imagine, since my team was just whingeing talking about that very problem last week. Officially, AFIACT, the answer is:
  • Everything starts with the mission and the strategy (specifically Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20 at the moment), and then you add relevant direction from the Board (e.g., about how much the overall budget will or won't change each year or whether the focus should be more on, say, encouraging article creation and less on addressing policy problems, or the other way around).
  • From there, the broad requirements go down the management chain through the annual plan process. That process starts more or less now, with upper management figuring out how many staff each team will be allowed to have next year, how big Wikimania can be, etc.
  • Teams will talk about what they'd like to do in maybe February. Each team's plans get sent up the management chain (e.g., my team will send our plans to the head of the Community Engagement department), and once the department's satisfied with all the team plans, they go up to the C-levels, and when Katherine (CEO/Executive Director) is happy, the plans go to the Board and are posted on Meta for public comment.
And that bit is the problem my team is looking at: The formal opportunities for non-staff influence come at v-e-r-y beginning (general strategy) and the v-e-r-y end (just before final approval, when only small tweaks are likely to be made), but the bigger practical decisions are mostly made in the middle. So if you need a mid-size project – too small to get mentioned by name in the strategy, but too big for the Community Wishlist – you're kind of stuck. Some of these mid-sized projects, such as global templates (which probably needs a full dev team for one year), could have really significant value for all the projects, but it's hard for anyone except an upper-level manager to make them happen.
This is good in some respects (because doing a big project means not doing something else, and what if that other thing was actually more important than my project?), but it's also frustrating to see the same mid-sized projects rejected year after year after year, because they aren't quite important enough. Case in point: A decade ago, everyone who knows anything about computer security said that it's absolutely insane to let admins (who are elected largely on the basis that they won't block the wrong editors) instantly change Javascript for the sites with no code review. This year, one of the devs got so distressed by the situation that he wrote the code to create the interface-admins, entirely on his own time, and proposed the policy adoption, just to reduce the number of admins whose accounts were likely to be targeted by hackers so they could exploit that. But all of us know that he shouldn't have needed to do that, because ten years ago (or more!), someone ought to have written a sane code review process that lets people post code changes before they're live, and that requires someone else to review them, so that little details like misplaced parentheses or malware could be spotted and removed before any users are affected. And it hasn't happened, because nobody in upper management has (a) been there long enough to make it happen, and (b) considered it more important than all the other things that those devs could be doing. So if you are a typical volunteer, you can propose phab:T71445 as part of the strategy, but be told that JS/CSS security is too small for the strategy, and you can propose it as part of the wishlist, but be told that it's too big for the wishlist, and you can propose it during the public comment period for the annual plan, but be told that it's really too late, because that incorporating that idea would mean cancelling too many other proposed projects, but they'll keep it in mind for next year, just like they (allegedly) kept it in mind for each of the previous ten years. This is the frustrating bit, and I don't know how to solve it yet.
From the POV of the experienced editor, I think that the most common source of confusion isn't the process itself, but instead is the belief that the Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the (many) communities of established editors. It doesn't. The Foundation's purpose is to advance education. What is most desired by established editors (especially at the English Wikipedia) isn't always what advances education best, especially in a global context. But in many cases, I think there is significant overlap between 'what editors want' and 'what advances the organization's charitable purpose'. I don't feel like we're finding a good way to identify those overlapping areas of interest. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF):--That was a superbly crafted reply which sheds immense light on the intricacies of the process along with a near-destined accompanying frustrations for the volunteers. Many thanks:-)
I will try to mend bridges with Andre, let's see:-)
Whilst, I wish to post some relevant queries and musings, at a later point of time, I will note that the statement:-- Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the (many) communities of established editors. It doesn't. The Foundation's purpose is to advance education. is of particular value.
Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope that it will be useful. If you reach the point at which storytelling becomes important for your proposal, then the image of a person in an emerging community, standing in a library with a book in one hand and a smartphone in the other, seems to be particularly effective at the moment.
By the way, the Editing team got re-assigned to the mobile editing software this (fiscal) year, and the ideas at mw:Visual-based mobile editing/Ideas/October 2018 is one result. I have been trying to get people from bnwiki (in particular) to tell the team what would make their lives easier. I would be particularly happy to have your views. I think some section editing work is going to happen (because it's so painful that this is more like "fix obvious bugs" than "new features"), but I'm not sure what will happen next. You could go tell them what they ought to do. ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

