IP editors change

Please don't revert IPs just because they are IPs. The ethnicity edits were easily sourceable in two seconds going to the en.wiki pages. Try and not remove valid encyclopedic material without atleast trying to source it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have never reverted an IP for simply being an IP. I was reverting a number of edits this afternoon for adding unsourced ethnicity information to BLPs. Rus793 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
All of which were not revert worthy and would not have been reverted had they not been by an IP editor. I have seen you hound IP editors frequently. You have an obligation to try and fix valid information before just reverting it. And you most certainly do not label good faith edits as vandalism as you did. And hell on atleast one of the articles there were sources. So don't try to bullshit me. Be more carefull or next time it won't be a warning. -DJSasso (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Djasso, I think you need to calm down and apologise to him. He obviously didn't mean to do anything wrong, and I think that his record clerly shows that he is one of the more trustworthy editors on here. MiloDenn (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
MiloDenn, actually that was part of my point. Their record since coming here is full of instances where they just puts up for deletion or reverted people who aren't regular editors without regard for what the actual edit or content was. It can be very disruptive and damaging to the wiki, both in terms of lost content, and the loss of potential new editors who see it as being harassed which is why we have guideline about such things called WP:BITE. Things like calling good faith edits vandalism is a good example of something that could scare an editor off. It is also something that could lead to removal of the rollback tool. I do not deny they also do good here which is why I chose to only warn them at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ultimately you used the word bulls**t, which could quite easily be taken as an attack. Secondly, I have only been on here for a couple of months, and Rus is one of the people who really helped me settle in. If you look at my talk page you will see that he has made lots of constructive comments, which have really helped me understand the policy's. I am certain that he didn't revert them just for being an IP, as I know he checks very carefully over information. DJASSO, I understand what you are saying, but I have to side with Rus, in that he did the right thing. If you want to make a discussion out of it, do so in simple talk, and refrain from attacking Rus. Thanks very much for your respect, MiloDenn (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Helping with a research project in Simplification change

Hello Rus793,

I'm reaching out to you because I am working on a research project on simplification and am looking to collaborate with domain experts.

A quick introduction: I am a researcher interested in text simplification and am working towards publishing a resource in text simplification based on Simple Wikipedia (quite a rich encyclopedia). We believe this resource, which we will make public, could be valuable to educate and increasing awareness of text simplification.

Some colleagues and I are looking to collaborate with domain experts in the creation of the resource. We've secured some budget for our research project, so there's the possibility to remunerate a few experts that would work with us.

I do not mean to spam you, so feel free to disregard/delete if you feel this is inappropriate (and I apologize). On the other hand, if you are interested, please feel free to reach out, either directly on Wikipedia or by email (phillab@berkeley.edu) and I would be happy to tell you more.

Thank you, and sorry again if you feel this is inappropriate,

Philippe Laban

You can check my previous academic publications (one of which is on Simplification) on this website: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fR5t200AAAAJ Philippelaban (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply