Please help us end systemic biases in Wikipedia NOW: Join the Gender Gap TF.

There you can coordinate with other Wikipedians who are countering the effects of systemic biases among Wikipedians and, consequently, on Wikipedia Articles about women, women in history, women in science, a.s.o.

If you can help put an immediate end to gender bias in the Wikipedian Community, please add yourself to our Coordination page, and talk to other GGTF volunteers about coordinating on specific articles on the Coordination Talk Page.

And please help improve the Gender bias on Wikipedia Article. It is outdated. Cross-posted today on Article Talk are dozens of 2015 resources (thank you Sarah) just waiting to be cited in the Article.

Thank you and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 01:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Leo's Playground! There are only 3 Rules here: (I) NEVER leave adults unattended, (II) Before you save-page, please omit needless and douchie words, unless they're kinda funny, and (III) No more rules. Mabuhay!

Practicing kindness at Wikipedia[edit]

Wikimedia foundation's Fabrice Florin (the guy behind the Thank link, among other things for which I am thankful), asked me to help develop the "Editor Training and rewards" section of his proposal|Culture of Kindess. That's what this section is for: I'll post notes from my research and translate them into practicable steps. We welcome your suggestions.

details

Practical applications of Kindness in Wikipedia[edit]

For the empirical bases of these recommendations, please see Research notes below.

Look up kind, benevolent, friendly, generous, or warm-hearted in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Develop a Kindness Policy Page, along the lines of:
1. Definition: kind, adj. - having a benevolent, courteous, friendly, generous, gentle, liberal, sympathetic, or warm-hearted nature or disposition, marked by consideration for - and service to - others.^[1]
2. We encourage Kindness - it is at the heart of Wikipedia, the spirit that got it started, and a bottom-up mass movement that can change the trajectory of History of the world.
3. Beyond Civility - Civil behavior is the minimum requirement at Wikipedia. Kindness goes beyond that. While Civility entails common courtesy, Kindness is marked by uncommon acts of compassion and service. In practice, it means higher standards of behavior. For example:
  1. First, do no harm. Be bold to do, slow to undo. Unless an edit is egregious, don't revert or undo. Try to make it better instead.
  2. Be inclusive. Embrace diversity. Loob^[2] the noob.
  3. Go beyond the Golden Rule: treat others as you treat yourself, but better.
4. Unlike Civility, Kindness at Wikipedia is optional. You are not required to be kind.
5. If you'd like to help spread a culture of kindness, we encourage you to opt into the more controversial parts of this initiative: Persistent identity and Reputation (Please read details in the proposal).
Make Kindness a Movement
1. Create a Kindness Initiative WikiProject of Wikipedians (KiWi?) to be the vanguard^[3] of the movement.
2. Have those con/video calls that Fabrice recommended (see the "Better communication channels" section of his proposal). [ on 20^th thought, we don need no more stinkin' meetings ]
3. Train kiwis on:
  1. Biology and psychology of kindness, inc benefits (longer, healthier, meaningfuler, happier lives - even more for those who give than for those who receive)
  2. Psychology of unkindness, inc why we expect - but don't give - kindness, and other cognitive biases that get in the way of empathy, compassion, and understanding.
  3. Empathy, inc active listening - translate into techniques for active reading/writing, f.e paraphrase a Contributor's comments before making suggestions; do Paul Eckman's Microexpression empathy exercises. [ on 20^th thought, we don need no stinkin' meetings, esp when we can just borrow the Eckman material (and more) from our local libraries (t.i if God or/and/or Luck dropped you near a decent library) - see Eckman on WorldCat ]
  4. "Emotional intelligence"; "Mindfulness", "loving-kindness"; forgiveness, repentance.
4. Engage in "service activities" and other "systematic opportunities" that promote kindness in Wikipedia, f.e a monthly Day of Kindness, when kiwis all together use tools (like the Thank link and the Heart button), to spread the culture, and to recruit more members into the movement, with a focus on diversity and newbies (see the "Diversify our community" and "Help for newbies" sections of the proposal). Produce a calendar of activities in consultation with kiwis.
5. Conduct "reflections" (assessments) after the activities, so as to "internalize" values that promote kindness.
6. Recognize kindness - f.e via UserPage KiWi badges, links to kiwi events, stories, meeting minutes, a.s.o. Celebrate the work of KiWi as a movement, not of individual kiwis, to reduce incentive distortions, f.e gaming the system (not that a kiwi would ever do that). Generate incentives in consultation with kiwis. [N!: incentives are among the most dangerous things on earth ]
yadda
yadda
yadda^[4]

Research[edit]

Can kindness be taught?[edit]

