: What i personally believe doesn't matter during my vandalism patrol - but have a good look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martinsburg_High_School&action=historysubmit&diff=351764755&oldid=351764717 the edit] you made. I think you are confusing the words [[Principal (school)|Principal]] and [[Principle]]. Your edit stated that Jesus Christ would be the director of the school. Seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rumsey_Technical_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=351764528 i warned your IP just minutes before] for changing "CISCO" into "CISCOCKS", i reverted it with a warning. [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
: What i personally believe doesn't matter during my vandalism patrol - but have a good look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martinsburg_High_School&action=historysubmit&diff=351764755&oldid=351764717 the edit] you made. I think you are confusing the words [[Principal (school)|Principal]] and [[Principle]]. Your edit stated that Jesus Christ would be the director of the school. Seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rumsey_Technical_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=351764528 i warned your IP just minutes before] for changing "CISCO" into "CISCOCKS", i reverted it with a warning. [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 12:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
== "Disruption only account" ==
I noticed you accused me of being a "disruption-only account" at WP:ANI. Aside from being a failure to assume good faith, you are simply wrong. In fact, I created the following articles in the last few weeks from scratch alone.
* [[Yoav Shamir]]
* [[Munich: Mossad's Revenge]]
* [[Israeli settlement timeline]]
* (not an article but a graph) File:IsraeliSettlementGrowthLineGraph.png
* [[Ommatoiulus moreletii]]
* [[Art student scam]]
What have you contributed to Wikipedia recently? [[User:Factsontheground|Factsontheground]] ([[User talk:Factsontheground|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Either way, reverting and reinstating each other 50 times already isn't going to solve anything. I see no talk page discussions, and no attempts to solve this trough communication rather then trough blunt force or reverts. Squash Racket - If you are sure this is block evasion then take it to WP:SSP or make an WP:AIAV report on the situation; As said, reverting alone isn't going to fix this. IancuHunedoara - I am not going to investigate these charges, so i will just assume you are a legit editor. If so, try communicating with Squash Racket on his talk page, and try to work this out trough civil means rather then trough blunt reverts.
Either way, stop reverting each other. Quite obviously it won't solve anything as the other party reverts right back. Even if the other party reverts, just leave it like that and discuss it - or take it to the WP:DR process. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First: he's evading his block he received yesterday. (User:Iadrian yu/User:IancuHunedoara/188.2.97.229) Reverting his edits does NOT count as revert warring.
There's an ongoing rename process on the talk page, he wants to remove the name even from the lead, although in English both names are around equally widely used. He can't tolerate "most probably" regarding his ethnicity, although his ethnicity is disputed etc. And he disregards the arguments of numerous other editors. Squash Racket (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, you have been reverting each other for 4 hours now, and in the last two hours there was an average of one revert every 2.96 minutes. I think it is quite clear that blind reverting does not work here. IF he is a sock puppet, take it to WP:AIAV or WP:SSP, report him and wait for the outcome of that. IF he is indeed a sock or vandal, you can remove the comments he made afterwards. Currently, i would say your metaphorically hanging the cloths outside to dry in the rain. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)
Isn't it obvious? I usually don't revert more than twice in 24 hours, but this case seems so blatantly obvious I didn't have a single doubt he was just lying. Squash Racket (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Im not judging whether or not your assertion is correct, i'm merely pointing out that reverting each other will not solve anything. IF he is a sockpuppet, have him blocked and THEN revert, so he cannot revert right back. If he evades the block again, just report him to WP:AIAV and mention the SSP case in the report. No matter how "Obvious" it is, without measures that permanently solve the issue you might still be reverting tomorrow morning - or next week - or next month.
Also, as Calmer Waters already pointed out, there is a difference between vandalism and suspected sock-puppetry, even if it is obvious. But no matter what, handle it trough the respective pages i linked several times already. Reverting Will Not Permanently Solve The Issue, reverting is only meant for cleanup sake. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with reporting is that they will create a new account, or use a new IP anyway. This other guy was blocked TODAY. That guy too has used IPs too. Is there a stop to that? Squash Racket (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If his ISP provides him with dynamic DNS it is hard, or near impossible to hold someone of forever. However, with a SSP case you can make a report to AIAV at the first glance of trouble, and a block will be issued - possibly even a range block. Receiving a new IP often involves rebooting a router, so after a couple of bans most vandals tire from having to do that. Addons like WP:Twinkle allow for easy two-click reporting, so in the end you will spend less time achieving better results. In other words, just Revert, Block and Ignore. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indent
I see that i have been accused of something, i would like to clear my name if it is possible ? To the administrator, not to the paranoid user. Since i was blocked and i could`t defend myself. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the accusation has been officially registered, so i don't think there is a reason to defend yourself from anything just yet. However, keep this in mind: using multiple account to edit Wikipedia is called sockpuppetry and is strictly forbidden. Doing so while being blocked on another account is called block evasion and this will result in a reset of the block timer, or even in a longer block. In other words, Don't edit while being blocked, no matter the reason!
