User talk:Nikurasu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel it appropriate to indicate that I have not the slightest ill will to the articles that you have been submitting, or to Dr. Commons's interesting work. But as one of the administrators here, it is my responsibility to enforce our rules for copyright, which we are not legally able to modify or deal with informally. It is also my responsibility to make sure that articles meet our standards in other respects. In fact, i take a particular interest in shepherding academic articles and faculty biographies through the somewhat unusual complexities of WP rules and will do whatever I reasonably can to improve and maintain such articles. I do call your attention to WP:OWN and WP:COI. The insertion of references to ones work or the work of one's close associates in multiple articles is very strongly discouraged, regardless of the importance of the work. if the work is important, others will do so. This s a friendly note, intended to alert you to the problems and how to fix them. Do not take things personally, and remember that it is literally true what we say on the edit box, that anything submitted here will be mercilessly edited. DGG (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if that is how what I was doing came off as. I was not contesting your job and your need to enforce copyrights (surely this is an essential duty). In fact, I agree with the assessment that his use of copyrighted material was inappropriate, and I think your leniency is admirable. I was most interested in you elaborating in specifics what the problems were. This way, they could be more easily resolved. As was, there was little way for user Commons@tiac.net to understand what exactly the problem was, and this is why I replied. Also, I do not think it is good to make edits without supplying the proof of the justification. An authority than maintains the necessary standards is indeed important; however, an authority also needs to be transparent and specific about the problem they are addressing. If not, not only does it seem like a personal attack (even if it is not), but it is frustrating and confusing. Also, please do not take this personally (as you said).

I have read your profile and I understand that. I appreciate it very much. I think that that kind of openness is essential to intellectual advancement and beneficial to many people.

I understand WP:OWN and WP:COI, and acknowledge their importance and the significance of the issues at large in intellectual endeavors. I have been bedridden for most of the time in which this account has existed, so I have not edited other articles heavily. However, I am interested in doing so, and I think it is important to not restrict oneself just to an area of interest or just to assisting a colleague. I assure you that I will edit other topics and articles in the future. I will start doing so as soon as possible. However, I also believe it is important to act in a timely manner, especially when dealing with copyright issues, which are serious and sensitive issues. This is especially true on Wikipedia, where their resolution is extremely important in terms of the credibility of the medium. Though, regardless they are important. Intellectual property should not be infringed upon.

What else I have to say is that I do not think you should not act hastily in the present situation. You have indeed been patient so far, but I am afraid that with all the editing work you do you may be compelled to finish this sooner than is best in the name of efficiency. I have talked to user Commons@tiac.net, and it seems that he understands all the intellectual issues involved in why his postings are disputed, but is confused due to the the way the information way presented and some degree of difficultly in understanding how Wikipedia works. I believe he has said this himself in one of his posts (He is new to posting and has said so). Due to his current troubles with Wikipedia he has had some degree of difficultly understanding what to do, as well as trouble understanding literally where and how to place his edits. I think it would not be of benefit to Wikipedia and in the interests of anyone hoping to maintain the accuracy or appropriateness of information on Wikipedia (or in general) to censor him based on him not having perfect understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I am sure you will understand this and I know you understand the importance of working to include more. I have simply been hoping that you understand that I also am interested in this goal. I think in this case, it is important that you be patient and assist this user as much as you can. There is no reason that the worthy information he posts should be lost.

On that note, could you please continue to assist him, as well as assist him in other issues? For example, I believe he needs help regarding his article on Society for Quantitative Analysis of Behavior. His response is valid, but it is in the wrong place (actually, I see that good assistance has already come, but any further assistance would always be helpful).

I believe there was some degree of misunderstanding here, and while it is unfortunate, I believe we have made progress in resolving it through this communication.

Nikurasu 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All new users get confused a little; its an artificial and complex environment with customs as important as the written rules. I no more expect someone to understand what's going on than I would expect someone to understand about an academic department at the first day of graduate school.--and in some ways it's a little similar. Of course I'll help him--and you--and anyone who lets me. You can see what I do as an admin from my logs; Special, Logs, User DGG, Block log. I don't even delete very much--you can see that too.

The main concern I have with you, by the way, is WP:WALL , 2nd paragraph, and the fuller discussion at [1] To write a page about oneself, the journal one edits, the society one is president of, and the specific topics one specializes in seems natural enough, but it does tend to give that impression that they are all in to support each other. This is reinforced when one puts links to them in pages on not just more general subjects, but very general subjects, especially if one includes one's name in those links. You'll understand. DGG (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, and thank you for all of your assistance and kindness. I am continuing to work with user commons@tiac.net to explain what he needs to do and why (as well as what he cannot do), and attempting to help him to do it.

Nikurasu 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positive Adult Development

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Positive Adult Development, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Positive Adult Devlopment. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 20:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I reposted the Positive Adult Devlopment page with the properly spelled name: "Positive Adult Development". The old "Positive Adult Devlopment" article should be deleted. I did not realize that there was a move page feature. I apologize for this mistake. Nikurasu 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)