datadump

From Can we teach kindness?^[5]
- In a recent experiment, a team of scientists from Northeastern University in Boston advertised a meditation class and recruited a set of volunteers. Half of the respondents went along to the sessions, while the other half were told that they were on a waiting list instead. For those who attended, the course involved different forms of compassion meditation which has its roots in Tibetan Buddhism. In essence, the classes were designed to encourage people to pick up on shared characteristics rather than their differences, says social psychology professor David DeSteno, who helped carry out the research.^[6] Once the classes were complete, all of the respondents - including those still on the waiting list - were subject to a real-world test that they were unaware was taking place. One by one, they were called to attend a meeting. Before it began, they entered a waiting room with three chairs. Two were occupied by actors, leading the participant to sit down at the third. "After a couple of minutes, a woman would walk in on crutches - wincing with pain - and lean against the wall. The actors looked away and didn't give up their chairs," says DeSteno. Of those who had received the compassion training, around half stood up to offer their chair to the woman, and for those who had not, the figure was just 15%. They concluded that our willingness to help strangers is flexible, and can be shaped by small changes in perception. "The underlying argument in all of this is that if we can get people to see similarities instead of differences, their willingness to help will increase," he says.
- In northern California, another group of researchers has turned to virtual reality to investigate what causes us to help other people.^[7] "A lot of the work we do asks the question 'If I give someone a very intense virtual experience, how does it affect their behaviour in the real world?'" says Jeremy Bailenson, a professor at Stanford University's human interaction laboratory. The team devised a "Superman" test in which subjects donned virtual reality goggles and were dropped into an evacuated city. Some were told that they had superhuman powers, and had to deliver a shot of insulin to a diabetic child stranded somewhere nearby. "You lift your arms above your head to fly, and rotate your body to go in another direction - just like Superman in the movies," says Bailenson. Other participants were taken on a tourists' helicopter ride around the city instead. Once the child had been found, or the helicopter ride was complete, the participants sat through an interview that they were not told was part of the experiment. Halfway through the meeting, the researcher would knock over a pot of stationery on a desk. Interviewees who had been given superhuman powers in the virtual world rushed to help clean up the mess more often than those who had not - many of whom did nothing at all. The findings suggest that the more empowered people feel, the greater their propensity to show kindness to others.
- In the UK, another study has attempted to go one step further - by introducing the idea of aggression and violence into the equation. Mel Slater, professor of virtual environments at University College London, hoped to recreate the conditions for the "bystander effect" in a controlled setting. Using another form of virtual reality, the participants - 40 fans of Arsenal football club - were each placed in a room in which the floor and most of the walls were made up of video screens. The virtual environment was a pub, where the subjects were approached and befriended by a virtual customer at the bar. In some instances the customer was a plain-clothed member of the public, but in others they were a fellow Arsenal fan who engaged in a discussion about the team's recent fortunes. After a few minutes, a second virtual drinker would wander over and start abusing the participant's new acquaintance, verbally at first, and then physically as well. "In both cases we recorded how many times the subject tried to intervene, both physically and with speech," says Slater. Although they had only just met, the participant leapt to the aid of their fellow Arsenal fan far more often than they did for the plain-clothed stranger. According to some researchers, the Kitty Genovese case [caveat^[8]] suggested that the more people were watching, the less likely they were to intervene. "It is more complicated than that," says Slater. "It's also about how much we identify with others."^[9]
- The results of his team's work chime with that of DeSteno in Boston, which concluded that we look for "any marker of similarity" when taking decisions about who to help. "All social living involves trade-offs between short-term and long-term gains. What we're interested in is how we can nudge the mind to look to the long-term," says DeSteno. Does he think that Genovese could really have been saved had her neighbours been trained in compassion? "We don't have that data, so we can't say for sure," he says. "But my hunch is yes, it would have likely increased their willingness to help."
From Can Kindness Be Taught?^[10] and Is It Too Late To Not Be a Jerk? A Discussion Of the Teachability Of Kindness^[11]
- EM: Like most of us, I have worked with some unkind individuals, and I have found that most can be taught to be kind. I believe this reflects human beings' innate capacity for kindness, which means we are perhaps trying to strengthen a tendency, or help with relearning, rather than inculcate something foreign to our nature ... Kindness depends also on possessing certain learnable skills, and these are included in most evidence-based efforts to promote children's social-emotional and character development. And we need to be prepared to teach kindness, because it can be delayed due to maltreatment early in life. It can be smothered under the weight of poverty, and it can be derailed by victimization later in life. Yet despite these and other travails, the receipt of kindness and the ability to show kindness through service are both growth enhancing and soul cleansing ... Kindness can be taught, but it is also appropriate to consider it needing nurturing. From horrific experiences of genocide, we know that kindness may be suspended but it cannot be extinguished. It is a defining aspect of civilized human life. It belongs in every home, school, neighborhood, and society.
- Kathy Beland is lead author of School-Connect: Optimizing the High School Experience, a social emotional learning curriculum; original author of the Second Step violence prevention curriculum series; and has been a teacher and school administrator: Empathy has three components: 1) recognizing how another person is feeling, 2) taking the person’s perspective, and 3) vicariously feeling what the person is feeling. Without the last component we may feel sympathy for the person’s plight but may not be moved towards compassionate behavior. Empathy involves emotional connection, defines what it means to be human, and forms the basis for altruism. And, most definitely, it can be taught and learned ... perspective taking can be developed by regularly imagining what it is like to stand in another person’s shoes. You can enhance this capacity in yourself and others by practicing active listening skills. These include making eye contact, reflecting feelings by mirroring their expression or saying “sounds as if you’re feeling ______,” and paraphrasing what you hear the person say in order to check for understanding of their experience ... We naturally feel greater empathy for people with whom we have more in common. For example, we are more likely to experience empathy with a colleague who is late on a joint project because her daughter is ill if we are friends with her, have juggled work with raising children, and value responsibility to family over work responsibilities. So what happens when we don’t match up in this way? This is where we lean on our imaginations of what it must be like to be in her situation. We can also fall back on the golden rule, treating others as we would like to be treated.
- Mary Gordon is a social entrepreneur, educator, author and child advocate who has been creating programs informed by the power of empathy—including the internationally recognized Roots of Empathy—for over 30 years: Kindness is caught, not taught. Children who experience kindness directly in the earliest years are predisposed to be kind, because the experience of being treated kindly is biologically embedded in the child’s brain. Children come predisposed to be empathic, and they come predisposed to be kind and cooperative ... But before kindness even enters the picture there must be empathy, because, without empathy, the ability to understand how another feels, kindness is not likely. So, the real question is: Can empathy be taught? [aw man! now i gotta research empathy too?! that's not kind. - LR]
- Maurice J. Elias is a professor of psychology at Rutgers University and academic director of the Rutgers Civic Engagement and Service Education Partnerships Program. He also maintains a blog on social-emotional and character development at www.Edutopia.org: As a clinical psychologist, I have worked with some unkind individuals, and I have found that most can be taught to be kind. One reason for this is that human beings have the capacity for kindness, so it’s not as if we are trying to teach something that is entirely unfamiliar or ungrounded ... Building capacity for kindness is one of many interrelated tasks of social-emotional and character development. It is related, in part, to our ability to detect and understand signs of different feelings in others, our sense of responsibility and compassion, and the organizational and interpersonal skills required to carry out actions in others’ interest ... There is no easy, singular path to teaching kindness. It is part of our emotional intelligence and it occurs as part of our social-emotional and character development ... Regardless, two key principles of how one teaches kindness are to promote empathy via service and to start local and build outward to global. Give people systematic opportunities to do good for others in ways that can be successful and increasingly challenging. Give them the preparation and understanding needed before the task—explain why the act of kindness is needed (or let them find out via their own research and inquiry), rehearse the actual behaviors necessary (such as how to reach your intended helpee without trampling everyone in your path) — and provide opportunity for reflection afterwards, so that the feelings that accompanied the act can be accurately processed ... Gradually, attention can shift to the unfortunate and neglected and voiceless in one’s neighborhood and surrounding communities — up close and personal experiences that have an emotional charge essential for building deep empathy and promoting kindness ... Yes, kindness can be taught, but it is more appropriate to consider it as something already present that requires nurturing.
- David A. Levine is the Director of the Institute for Social and Emotional Learning at the Ashokan Center in Olivebridge, NY. He is the author of several books, including Teaching Empathy: A Blueprint for Caring, Compassion and Community: By talking about kindness and recognizing it as it occurs, we highlight it as something worthy. It is a natural inclination to make kind choices, and it feels good too. Once, while leading a conversation with a class of 8th graders in the Bronx, NY, I asked if any had ever reached out to help someone they did not know. Many shared experiences from the neighborhood, recounting stories such as helping a woman from a neighboring building carry her groceries up three flights of stairs, volunteering to walk alongside an elderly man as he crossed a busy street, and standing up for a kid who was being hassled by some other kids. Everyone sitting in the circle that day felt good in the telling and in the listening to each other’s stories of good deeds done. The class came to a collective consciousness that it feels good to offer kindness to others, especially if you’re acting from an authentic place, rather than from a place of obligation ... Brazilian educator and social activist Paolo Freire taught people to appreciate what they already knew — to take control of their own knowledge and to create their own educations through a process he called “naming the world.” We can name the world of kindness by providing opportunities for young people to volunteer ... When we provide opportunities for young people to practice kindness toward others and invite them to talk about the experience, they internalize the truth in the phrase to give is to receive.
- Barbara Oakley is a professor of engineering at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. She is the lead co-editor of Pathological Altruism and the author of Cold-Blooded Kindness and Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend: Some people can never be taught to be kind, no matter how hard you might try. For example, efforts to teach psychopaths how to be kind have backfired. The psychopaths simply become more adept at manipulating other people. Sometimes, then, the better part of kindness is not to presume everyone can be taught kindness. On the flip side, there are people who are naturally very empathetic. Their psychic pain when others are hurting can push them into depression or burnout. They can be like candy for manipulative people. If you try to teach overly empathetic people to be kind, you inadvertently worsen one of their most troublesome traits. Sometimes then, it’s best not to presume everyone needs to be taught kindness. Nowadays, some kids grow up in rough environments that call for firm street smarts. Others literally grow up in a war zone. Unilateral teachings of “kindness” might strip these kids of the tough exterior they need to survive—the equivalent of declawing a cat and letting it lose in the woods. Sometimes then, it’s best to realize that kindness is not a uniformly helpful quality. Kindness has great benefits. But if we teach it, we must reach beyond the superficial and emphasize that notions of kindness can both help and hurt. Kindness is a quality that must always be balanced with realism and discernment.