That is the point, i did`t edit anything while i was blocked, i can`t be blamed for friends that agree with me. I did`t instruct anybody to act on my behalf because i know the wiki rules. If there is any need to clarify that i am not IancuHunedoara user and a way to prove it please contact me.iadrian (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter, don't get caught in an edit war again - if several users disagree it is better to discuss it on the talk age, rather then holding a Tug of war trough reverting. If you cannot seem to agree, take it to dispute resolution to get advice on how to handle it. If the other user controversially edits the article even while there is a discussion, let him/her do so. It will only look bad when evaluated by DR. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to discuss the matter several times with Squash Racket but he ignored me and preferred an edit war because he know he could "win". I think we are going in an edit war again since he chooses to ignore me again. I will do my best not to get again in that position.iadrian (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one with false statements, accusing me with IancuHunedoara. You are saying that my attempts to talk to you on your talk page have been meet with reason? Or with their deletion and ignoring my facts? iadrian (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shoo! Both of you! Dip your heads in the icecubes i store in my sketchbook and keep cool. Besides, my talk page is not a warzone; Edit wars and accusations all over the place don't solve anything and just create a bad climate to edit in. Instead of wasting your combined breath accusing eachother, you might want to head over to the article talk page and talk about the matter at hand instead of talking about eachother - i left a reply there. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry to bother you again, but it looks like we have 2 last disagreements about the Cuman origin theory that has no representable source and the question about the "most probably" or "according to the most sources" part. I am claiming that Squash Racket is violating WP:OR rule since there is no reference that says that part, it is his own summarization. If you can look the last 2-3 comments on the talk page in the section you created we could really appreciate your help here. Thank you in advance. iadrian (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shlomo Sawilowsky page
Based on all the comments I have read, I can find a secondary source that Sawilowsky is a professor and that he was given a distinguished faculty award. The rest, according to various posts, is primary resource and should be deleted. I have tried to do so, but am being reverted.141.217.105.228 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should at least add an edit summary detailing your action when you remove 80% of the article content. Without one, this is easily seen as vandalism and reverted as such. What kind of confirms this, is the first edit you made. It removed virtually everything from the article - categories, external links, the reference list and valid references included. Besides, seeing this edit i would assume that this removal is a response to a disagreement over the notability tag added by another user.
Even so, personally i find it strange that the article is considered for removal. A quick google scholar search reveals plenty of links, which is more then most new article's will ever have - and those articles are being kept as well. If the editor in question thinks that there is sufficient ground to tag the article for removal, let him tag it as such. the AFD procedure is discussion/vote based procedure so unless his case is sound, the article will not be removed. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the new revisions, you delete is moot, but for the record, what you call a WP:Peacock was linked to [1]. The prof was given the title distinguished faculty fellow by his university. That designation is one of the possible conditions for what constitutes notabilty for academics according to condition 5 at [2]. Here's a thought: look before you leap! 68.43.236.244 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During that revision the added link was [3], which did not state that this was a particular title - hence my assumption that it was synonymous to award-winning. As for the deletion: If you look trough the page history you can see that the deletion template itself was added by 141.217.105.228 in this edit. My edits to this article are limited to reinstating a few removed categories, and reverting a mass deletion of content without an edit summary. Furthermore you might notice that Shlomo was the editor that stated the article didn't meet the criteria.
I got a message saying my edits were "reverted" with no more explanation than that they were "not constructive."
I don't know what that means, but I can say without hesitation that the edits corrected a few errors in the prior text, provided much more information about this character and the story line from the hit TV series "Mad Men" and that I worked hard double checking the facts and events alluded to to provide readers with much more insight into the character and happenings on the program.
Accordingly, I protest the reversion and ask that my changes be restored.