SN's rule[edit]

No-one who has not contributed actively and consistently to 25% of the 25% most active wikis should be a steward. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Thank" on history page[edit]

If you go to the history page, from there you can thank someone for their edits. The manipulations made at some other wikis to also add it to RC and Watchlists have not been adopted here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:-Thank you! That helped:-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Summary: R ; though I won't engage with you any further.)[edit]

Hello WBG,

You are not under any obligation to engage with me any further and same with me. I honestly can't recall any personal encounter with you but it does seems that you choose to use that insulting edit summary because I was banned on the English Wikipedia. Correct? T Cells (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"Who Wrote That" project update[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

sock puppetry[edit]

Hey! I'm here to report something to you, actually, report a sock... since you are more experienced... I was going through some of the proposals and in the WikiArchive project i saw some signs of Sock puppetry, i have done the least i can do and i hope that you are willing to take action. Thanks, Ping ME! ArepTicous talkcontribs 16:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

az:Xocalı soyqırımının tanınması#Faciəni qətliam kimi tanıyan ABŞ ştatları[edit]

Hey WBG!

Can you tell me how to make an edit request on azwiki? They have Connecticut as officially recognizing the en:Khojaly Massacre, but that isn't true. I'd appreciate some help in this regard.

Regards, –MJLTalk 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - Make a t/p request and ping some sysop, who has been recently active. Also, in light of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, I am not in the best position to offer help. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


It will be good if you link the accounts Winged Blades of Godric (AWB) here too on userpage as on enwp. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Reader Behaviour. LOL. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC) User:MCruz (WMF) Hmm. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted an edit by you[edit]

Good day. I've reverted an edit by you. I don't think that you were being constructive and were uncivil unnecessarily. Siebrand (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert me, in future, w/o taking my explicit consent. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Please[edit]