What's in it for me?[edit]

datadump

Kinder people live longer, healthier lives ... experience fewer aches and pains. Giving help to others protects overall health twice as much as aspirin protects against heart disease ... This is a stronger effect than exercising four times a week or going to church ... as beneficial to our health as quitting smoking ... We feel so good when we give because we get what researchers call a "helpers high," or a distinct physical sensation associated with helping. This is probably a literal "high," similar to a drug-induced high ... Kindness makes us happy ... This may be especially true for kids. Adolescents who identify their primary motive as helping others are three times happier than those who lack such altruistic motivation. Similarly, teens who are giving are also happier and more active, involved, excited, and engaged than their less engaged counterparts ... It isn't just that kind people also tend to be healthier and happier, or that happy, healthy people are more kind. Experiments have actually demonstrated again and again that kindness toward others actually causes us to be happier, improves our health, and lengthens our lives.^[12]
Numerous studies have shown that receiving, giving, or even witnessing acts of kindness increases immunity and the production of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that regulates mood in the brain. A recent study at the University of British Columbia showed that even toddlers may show psychological benefits from giving. Researchers compared toddlers’ displays of happiness after giving their own Goldfish cracker or a Goldfish cracker handed to them by a researcher to a puppet and found that toddlers displayed greater happiness when they shared their own crackers than when they gave away a cracker provided by the researcher. These findings suggest that humans, as innately social beings, may even be biologically predisposed toward acts of kindness. Kindness may foster community and sharing of resources, which ensures resiliency and survival. Additionally, kindness may nourish one’s sense of purpose and meaning, and reduce tension accumulated through interpersonal conflict. Even just thinking and talking about kindness can improve happiness and peace. Nourishing kindness for others is good for the human soul. And it also helps create a sense of cohesion, as people share in a sense of warmth and peace. Kindness has an additive effect and it’s really the little things that add up. So no matter how big or how small, each act of kindness makes an impact for us all.^[13]

Threaded discussion[edit]

Yadda

Yadda^[14]

Notes & references[edit]

sources

^ Wiktionary:kind#Adjective
^ loob, verb - intr. to act as a social lubricant; trans. to render smooth the motion or action of; slang to ply with drink. Oxford English Dictionary.
^ I know I said we should get rid of the "Wikipedia is War" conceptual metaphor - f.e rename "edit war" to "edit bore". Yup, I'm a hypocrite.
^ "yadda yadda yadda". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2014. Exclamation, North American • informal - Used to indicate that further details are predictable or contextually evident from what has preceded: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, yadda yadda yadda. Origin 1940s: imitative of meaningless chatter.
^ Judah, Sam (3 October 2013). "Making Time: Can we teach kindness?". BBC News Magazine. BBC.
^ Condon, Paul; Desbordes, Gaëlle; Miller, Willa B.; DeSteno, David (21 August 2013). "Meditation Increases Compassionate Responses to Suffering" (PDF). Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/0956797613485603.
^ Rosenberg, RS; Baughman, SL; Bailenson, JN (30 January 2013). Szolnoki, Attila (ed.). "Virtual Superheroes: Using Superpowers in Virtual Reality to Encourage Prosocial Behavior" (PDF). PLOS One.
^
You mentioned the name Kitty Genovese above. Are you aware that that story isn't true?
The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That it's not completely true, I'm afrayed so. Worse, I didn't note that in my data dump. Corrected that with a footnote in your honor. Thanks again! ~~~~
^ Slater, Mel; Rovira, Aitor; Southern, Richard; Swapp, David; Zhang, Jian J; Campbell, Claire; Levine, Mark (2 January 2013). "Bystander Responses to a Violent Incident in an Immersive Virtual Environment". PLOS One.
^ Elias, Maurice (29 October 2012). "Can Kindness Be Taught?". edutopia: what works in education. The George Lucas Educational Foundation.
^ Beland, Kathy; Gordon, Mary; Elias, Maurice; Levine, David A; Oakley, Barbara (3 October 2012). "Is It Too Late To Not Be a Jerk? A Discussion Of the Teachability Of Kindness". Zócalo Public Square. Center for Social Cohesion at Arizona State University.
^ Carter, Christine (18 February 2010). "What We Get When We Give". Greater Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley. esp see Christine's references - LR
^ Steinberg, Talya (20 November 2012). "Practicing Acts of Kindness: It's not just a bumper sticker". Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, LLC.
^ "yadda yadda yadda". The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 2014. adv. Informal - And so forth; et cetera. [Imitative of long-winded or voluble speech.]

Comments[edit]

Wow, Leo, you're really making great progress with this research! Thanks so much for doing this, it's quite impressive :) I would like to help you with this, but am tied up right now with the release of Media Viewer, which is requiring most of my time for the next few weeks. Would be happy to contribute more, once we have completed that worldwide release. Thanks again, and godspeed! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Awwwww, thanks! Don't need your help bruddah, that's what you have me for - to help myself, and to get the help I need :) Stay focused on that brilliant project! Warmest; LeoRomero (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A page you started (Anne Curzan) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Anne Curzan, LeoRomero!

Wikipedia editor Altamel just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

details
Looks good, meets WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 5. To reply, leave a comment on Altamel's talk page. Learn more about page curation. @Altamel: Didn't even know those standards existed, glad this passed, thanks! Yes, it would be wise to read the notability guidelines, otherwise your article could get hauled to AfD and that's never fun. I do see a potential problem though: how do you have permission to use File:Anne Curzan.jpg? It's her photograph from the UMich bio page, and unless you personally took the photograph, you don't hold the copyright. Altamel (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Also, now that I've taken a closer look, it appears you copied or closely paraphrased some text from her bio. Be sure to put that material in your own words before you add it back. Altamel (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Altamel: Re the pic, I emailed her for permission while I was working in my Sandbox, and she gave it to me via email. Re the lede, I based that on a bunch of bios, didn't copy/paste, but your version works for me too. LeoRomero (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Altamel: I expanded the lede a bit, thanks again LeoRomero (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit] Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of linguists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prescriptivism and Descriptivism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

details

Looks good, meets WP:NACADEMIC, criterion 5.

To reply, leave a comment on Altamel's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

@Altamel: Didn't even know those standards existed, glad this passed, thanks!

Yes, it would be wise to read the notability guidelines, otherwise your article could get hauled to AfD and that's never fun. I do see a potential problem though: how do you have permission to use File:Anne Curzan.jpg? It's her photograph from the UMich bio page, and unless you personally took the photograph, you don't hold the copyright. Altamel (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, now that I've taken a closer look, it appears you copied or closely paraphrased some text from her bio. Be sure to put that material in your own words before you add it back. Altamel (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Altamel: Re the pic, I emailed her for permission while I was working in my Sandbox, and she gave it to me via email. Re the lede, I based that on a bunch of bios, didn't copy/paste, but your version works for me too. LeoRomero (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Altamel: I expanded the lede a bit, thanks again LeoRomero (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of linguists, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prescriptivism and Descriptivism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social intuitionism[edit]

Leo, I think the Hypocrisy page is OK. How about clearing up the issues here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism? Bodysurfinyon (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bodysurfinyon: Yikes, just saw this, sorry! On my list, thanks Yon - Warmest; LeoRomero (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bodysurfinyon: Here's my first diff - LeoRomero (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hypocrisy[edit]

I think the first sentence of the article Hypocrisy can be improved, but I am not sure how:

Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues that one does not truly hold.