The revision you made changes the name of the person in question from "Richard" to "Dick". None of the references in the article seem to support that he is called "Dick", though this source seems to suggest that he is called "Richard Whitman". As you will most certainly know, dick is also a slang term for penis; Due to the risk that this was intentional vandalism i preferred reverted the edit. If you can cite a reliable source that confirms his first name as being dick, please go ahead and add that source to the article. That way there there will be a basis for the change of name. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was, since the user has been signing their username after every edit and putting in innacurate information. Could you help keep an eye on the article and revert any edits that the user makes in which they sign their username after they make an edit? I don't mean just revert whatever edit the user makes, I just mean check the edit out and if they sign their username and the edit is a "good" one, please remove the username signing and send them a message like I already have. If I had some help, it would be more likely that something would be done about this quicker if it happens again. Queen cat (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep an eye out for it on patrol, but i think i would have quite a problem identifying which edit is good and which edit is bad. For example, the user mentioned a "Sweet Sakura Bear", and a quick search seems to confirm its existence. His writing is a tad.. promotional, mostly due to the lack of a better word to describe it, but nothing outside vandalism tolerance limits as far as i'm concerned. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for catching all of that nonsense with Warped Tour 2010. The article was JUST unlocked and this is starting up already again. Yet they don't think it warrants being locked again. If you could keep an eye on it as well that would be a big help. DX927 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, and i will gladly keep an eye out for more vandalism. I does seem that this are two separate incident though, as the IP you warred with (the 72 one) is on the Road Runner HoldCo LLC, while the new IP's origionate from Comcast. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lovely. Either this person is adding nonsense all the time, promoting his own band, or using alternate IP's to evade his ban just for vandalism sake - by now i have a hard time to even consider this a fan unaware of WP:CITE. The amount of vandalism is probably to little for protection, and seeing the IP's a rangle block is likely unfeasible as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hem, for the record, i have no intention of ever becoming a mediator. The only reason i am involved in the John Hunyadi altogether is due to an escalated edit war and a subsequent help request. I think i have clearly stated that i was giving my opinion as a regular user, and i think i have also clearly pointed out that DR would be a better way to mediate this - instead of asking me.
As for the edit you quoted - you might have actually gone trough the process of checking User:Umumu edit history as well. You would have seen that this user asked the same question on at least four different talk pages, and that each of these editors had never even been involved with the article in question. Would you have preferred me stating that i am not involved such as Esowteric did? Of course that would be a valid and friendly response but i preferred attempting to help the user in question - unlike another editor you know very well who removed the question without so much as an edit summary. Im sorry, but i deem this the words Pot, Kettle and Black quite applicable to this situation. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologise, I haven't been assumed good faith towards you and I was under the impresson that you were trying to make yourself important, so I must apologize for it. But, just to let you know, my reason for removing a certain "friendly" inquiring from my talkpage without any explanation was quite obvious for Umumu, who was leaving the message on my talk page.[4] Since he is a sockpuppet of the banned user:Iaaasi. Just like Iadrian yu, Iaaasi is also eagerly interested in the article John Hunyadi. So then it could hardly be deemed coincidence when he was trying to interact with Esowteric and you, with whom Iadrian yu has also recently been encountered. And so was this case with administrator FisherQueen, too, who was rejecting to unblock his another sockpuppet account last time.[5]
Under the username Umumu, he was also trying to interact with FisherQueen. [6]The likehood of the coincident occurance of these cases is so little that it was not the question that this message has to be removed from my talk page. But as for Don't call the kettle black,unfortunately, I am not very familiar with English / American sayings as I am Central European and I have never been to any English speaking countries. However, in my opinion assuming good faith doesn't mean to be stupied and I would be stupied if I deemed Umumu a real account. So that I removed Iaaasi/Umumu's message from my talk page without any explanation because a banned user has no right to edit wikipedia any more.--Nmate (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, no apology needed. As for the Umumo matter: If you believe this is a sock puppet, i would advice starting a SSP case regarding the matter. As you put it, it is indeed quite coincidental that this editor registers an account and interacts as if he or she has been around here for ages. The broken english both users seem to talk only reinforces my suspicion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I compared 10 random sentences of the wikipedia article with the one you quoted, and none seem to match. Frankly, the structure of the Synopsis is different altogether with 3 block's against 5. Exactly what part is a copyright violation of the website you mentioned? I can frankly find nothing whatsoever. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George, a quick question regarding this revert. The user actually added a link in his summary, but even though it is a 403 forbidden i tend to believe him edit. An enrollment of 9002 is almost certainly vandalism (Old edits showed just 1300 students), and link such as this one: "Coeducational|Female" is of course nonsense. I would revert this myself, but before doing so: Is there any special reason for this revert? Perhaps a known long term vandal? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I listed websites on both the DIC Entertainment page and Cookie Jar Group page to prove it. Go to KEWLcartoons.com and Liberty's Kids website and other sites to see the 2010 DIC Entertainment Corporation copyright. It still exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.26.26 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 67.172.26.26,