I did, even earlier. We'll see what happens. I suppose a part of them might now be packing to Stockholm. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it's better to reply at the same venue to avoid fragmentation of discussion. At any case, I am glad to know that you have already requested them for engagement. Agree that Wikimania may delay responsiveness :-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'd be grateful if you explained my perspective to the enwiki community on WP:FRAM, or at least linked to my response on your tak page on English Wikipedia. I feel like they were trying to roast me only because I dared to defend my (and other WG members') lack of any mandate from WMF. Thanks in advance. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I will try to do that, to the best of my abilities; will leave an explanatory note:-) FWIW, your recent re-designs of the recommendation pages were damn great! Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): - Check mail, please. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Hello, comments like this and this are clearly beyond the pale. You are aware of the behavioural expectations here, have been warned before, and have been continuing this trend of behaviour across here and multiple other projects for a while now. Please take some time to reflect on your approach, and come back after a few days ready to engage productively with others. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please give diffs for multiple other projects. I am genuinely concerned about my phantom-brother editing any wiki other than en or bn or meta.
Also, please point me to the warning (or whatever) about urbanity in recent past.
Coming to beyond the pale, is this by Seraphim inside the pale? Genuinely interested to know about how densest million-words-to-say-nothing or buzzword bullshit fares in comparison to utter trash. Here, I see MERC describing the recommendations as rubbish. So, how does rubbish fare with utter trash? I also see that MERC has consistently referred WMF as We-Make-Failures Department over multiple pages; how civil is that? Comparable to the usage of Expletive infixation? Is asking WMF to get more competent and fix shit civil enough? Do you see that as a derivative of expletive infixation? Is utter bollocks civil or inside the pale?
I am not asking you to block all these people who made the above comments but (indeed) trying to learn about Ajraddatz's model-of-pale so that I can comparatively reflect on my approach.
It's also quite amazing that after taking an unnecessary snipe at Fae, (over a wiki that is his ~home-wiki but where you don't edit usually), of drama-mongering; you point to my incivilities over multiple projects.
As Seraphim said, thought polices are abundant.
Also, doesn't Meta allow unblocks? You have, very weirdly, not pointed to any methods about securing an unblock.(talk) 15:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The warning was here, which you responded to by thanking Vermont for his unsolicited advice. Your behaviour is separate from those other users and remains unacceptable even in the context of other borderline or hostile comments. My comment re: cross-wiki activity is entirely based on my perception; I have no interest in litigating your cross-wiki activity, it does not impact this Meta block, and honestly I doubt this comes as a surprise to you. I can strike that part of the comment if you'd like. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding unblock, you can use Template:Unblock should you wish to appeal. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
LOL. How can I reflect, if you don't specify what is acceptable and what not?! Please strike your baseless accusations. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that you well know what you are doing, enough to modify some of your comments and leave sarcastic replies when warned about incivil behaviour. But I am willing to go through one of your comments with you, to identify what the problem is and how you can improve. Let's look at this one:
The title, "horrible incompetency", is very hostile and an attack on the members of the working group. The core point of your argument is that the recommendations are too vague, so your title could instead be "These recommendations are too vague".
"All the members shall be ashamed of writing such vague..." Hostile and belittling. There is no need to include this sort of language or content at all, though if you really wanted to you could express your disappointment by saying "I am disappointed by how vague the recommendations are given the time allotted to come up with them"
"I could have produced something more than the combined bunch of vague recommendations in about a hour or so; mediocrity and what not" Again belittling. You could instead offer to help, or just request that more specific recommendations be provided. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please provide diffs of modifying comment when warned of uncivil behaviour.
Horrible incompetency is an attack? Goodness. I recall this. By the way, I pray that a certain catalan wiki sysop does not get charged for thought-crime, having thanked me for the supposed belittling and attacking edit. Also, this guy.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This, for example. I am assuming that you modified your comment based on the previous warning given by Vermont, but regardless of whether that is the case, modifying your comments in that way does suggest some level of self-awareness of this behaviour. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are not a pschycic and shall not pretend to be one. I will be glad if you can converse w/o making assumptions. That was a removal after a bare few seconds, and resulted from a botched/stray paste. Also, it's well-known that you are NOT here to build the encylopedia by writing any stuff but is time really so abundant, that you are checking self-reverted edits rather than looking at the ultimate nature of the concluded discussion? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You asked for diffs, so I found some. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You asked for diffs [but I did not manage to find any relevant stuff just like I didn't find you editing other wikis. Then, I picked one of your self-reverts and interpreted the reversion to be a result of Vermont's warning, since that's what I am searching for.] So, I found some. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ajraddatz that several of the comments really were unacceptable, but I very much disagree that there's a problem with directly criticizing the WMF or associated groups/organizations, so long as it's done in a civil manner. Contributors are allowed to say that the WMF or its working groups are incompetent or handled certain things incompetently, in general, when it's relevant to the conversation. --Yair rand (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Criticism of the WMF is, of course, expected when half of the recommendations would make great additions to this list. However, some of WBG's comments crossed the line into serious incivility. Regards, Vermont (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Vermont, thanks for stopping by. Can you clarify about how do you parse complete inability to reason in a rational manner to be uncivil? How exactly do you re-frame that?
Does describing some ideas as ludicrous (Cambridge-Eng.Dict. defines the word as stupid or unreasonable and deserving to be laughed at.) or asking for the blitheringly idiotic author of the recommendations fall in the same tier? Is fucking cares less or more civil than dicking about? Obviously different wikis but given the common domain of conversation, I am trying to learn and reflect in this 3 day-span.
Also, why exactly do you feel that there needs to be a white knight to save someone from my (supposedly) grave rurality when all he did was to gently remind me of the language (which was very optimal) and went on to thank me for 11 edits, in this domain? Or for someone, whom I supposedly (co)-attacked for incompetency but (to you, surprisingly) went on to appreciate my stern note in private, accepting of under-performance? Chivalry, may-be -- an extension/relic of Victorian morality (and urbanity)? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
WBG, thank you for asking for clarification. Directing that first-listed comment at a person is uncivil and I felt it necessary to leave a note regarding it. I was acting in my capacity as an administrator to request you remain civil during conversations. Civility is a rule across all projects and in the TOU, and if your comment about "chivalry" intends to imply that civility is unnecessary, I have no response to that other than to state it's simply false. In regard to your comments on KVaidla's talk page, I do not believe they were uncivil and I'm happy you engaged in beneficial conversation with them. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, you have evaded about (In your own language, enforcing TOU) in the other cases incl. a case that involves the founder. As to chivalry, logic is not your forte and going by your contributions on en-wiki, am not surprised.
Also, Ajraddatz, you all get on a common platform, please -- Vermont believes one of the two diffs that you cited to be not uncivil; how can I reflect amidst such contrarian stuff? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The requirement for civility does not come from the TOU. --Yair rand (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to clarify I was not speaking about enforcing the TOU; I was mentioning civility is present in the TOU. I'll also note that your comment to Ajraddatz above is illogical. We are not a hive mind; the opinion of every editor differs. Further, could I ask for an explanation of your comment on chivalry? I am of the opinion Meta:Urbanity should be renamed to civility, as this is a global project, although the standard of civility and the role of administrators in enforcing it is pretty standard here and on other projects you edit. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Will reply, soon. Please allow a day. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: The block-rationale consisted of two (original) diffs -- the first of which has been (since) deemed by another admin to be not uncivil and other unsubstantiated aspersions of cross-wiki incivility, that he has been graceful enough to strikethrough.

The second diff noted a set of recommendations to be utter trash (which was needlessly inflammatory, indeed) but has since got no response as to whether Jimbo saying the same bunch to be ludicrous or other high profile editors describing them as garbage is better/worse/at-par. Reflective ffedback is not provided in such a manner, I see.

Conflicts are very natural in times like these and I don't believe in sugar-coating feedback. That being said, there were indeed some unnecessary hyperbolic infractions from my end.

Despite the above reflection(??), the overall value of my efforts can be easily gauged from the thread just above this one and this log. I can add two private (unsolicitedly) received emails but you need to take my word, on that.

I also believe that Ajraddatz was borderline-involved having conflicted with me earlier as to whether another user was civil or not (in whichevery other commentator disagreed with his stance).

In future, I will try to tone down the bluntness of my comments, as best as possible. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock reason: This block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Godric has shown intent to act in a more civil and acceptable manner in the future. Regards, Vermont (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This template should be archived normally.

English | español | français | italiano | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

On a side note, thank you for your interest in the Working Groups recommendations and your contributions to the movement therein. Vermont (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You're probably better off staying blocked. I'm shocked at how Meta seems to have been left a desolate waste land populated by utter fucking morons. I've just found the proposal we accept No Derivatives and No Commercial Use Creative Commons licenses and honestly, I'm fucking lost as to how anybody could think that's fucking sane, let alone a group of users could think it was worth wasting bytes posting to Meta. Fuck me. Nick (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


I noticed your comment on COPE over at WikiJournal#Discussion. I was surprised because I've not heard such significant criticism of COPE previously and journal editors that I've interacted with have been pretty ebullient in their praise of its usefulness. Would you be able to point to further info on what the problems are with it and alternatives to COPE that you think avoid those issues? Happy to continue on that page if you prefer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 17:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Will reply in detail, tomorrow.
I had my own heated conflicts with some of the board-members of COPE (which biases my views) but I do seem to share my observations with Schneider, Struthers, a few other members of CSM and many other folks, who actively monitor the area of fraud and ethics in science publication. See the twitter profiles of the two named folks for interesting commentary on SCOPE -- about how little they do and about how most of it further enables the frauds. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)