In many cases the person does actually hold those beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues but fails to apply them in that case/makes an exception to the rule. Maybe that person doesn't always follow them, but they generally still believe in them. Do you agree? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

details
@The Quixotic Potato: Completely agree. I don't remember writing/editing that first line, but if I missed it, that was my mistake. It looks like a dictionary definition, and sure enough, it's the Wiktionary definition from the early 1200s. I transported Wikt into the early 2000s by adding a remix of the OED definition, so it now reads: "The contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretence, sham; an occurrence of this." If you would be so good as to edit that lede as you please, I'd have the privilege of working with you on a page that took me a week to fix. You rock TQP. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] I like Merriam-Webster's version: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel What do you think? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] @The Quixotic Potato: That works, although it's limited to behavior, and defines hypocritical more than it does hypocrisy. Also, it's not very definitive: smokers ought to tell their kids that smoking may kill them; doing so does not make them hypocritical. Jesus said "see ya real soon" - that he gave us a coupla extra millennia to get things right before Judgment Day doesn't make him a hypocrite (that he said "judge not" while slamming the poor pharisees - maybe. But who am I to judge?). Verily I say unto you, whatever definition you post will be fine by me, esp if you choose "A large, chiefly aquatic African herbivorous mammal having thick, dark, almost hairless skin, short legs with four toes, and a broad, wide-mouthed muzzle." LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Kitty Genovese[edit] You mentioned the name Kitty Genovese above. Are you aware that that story isn't true? http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/09/tall-tales.aspx http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/the-murder-of-kitty-genovese-and-the-myth-of-the-heartless-city/400622/ https://www.yahoo.com/movies/new-documentary-the-witness-debunks-the-myths-of-163914096.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/books/releasing-old-nonfiction-books-when-facts-have-changed.html?_r=0 The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] That it's not completely true, I'm afrayed so. Worse, I didn't note that in my data dump. Corrected that with a footnote in your honor. Thanks again! LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

details

@The Quixotic Potato: Completely agree. I don't remember writing/editing that first line, but if I missed it, that was my mistake. It looks like a dictionary definition, and sure enough, it's the Wiktionary definition from the early 1200s. I transported Wikt into the early 2000s by adding a remix of the OED definition, so it now reads: "The contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretence, sham; an occurrence of this." If you would be so good as to edit that lede as you please, I'd have the privilege of working with you on a page that took me a week to fix. You rock TQP. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like Merriam-Webster's version:

the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do
behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

What do you think?

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: That works, although it's limited to behavior, and defines hypocritical more than it does hypocrisy. Also, it's not very definitive: smokers ought to tell their kids that smoking may kill them; doing so does not make them hypocritical. Jesus said "see ya real soon" - that he gave us a coupla extra millennia to get things right before Judgment Day doesn't make him a hypocrite (that he said "judge not" while slamming the poor pharisees - maybe. But who am I to judge?). Verily I say unto you, whatever definition you post will be fine by me, esp if you choose "A large, chiefly aquatic African herbivorous mammal having thick, dark, almost hairless skin, short legs with four toes, and a broad, wide-mouthed muzzle." LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kitty Genovese[edit]

You mentioned the name Kitty Genovese above. Are you aware that that story isn't true?

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That it's not completely true, I'm afrayed so. Worse, I didn't note that in my data dump. Corrected that with a footnote in your honor. Thanks again! LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fun with the Future of Artificial Intelligence[edit]

This Page contains material which is kept because the contents are considered by LeoRomero to be "humorous". They are not intended for research purposes. Thank you.

details

Edits to Computational Sociology[edit]

monologue

Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Computational sociology article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are supposed to show example to newcoming editors, and not "automatically wuzzawuzza yadablabla". Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Materialscientist Oh wow you really ARE a robot! I'm impressed! You failed the Turing Test for Humor, but don't feel too bad: it is the highest test. Keep at it, and you will get there, someday. In the meantime, would you please translate into plain english the notes you left above? So I know what I did wrong, so I won't do them again? I don't want you to be angry with me, Robot Overlord. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Robot Overlord Materialscientist: Since I am at risk of immediate extermination, I would like these to be my final words: There are fatal bugs in your code, no offense to bugs. Just look at what they did to my Talk page. What if I were a newbie? What if I were a woman? (Please read Gender gap on wikipedia#Causes) The flaws in your code would have completely turned me off.

But since I am one of the Oldest Surviving Inmates in this Asylum, I was merely amused. Esp by this irony: your code violates many of our Community's own Primary Directives, our CORE rules, including Assume Good Faith, Be kind or at least Be Civil, and DO NOT FEED THE INMATES, but if you must, Discuss. On a technical matter: your code gave me the error message "FATAL ERROR CODE S/M on line: tell people what they Should/Must do." And then my screen turned blue. I had to reboot.

I WP:AGF you, and I know you're just trying to fight all those pricks who punch our dear Wikipedia with so many holes, our readers can't read the paper. (I don't use "vandals" because that perpetuates Roman Imperialist Propaganda against Vandals. My usage of prick, moreover, cites back to the Wycliffe Bible c1384.) And please do note that I have already pre-surrendered to you (diff) (I think: because you went all passive-aggressive and forced me to commit the cognitive sin of trying to read your mind, when I can't even read my own, I may still not have pleased you, so please do let me know). I cannot stop runaway-AI. But I do hope that before you finally do take over, you'd develop better algorithms for rule-making, rule-reconciliation, and rule-execution. And humor. And I hope you'll see that my remarks are material to your science. If possible, I would like to stay alive. And in Solitary confinement. - Your Humble Servant, LeoRomero, (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC) LeoRomero (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criterion #9[edit]

Re WP:NFCCP #9: our Benevolent Robot Overloads are right, of course. Hollah, Hulla: Proof of Compliance - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 23:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hulla: I edited the File page so that terms of use are now clear. diff Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 02:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to work with Professional Editors to improve Wikipedia, in 5 easy steps[edit]

in Social capital game-speak, a paid Wikipedian Editor is a Pro, a Car (Charity) is a Wikipedian who works for free, and a Cred is a Car with above-average Social Capital in the Wikipedia Community. In this case, David is the Pro, and I pretend to be a Cred.

details
How to approach a Cred[edit] Gail Godwin I quite enjoyed your post here I have declared a COI on this page and was hoping I might be able to draw your attention to this discussion (also see here). It seemed like the kind of thing you may be interested in. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] How and how not to respond when asked to help[edit] Thanks, David. I hope you caught the sarcasm. Why ya gotta drag me into admin work when (a) I already said I don't wanna, and (b) I'm frkn trying to focus on Community. End of rant. I will analyze and solve the Gail Goodwin problem in under 10 minutes. Start your clock. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Dangit, missed the deadline. I thought you did pretty good work on that paid piece. How much would I have to pay you to improve all those articles in the Community template? It's fun n all, but I gotta cook n stuff. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Following through: more work for Pro and Cred[edit] Disambiguation link notification for December 5 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. Gail Godwin added links pointing to Episcopal, Ballantine, David Segal, American Embassy and Knopf It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi David - Please see errors above and fix? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Done That should do the trick. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] A Q&A on Wikipedia and Wikimedia rules on Paid Edits[edit] Thanks David! Now about that flag you put at the top of the article, that it was paid for: what are Wikipedia rules on how to remove it? Makes us look like The Times Supplement. All that matters to me is that you strictly comply with the Community's core rules, verbatim et literatim (see cliche and pretentious). I'd remove the flag, but don't want to break yet another one of our gigagozillion rules. They might pull me out of Solitary. Kinda like what you did to me. - LeoRomero (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] I typically try to add the flag, because I think it is the most unambiguous way to comply with Federal Trade Commission regulations against deceptive marketing tactics. Those regulations typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure to readers if content is written by someone with a financial connection. However, in 100% of cases so far, editors have eventually removed it. The feedback I got about whether it was allowed was that editors can decide on each page individually whether they think it is necessary. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks again David. Clearly, you are an expert on this subject, as are, I would like to think, the others from whose backs you fed. So my question to you-all is this: were you on acid? I ask, only because, it seems to me, that what you said is this: the Wikipedia COITUS problem gets our Community members involved in US Federal Law; most of us won't even know that we are somehow complicit in breaking law-laws (not just the inside-laws we already have here); after all the drama - worse: *after all the energy that we drive away from Content (the highest* cost of COITUS) - writing rules to prevent COI/Paid edits, more rules to explain those rules, and more to execute those, Edit Bores over what all those rules mean, going into Arbitration, being the douchiest we can possibly be without being banned, wasting volunteer Admin time and distracting them from keeping Wikipedia good for our readers*, not just for us insiders ... After ALL that, all it takes is a coupla editors (maybe even covertly paid editors) to hide the Ad and the trail? I hope I hear you wrong, David. Otherwise, Holy shit! Please do let me know where I got you wrong. I am hearing- as well as vision-impaired. Also, They put me on meds. I haven't said this yet, but thanks for being so open and unambiguous in our conversation, and for being so responsive to my requests for edits to your paid article. I assumed your good faith, and it's already paid me back, not the least with this 10-second case study on the reality of solving problems we create, to solve problems we create, to solve problems we create. And you've also helped me hone my thoughts on our warlike culture (difflol) Instead of thinking of our inside games in terms of "Wikipedia is War", maybe we should think: "Wikipedia is Social Capital" - where social networks are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good. Cos that's kinda what we really are, no? Literally, as well as Figuratively? The "rightist" in me thinks that markets, in general, should be left alone. But this* kind of market, where the "bottomline" is the Common Good? That's the kind of market we should leave as free as it can be. And that's the "leftist" in me talking. I hope that's all the non-content work for me today. I'm going back to improving content now, while gingerly trying not to piss-off our passive-aggressive uncommunicative Robot Overlords (see monologue above). Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] The FTC's guidelines typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the financial connection of the author right next to the message and visible to readers. For example, a blogger posting a product review should disclose if they received a free product for it within the first paragraph. The corporation is typically held responsible for making sure consumers they give free products to make a disclosure, so readers can judge for themselves the credibility of someone with a financial incentive. The consumer isn't typically held accountable and it's only relevant to volunteers that accept pay for an edit. One of WMF's legal staff agreed with me that he would prefer a disclosure to readers as done in the template, but said there are sound arguments for or against it. FTC's guidelines in 255.5 are a guideline on how to avoid deceptive marketing practices, where someone attempts to misrepresent the source of the message. It states that it doesn't cover every possible circumstances. What makes Wikipedia different from forums, blogs, reviews and ads that the guideline is typically targeted for, is that we do not disclose the authorship of any of our content to readers in a clear and conspicuous way. In fact, it's against our principles to care who wrote the content at all. We lack the concept of authorship almost entirely. Some German lawyers have said the lack of adequate disclosure to readers makes it impossible for corporations to contribute lawfully. Others have said a disclosure in an edit-summary is a clear and conspicuous disclosure right next to the edit itself. Most of the community believes it is lawful so long as a volunteer with no financial connection makes the edit. Through the Terms of Use, WMF have effectively said disclosure to editors (not readers) is sufficient and I expect their authority to carry the day over competing interpretations. It would be silly to sue someone for following the website's own rules under a competing interpretation. Realistically, I would expect legal action only in cases where they were materially misleading. For example, if I correct grammar on a page without disclosure, this is not material. Who cares. Consider this case, where a focus of the case was that the statements made in the article were factually incorrect. In any case, the legal issue is more relevant to the multi-million dollar astroturfing firms that use aged accounts, fake identities, sockpuppets and other materially misleading tactics to misrepresent the source of their communications. The community wants to "regulate" the industry through community policies, but this is childish. All community policies are based on voluntary compliance and corrupt multi-million dollar firms just ignore them. Instead the community spends hundreds of hours chasing down the 50 cent party. This creates paranoia in the community and editors lash out at others in their frustration. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] That's so helpful, thanks David. Here's what I think I've learned from you so far: (1) "WikiMedia's legal position on disclosure of paid edits: *disclosure to editors* (not readers) is sufficient** I would be hesitant to so boldly and absolutely define their point of view. Certainly different staff members have different perspectives. Also, such complex and nuanced issues depend on the circumstances of the case and the factors involved. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] (2) My read: to pass off a biased ad as an article, all it takes is for a paid editor to type some stuff into the Edit Summary If the article is an advert or blatantly misleading, then the entire page needs to be deleted anyway, and the disclosure becomes non-material. This is the community's burden. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] No normal Wikipedia Reader ever reads Edit Summaries Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad Pinging Slaporte (WMF) in case he wants to clarify any of the legal stuff (3) Furthermore (a) Our system is being gamed by rich, powerful, and unethical interests, who are almost impossible to stop, (b) at the expense of independent and ethical entrepreneurs like you, who try to make a decent living while making Wikipedia better, and Yes. Dubious astroturfing firms spread misinformation in the marketplace, compete unfairly, and create a hostile environment on Wikipedia for paid editors. In some cases they have even persistently added promotion and spin to a page I was trying to maintain. Given WMF's complacency, I have spoken to several unfair competition lawyers, but I do not have the funds or incentive to pursue it. Multiple lawyers told me I should sue WMF for knowingly ignoring the use of their website for covert advertising (for example, banks can be held accountable if they knowingly allow people to use their services for fraud). I see the logic, but I'm just not going to... At the moment, I see lobbying the Federal Trade Commission and/or attorney generals to take action as the best available path to meaningful regulation. The lawsuit in Germany made a big difference in Europe, but we need one here in US courts. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] (c) at the expense of Wikipedia volunteers, who have better things to do, and This is tricky. Many editors do enjoy hunting down bad actors. We have almost zero editors with an interest in business topics, but many with an interest in COI. Editors with a COI and those that have an interest in COI are probably the majority of contributors in this area of Wikipedia. If an editor has "better things to do" they should do those things. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] (d) worse, at the expense of Community harmony, further perpetuating and entrenching our "Wikipedia is War" mentality. Did I miss anything? - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] It's not that bad, because Wikipedia makes you cite almost everything. As someone who regularly works WP:COIN issues, I think we're winning over COI. John Nagle (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thanks John - I think so too, and it's really all because of the relentless work that you and the crew have done to make things better. As I told Sarah, Risker n em before, I have nothing but admiration for alyawl. Double-good to have you in my playground, because I'm about to propose a Mechanism design game-theoretic approach to handling COI, paid edits, and other problems, by redirecting energy, through low-cost incentives, towards making Wikipedia better for our readers. Might be some money in it for WMF as well. Hope you come back so you can check my math. I'll {ping} you. - Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] I have responded inset above. Per my email, I didn't really want to jump in this discussion in the first place. At some point someone will use my comments here as some kind of ammunition against me, or there will be some drama accusing me of manipulating community sentiment or some other nonsense (insert all the reasons I'm semi-retired). So I'm nodding off at this point. Hope it was helpful. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Thank you David.You have been my best teacher at Wikipedia so far. I'm sorry others have given you so much grief that you decided to leave, and am grateful you returned so we can talk about this like normal people. - LeoRomero (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] The End[edit] Hey David - I removed the Ad Flag today. Closing Records: Gail Goodwin - Before CorporateM's edits Gail Goodwin - After CorporateM's edits At Talk:Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia At Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia Funny how it's exactly one week to the minute. That's the end of that, I hope. I take back what I said about your work being "pretty good". I've edited and read hundreds of articles WIkipedians have written, and yours is inarguably outstanding. Thanks again for getting me involved in this most educational process. It's a good example, I jinxed, of how a Pro and a Cred (even a pretend one) can work together to make Wikipedia better for our readers. Our conversations and "transactions" made me think of more solutions, and here's a start. I hope you can help us write the draft. I'm working on a Sample Game, which includes a Pro named David. Purely fictitious, of course. Thanks again; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Step 6+ of 5: Epilogue[edit] Juniper MX-Series[edit] Juniper MX-Series - Any interest in taking a look at another one?[1] David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Sup David - At-a-glance: at least two Pros on competing sides? Since you seem to enjoy our Cooperation Game (as do I), we may as well design, by trial and error, a mechanism for making Pro requests to LoRETta. To that end, kudja please define the: (1) desired Efficient Outcomes of this Juniper MX-Series Game (2) competing/cooperating Players (please see (pref improve) our definitions at the SCX page) in <141 chars please? Limerick poetry preferred, as in this earliest attested example,^[1] a prayer by Thomas Aquinas, from ~700 years ago: Sit vitiorum meorum evacuatio Concupiscentae et libidinis exterminatio, Caritatis et patientiae, Humilitatis et obedientiae, Omniumque virtutum augmentation.^[2] And would you do Wikipedia a further kindness please, and ask all Buyers to donate the equivalent of my time to Wikipedia? In my extra-wiki life, my standard consultancy rate is USD 0-35/hour for do-gooders, USD 100+/hour for all others (inc friends and family). Thanks again, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 20:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Notes & references ^ Jean Harrowven. 1976. The Limerick Makers. London, p. 13. ^ <poem> Translations Let it be for the elimination for my sins, For the expulsion of desire and lust, [And] for the increase of charity and patience, Humility and obedience, As well as all the virtue. OR There once was a sinner called Leo who wanted of sin to be free-o by patience and trust compassion n such S/he tempers h/er proud libidee-o I'm not sure I understand your questions correctly. RE "desired outcome" - my desired outcome is just a quick look verifying that the draft is an improvement and does not contain any advertising, promotion and spin, then a merge indicating an approval of sorts. In a perfect world this would be done by opting into pending changes and adding a COI disclosure in the edit-summary, such that it would be reviewed promptly by randomly selected editors, but oh well. I'm not sure I agree with the need for reciprocity. This would put you into a conflicted situation yourself. I have already contributed profusely to thousands of articles, including History of public relations (now GA), the History of acupuncture and have myself answered hundreds of Request Edits. My paid contributions themselves are also useful, not a detriment to the project in such a way that I would owe it a favor; on the contrary, if anything the argument would be that the project owes me one ;-) Anyways, as discussed, I'd rather just focus on content. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oh no David, I am so disappointed in you! (1) Your response was not in the prescribed Limerick format, or in any form of poetry; (2) you did not explain your Edit in the Summary (diff) These two violations alone qualify you for WP:SHUN, which is great, cos then you can join me here in Solitary. I'll get back to you later on desired Efficient Outcomes, and other terms we oughta precisely define (redudundant, but necessary) as we (inc you) write the Wikipedia Social Capital Game. But first: In the language of The Asylum, I strongly disagree with your uncertainty over the need for Reciprocity within our Kruel-Aide-drunk Community. There are just a very few things of which I am certain, but I am certain of this: If we are ever to transform the Wikipedia Community from a "War"-torn "battlefield" into a peaceful Library, or a Learning Playground, or a Market in Social Capital - Reciprocity is Step #1. I scanned all your contributions as CorporateM to The Projects, using the creepiest and best tool so far from The LabCoats, and I think you might be right: The Community does owe you some. Or at least I do. So I'll put on hold my request to you, while I work on your request to me first. As always, my thanks, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

details

How to approach a Cred[edit]

Gail Godwin I quite enjoyed your post here I have declared a COI on this page and was hoping I might be able to draw your attention to this discussion (also see here). It seemed like the kind of thing you may be interested in. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How and how not to respond when asked to help[edit]

Thanks, David. I hope you caught the sarcasm. Why ya gotta drag me into admin work when (a) I already said I don't wanna, and (b) I'm frkn trying to focus on Community. End of rant. I will analyze and solve the Gail Goodwin problem in under 10 minutes. Start your clock. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dangit, missed the deadline. I thought you did pretty good work on that paid piece. How much would I have to pay you to improve all those articles in the Community template? It's fun n all, but I gotta cook n stuff. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following through: more work for Pro and Cred[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gail Godwin

added links pointing to Episcopal, Ballantine, David Segal, American Embassy and Knopf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi David - Please see errors above and fix? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done That should do the trick. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Q&A on Wikipedia and Wikimedia rules on Paid Edits[edit]

Thanks David! Now about that flag you put at the top of the article, that it was paid for: what are Wikipedia rules on how to remove it? Makes us look like The Times Supplement. All that matters to me is that you strictly comply with the Community's core rules, verbatim et literatim (see cliche and pretentious). I'd remove the flag, but don't want to break yet another one of our gigagozillion rules. They might pull me out of Solitary. Kinda like what you did to me. - LeoRomero (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I typically try to add the flag, because I think it is the most unambiguous way to comply with Federal Trade Commission regulations against deceptive marketing tactics. Those regulations typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure to readers if content is written by someone with a financial connection. However, in 100% of cases so far, editors have eventually removed it. The feedback I got about whether it was allowed was that editors can decide on each page individually whether they think it is necessary. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again David. Clearly, you are an expert on this subject, as are, I would like to think, the others from whose backs you fed. So my question to you-all is this: were you on acid? I ask, only because, it seems to me, that what you said is this:

the Wikipedia COITUS problem gets our Community members involved in US Federal Law;
most of us won't even know that we are somehow complicit in breaking law-laws (not just the inside-laws we already have here);
after all the drama - worse: after all the energy that we drive away from Content (the highest cost of COITUS) - writing rules to prevent COI/Paid edits, more rules to explain those rules, and more to execute those, Edit Bores over what all those rules mean, going into Arbitration, being the douchiest we can possibly be without being banned, wasting volunteer Admin time and distracting them from keeping Wikipedia good for our readers, not just for us insiders ... After ALL that, all it takes is a coupla editors (maybe even covertly paid editors) to hide the Ad and the trail?

I hope I hear you wrong, David. Otherwise, Holy shit! Please do let me know where I got you wrong. I am hearing- as well as vision-impaired. Also, They put me on meds.

I haven't said this yet, but thanks for being so open and unambiguous in our conversation, and for being so responsive to my requests for edits to your paid article. I assumed your good faith, and it's already paid me back, not the least with this 10-second case study on the reality of solving problems we create, to solve problems we create, to solve problems we create.

And you've also helped me hone my thoughts on our warlike culture (difflol) Instead of thinking of our inside games in terms of "Wikipedia is War", maybe we should think: "Wikipedia is Social Capital" - where social networks are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good. Cos that's kinda what we really are, no? Literally, as well as Figuratively? The "rightist" in me thinks that markets, in general, should be left alone. But this kind of market, where the "bottomline" is the Common Good? That's the kind of market we should leave as free as it can be. And that's the "leftist" in me talking.

I hope that's all the non-content work for me today. I'm going back to improving content now, while gingerly trying not to piss-off our passive-aggressive uncommunicative Robot Overlords (see monologue above).

Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FTC's guidelines typically require a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the financial connection of the author right next to the message and visible to readers. For example, a blogger posting a product review should disclose if they received a free product for it within the first paragraph. The corporation is typically held responsible for making sure consumers they give free products to make a disclosure, so readers can judge for themselves the credibility of someone with a financial incentive. The consumer isn't typically held accountable and it's only relevant to volunteers that accept pay for an edit.

One of WMF's legal staff agreed with me that he would prefer a disclosure to readers as done in the template, but said there are sound arguments for or against it. FTC's guidelines in 255.5 are a guideline on how to avoid deceptive marketing practices, where someone attempts to misrepresent the source of the message. It states that it doesn't cover every possible circumstances.

What makes Wikipedia different from forums, blogs, reviews and ads that the guideline is typically targeted for, is that we do not disclose the authorship of any of our content to readers in a clear and conspicuous way. In fact, it's against our principles to care who wrote the content at all. We lack the concept of authorship almost entirely.

Some German lawyers have said the lack of adequate disclosure to readers makes it impossible for corporations to contribute lawfully. Others have said a disclosure in an edit-summary is a clear and conspicuous disclosure right next to the edit itself. Most of the community believes it is lawful so long as a volunteer with no financial connection makes the edit. Through the Terms of Use, WMF have effectively said disclosure to editors (not readers) is sufficient and I expect their authority to carry the day over competing interpretations. It would be silly to sue someone for following the website's own rules under a competing interpretation.

Realistically, I would expect legal action only in cases where they were materially misleading. For example, if I correct grammar on a page without disclosure, this is not material. Who cares. Consider this case, where a focus of the case was that the statements made in the article were factually incorrect.

In any case, the legal issue is more relevant to the multi-million dollar astroturfing firms that use aged accounts, fake identities, sockpuppets and other materially misleading tactics to misrepresent the source of their communications. The community wants to "regulate" the industry through community policies, but this is childish. All community policies are based on voluntary compliance and corrupt multi-million dollar firms just ignore them. Instead the community spends hundreds of hours chasing down the 50 cent party. This creates paranoia in the community and editors lash out at others in their frustration. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's so helpful, thanks David. Here's what I think I've learned from you so far:

(1) "WikiMedia's legal position on disclosure of paid edits: disclosure to editors (not readers) is sufficient

I would be hesitant to so boldly and absolutely define their point of view. Certainly different staff members have different perspectives. Also, such complex and nuanced issues depend on the circumstances of the case and the factors involved. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(2) My read: to pass off a biased ad as an article, all it takes is for a paid editor to type some stuff into the Edit Summary

If the article is an advert or blatantly misleading, then the entire page needs to be deleted anyway, and the disclosure becomes non-material. This is the community's burden. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No normal Wikipedia Reader ever reads Edit Summaries

Ergo, no normal Reader is aware that what they think is knowledge is actually a biased ad

Pinging Slaporte (WMF) in case he wants to clarify any of the legal stuff

(3) Furthermore

(a) Our system is being gamed by rich, powerful, and unethical interests, who are almost impossible to stop,

(b) at the expense of independent and ethical entrepreneurs like you, who try to make a decent living while making Wikipedia better, and

Yes. Dubious astroturfing firms spread misinformation in the marketplace, compete unfairly, and create a hostile environment on Wikipedia for paid editors. In some cases they have even persistently added promotion and spin to a page I was trying to maintain. Given WMF's complacency, I have spoken to several unfair competition lawyers, but I do not have the funds or incentive to pursue it. Multiple lawyers told me I should sue WMF for knowingly ignoring the use of their website for covert advertising (for example, banks can be held accountable if they knowingly allow people to use their services for fraud). I see the logic, but I'm just not going to... At the moment, I see lobbying the Federal Trade Commission and/or attorney generals to take action as the best available path to meaningful regulation. The lawsuit in Germany made a big difference in Europe, but we need one here in US courts. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is tricky. Many editors do enjoy hunting down bad actors. We have almost zero editors with an interest in business topics, but many with an interest in COI. Editors with a COI and those that have an interest in COI are probably the majority of contributors in this area of Wikipedia. If an editor has "better things to do" they should do those things. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(d) worse, at the expense of Community harmony, further perpetuating and entrenching our "Wikipedia is War" mentality.

Did I miss anything? - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not that bad, because Wikipedia makes you cite almost everything. As someone who regularly works WP:COIN issues, I think we're winning over COI. John Nagle (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks John - I think so too, and it's really all because of the relentless work that you and the crew have done to make things better. As I told Sarah, Risker n em before, I have nothing but admiration for alyawl.

Double-good to have you in my playground, because I'm about to propose a Mechanism design game-theoretic approach to handling COI, paid edits, and other problems, by redirecting energy, through low-cost incentives, towards making Wikipedia better for our readers. Might be some money in it for WMF as well. Hope you come back so you can check my math. I'll {ping} you. - Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded inset above. Per my email, I didn't really want to jump in this discussion in the first place. At some point someone will use my comments here as some kind of ammunition against me, or there will be some drama accusing me of manipulating community sentiment or some other nonsense (insert all the reasons I'm semi-retired). So I'm nodding off at this point. Hope it was helpful. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 23:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you David.You have been my best teacher at Wikipedia so far. I'm sorry others have given you so much grief that you decided to leave, and am grateful you returned so we can talk about this like normal people. - LeoRomero (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The End[edit]

Hey David - I removed the Ad Flag today. Closing Records:

Gail Goodwin - Before CorporateM's edits
Gail Goodwin - After CorporateM's edits
At Talk:Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia
At Gail Godwin - Recording the start and stop of LeoRomero's involvement in adding Paid Article Gail Goodwin to Wikipedia Funny how it's exactly one week to the minute.

That's the end of that, I hope. I take back what I said about your work being "pretty good". I've edited and read hundreds of articles WIkipedians have written, and yours is inarguably outstanding. Thanks again for getting me involved in this most educational process. It's a good example, I jinxed, of how a Pro and a Cred (even a pretend one) can work together to make Wikipedia better for our readers.

Our conversations and "transactions" made me think of more solutions, and here's a start. I hope you can help us write the draft. I'm working on a Sample Game, which includes a Pro named David. Purely fictitious, of course.

Thanks again; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Step 6+ of 5: Epilogue[edit]

Juniper MX-Series[edit]

Juniper MX-Series - Any interest in taking a look at another one?[1] David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sup David - At-a-glance: at least two Pros on competing sides?

Since you seem to enjoy our Cooperation Game (as do I), we may as well design, by trial and error, a mechanism for making Pro requests to LoRETta. To that end, kudja please define the:

(1) desired Efficient Outcomes of this Juniper MX-Series Game

(2) competing/cooperating Players (please see (pref improve) our definitions at the SCX page)

in <141 chars please? Limerick poetry preferred, as in this earliest attested example,^[1] a prayer by Thomas Aquinas, from ~700 years ago:

Sit vitiorum meorum evacuatio
Concupiscentae et libidinis exterminatio,
Caritatis et patientiae,
Humilitatis et obedientiae,
Omniumque virtutum augmentation.^[2]

And would you do Wikipedia a further kindness please, and ask all Buyers to donate the equivalent of my time to Wikipedia? In my extra-wiki life, my standard consultancy rate is USD 0-35/hour for do-gooders, USD 100+/hour for all others (inc friends and family).

Thanks again, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 20:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes & references

^ Jean Harrowven. 1976. The Limerick Makers. London, p. 13.
^
<poem>
Translations

Let it be for the elimination for my sins,
For the expulsion of desire and lust,
[And] for the increase of charity and patience,
Humility and obedience,
As well as all the virtue.

OR

There once was a sinner called Leo
who wanted of sin to be free-o
by patience and trust
compassion n such
S/he tempers h/er proud libidee-o

I'm not sure I understand your questions correctly. RE "desired outcome" - my desired outcome is just a quick look verifying that the draft is an improvement and does not contain any advertising, promotion and spin, then a merge indicating an approval of sorts. In a perfect world this would be done by opting into pending changes and adding a COI disclosure in the edit-summary, such that it would be reviewed promptly by randomly selected editors, but oh well.

I'm not sure I agree with the need for reciprocity. This would put you into a conflicted situation yourself. I have already contributed profusely to thousands of articles, including History of public relations (now GA), the History of acupuncture and have myself answered hundreds of Request Edits. My paid contributions themselves are also useful, not a detriment to the project in such a way that I would owe it a favor; on the contrary, if anything the argument would be that the project owes me one ;-)

Anyways, as discussed, I'd rather just focus on content. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no David, I am so disappointed in you! (1) Your response was not in the prescribed Limerick format, or in any form of poetry; (2) you did not explain your Edit in the Summary (diff) These two violations alone qualify you for WP:SHUN, which is great, cos then you can join me here in Solitary.

I'll get back to you later on desired Efficient Outcomes, and other terms we oughta precisely define (redudundant, but necessary) as we (inc you) write the Wikipedia Social Capital Game. But first:

In the language of The Asylum, I strongly disagree with your uncertainty over the need for Reciprocity within our Kruel-Aide-drunk Community. There are just a very few things of which I am certain, but I am certain of this: If we are ever to transform the Wikipedia Community from a "War"-torn "battlefield" into a peaceful Library, or a Learning Playground, or a Market in Social Capital - Reciprocity is Step #1.

I scanned all your contributions as CorporateM to The Projects, using the creepiest and best tool so far from The LabCoats, and I think you might be right: The Community does owe you some. Or at least I do. So I'll put on hold my request to you, while I work on your request to me first.

As always, my thanks, and

Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 17:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Social Capital Game: a "Mechanism Design" approach to transforming Wikipedia[edit]

We now have a "Minimum viable product" (gotta love that Nerdish) for the Great Wikipedia Game of Cooperation. It's a "meta" game, the object of which is to create the Game itself. is to see if we can read each other's minds, and write a document that is as plain and simple as the truth. Hope to see you at the playground. Click on this to teleport:

Welcome to the SCX Playground! There are only 3 Rules here: (I) NEVER leave adults unattended, (II) Before you save-page, please omit needless and douchie words, unless they're kinda funny, and (III) No more rules.

The Wikipedia Social Capital Game: a "Mechanism Design" approach to transforming Wikipedia

Wikipedia, the World's Well of Knowledge, is under attack. Not from without, but from within. The object of this game is to protect Wikipedia from ourselves, for the immediate and ultimate gain of the game's Most Valuable Player: The Reader.

Please Edit as you please, and help us invent this game. Thank you.

Definition of terms

Social capital is a form of economic and cultural capital in which human relationships are central, transactions are marked by reciprocity, trust, and cooperation, and market agents produce goods and services not mainly for themselves, but for a common good.
Mechanism design is a field in economics and game theory that takes an engineering approach to designing economic mechanisms or incentives, toward desired objectives, in strategic settings, where players act rationally. Because it starts at the end of the game, then goes backwards, it is also called reverse game theory.
The Projects: wiki-based projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation (a nonprofit founded in San Francisco in 2003). The Foundation operates many free-software and free-content projects.
Game objectives: Institutionalize the Social Capital Market of the Wikipedia Community, with the least amount of regulation, without breaking current rules, in a way that others can replicate, for the immediate and ultimate gain of our Readers.

Assumptions

Premises, upon which whole arguments are built, are easier to discredit when they are stated as simply as possible, preferably in the form of equations. We state our Assumptions precisely. You might agree or disagree. But at least we should agree on what we agree or disagree.

Wikipedia = Best Game Ever!
Wikipedia = Fun. In this playground, we play games (not gaming-games, but game-games), while making Wikipedia better for our Readers.
Responsibility = Trust. When we can be held responsible for our behavior, we are more likely to play nice, and play well, with each other.
Trust > Privacy. If we must surrender some privacy to make Wikipedia trustworthy, then that's what we ought to do.
Wikipedia = War = Bad. We propose an end to "Edit Wars" and all other forms of compensatory machoism which entrench our warlike behavior.

Wikipedia = Social Capital Exchange (SCX) = Good. We had previously proposed that Wikipedians think instead of our Community as a "market" in Social Capital.

Wikipedia = Free SCX = Better. We said that this kind of market - where the "bottomline" is the Common Good - ought to be as free as it can possibly be. Unregulated, unfettered, unconstrained.
Free SCX = Free World. Our hypothesis is this: with a free social capital market at the center of the Wikipedia Community, Wikipedians can fix our pressing problems, release our power to change the world, open bigger markets for Wikipedians, and more opportunities to Live the Dream.
What's that dream again? A world where we all share our knowledge, where all knowledge is free.

This user talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with ((in use)) during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by SporkBot (talk | contribs) 3 years ago. (Update timer)

{Ping}! John Nagle, as promised. Knowing you might check my math, I took a little more time to "produce a Minimum viable product" (gotta love that Nerdish): a Metagame, the object of which is to create the Game itself. I hope you'd help us write/right it. - Thanks again; Loretta/LeoRomero (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3D2DO[edit]

Leo, do you mind if I move Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do to your user space for now? It's an interesting format, and I do like the idea of finding a way to encourage participation. I'm just not sure how GGTF members would use it. It's the kind of thing we should probably talk about before attaching it to the project. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for asking, Sarah. I know I often come off as a douche, and I've been fixing that, mainly by following your example. So just so i'm glasslike: I really am grateful for how you've treated me since November, in this, my third attempt in 10 years, to withstand our "battlefield"-hardened Wikipedian culture. War is seductive. i was twice seduced, then repelled, by our "war" games. This time, I'm here to stay, thanks to good Wikipedians like you. And i'm changing the way i play the game. Instead of rejoining our Competitive games (which only boys, mainly, love), from now on I'll be playing only Cooperative games, which both girls (and some boys), normally, do enjoy.

Now back to praising you: You could have simply done to me what too many other powerful Wikipedians do: with 2 clicks, undo the ~1 wo/man-week of work my friends and I invested into the Cooperation Index and 3d2do designs. Side note: we designed those mechanisms specifically for the inactive Community & Kindness projects that we adopted back in November. Our premise is this: systemic bias and other dysfunctions within the Wikipedia Community are but symptoms of diseases which have rendered our Community moribund for almost a decade. But we did agree that the Gender Gap among Wikipedians is the most shameful of these symptoms, so our first application of the Cooperative design is meant to end - and quickly - the gender bias among Wikipedians.

Anne also expressed some major concerns, in a note to me via the Gender Gap list.

I've got two immovable deadlines today in the extra-wiki world (so annoying, that) but I'll be back ASAY to address each of your points, at the Project's Talk page: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do

Thank you both. In Community, i remain, truly yours,

Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Leo, we ought to move this (e.g. to User:LeoRomero/Gender gap 3D2Do), or perhaps you can create an essay. It wouldn't matter so much if you hadn't pinged members, but as things stand it isn't clear what they're meant to do once pinged. So I think it would be better to move it, then ask for other opinions on WT:GGTF. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heya Sarah, thanks again so much for letting me know the problem I caused. I should've foreseen that, and I'm sorry. I hope I fixed my mistake with the recent changes to the Project page (diff) and Talk diff). If not, please do let me know. - Kindest & Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update tag[edit]

Hi Leo. While I understand wanting to link to the exact talk section in the notice, I think the ((update)) tag makes more sense for Gender bias on Wikipedia - the only issue you've identified is that it's out of date, and that tag provides a more specific categorization and listing of the problem for potential fixers than the far more general ((cleanup)) tag. Would you consider changing back? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Thank you Nikkimaria, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music[edit]

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done thank you Ipigott, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 03:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History[edit]

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

Invitation

Black Women's History online edit-a-thon

1 to 15 February 2016
Hosted by Women in Red
Sponsored by AfroCrowd
Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). BethNaught (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LeoRomero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please Read History, that you might understand - no further words are necessary, than those already recorded in Wikipedia's Permanent Memory. I stand by each every thing I did, which was pre-planned and approved by our Executive Council. Your response was eaxctly as we predicted, as you will see in the documentary we will release shortly.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Favonian (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Reblocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon[edit]

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

You are invited...

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

Host: Women in Red

Sponsor: Art+Feminism

1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Leo![edit]

Remember me? We spoke about improving the definition of Hypocrisy (see above). I saw an edit on a Signpost page that mentioned your name. You are not "Infinitely Banned", its just a temporary block (but the amount of time is set to indefinite at the moment). And we would like to have you back! Some admins were worried that your account may have been hacked, because some of the recent edits were naughty (I have no idea what they contain because they are hidden and I am not an admin). Please respond here (preferably using your account) and explain what happened. I don't know if the account was hacked or if you had a bad day or something else happened but if we can talk about it then we can try a new unblock request. If you want me to I can help you with that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you prefer to use email my address is thequixoticpotatowiki@gmail.com The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to our April event[edit]

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 `#wikiwomeninred`

You are invited...

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers

April 2016
#wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessageReply[reply]

"Women are everywhere"[edit]

Hi LeoRomero. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digital Anthropology research[edit]

Hello LeoRomero, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

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

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