Looking at the this diff it would appear that you removed a reference from the article (Along with he "Successor" part of the infobox), and added some text to it yourself. However, you didn't add any reliable sources that confirm your statements. If you have any sources, could you please Add them to the article?. Similarly, if both companies merged as the article claims, wouldn't it be a good idea to leave the successor statement in the infobox altogether? Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to reconsider your rollbacks on the additions I attempted to make to the "Woodworking" page. I have reviewed the rules (twice) and can see no violation. I refer to the entries I attempted to make for Nick Engler (author/craftsman), The Workship Companion (web site), and Woodworking Wisdom (reference book). It's hard to make my case without what will sound like self-agrandizement, so please forgive me for an absurd and tiring amount of boasting. I (aka Nick Engler) have authored 53 books on woodworking, as well as hundreds of magazine articles, project plans, and videos. I have taught at the University of Cincinnati and have given seminars accross the US, so I am reasonably adept and well-known as a craftsman. All of my books with a single exception ("Country Furniture") are out of print (a circumstance that is in no small way due to the Internet). This bothers me because, like many repeat-offender authors, my need to communicate outweighs most other things in my life. The book that I attempted to list, "Woodworking Wisdom," is out-of-print and I get absolutely no financial compensation from whatever interest a listing in Wikipedia might stir up. It is simply a fine and useful reference book that contains the core knowledge needed to be a compentent wodworker as well as many, many resources for where to find more information. You will find several books reviews (written by other accomplished woodworkers) on the 'net that say just that. The web site that I tried to list, www.workshopcompanion.com, is a compilation of the 21-volume woodworking encyclopedia I wrote. Like "Woodworking Wisdom," it is intended to be a reference where you can find core (read: "indispensible") knowledge concerning the woodworking craft. If you check out the site, you'll see that I am selling nothing; there are not even any advertisements. It fits squarely within the Wikipedia rules on what sites should be included, quote: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In fact, the two sites that are listed on the "Woodworking" page are neither encyclopedic or neutral. They are online catalogues of woodworking tools. The woodworking information on those sites, while generally of a high calibur, is there to create an interest in buying tools, not just to educate the craftsman.
I cannot help but think that the speed with which you rejected my additions and sent a canned response to justify your actions indicates that you spent zero time investigating "Nick Engler," "Woodworking Wisdom," and "www.workshopcompanion.com." It was a kneejerk reaction on your part and an unwarranted assumption concerning my motives. Given your mission, that was irresponsible.
Hello Mr. Engler - Im sorry it took me quite a few minutes to respond - i had to to go trough my edits to find the edit in question, so i could evaluate the problem, and afterwards i had to formulate a proper response.
I have actually spend some time on this issue before deciding to undo you edit, and i see now that i made a mistake in this proses. To be more precise: I have been monitoring your edits since 22:18 as part of my regular vandalism patrol. Initially nothing was wrong with these edits - I even had a quick glance at the site to see if it was a sales or similar site and i found nothing wrong with it - actually, it deemed it quite informative.
Additional edits weren't an issue as well. The book added contained the same link as well, but this was not out of the ordinary. However, a subsequent edit added a particular name with an HTML comment which AGAIN contained the website, with the name itself being a redlink (Meaning that there is no page detailing the individual). However, another link would have meant that the link was present on the article three times. Cross-referencing the name with the name mentioned on the website showed it was the same person, which set of the "Promotional" alarm for me - especially since the HTML link comment link wasn't merely copied from another notable woodworker.
However, having judged the previous edits as just fine, i decided i would just revert the last edit and leave a (canned, indeed) response on your talk page to relay that the link was becoming rather prevalent in the article, and that adding HTML link comments should not be done. In this step, i made the error: Being a rollbacker i have the ability to easily undo multiple revisions made by the same user, instead of just undoing 1 edit at a time trough the regular interface. Being busy in an anti-vandalism program at that time (Huggle), i figured i had to undo the edit, and subsequently forgot that it is set to use rollback on default, causing me to undo ALL your edits instead of just one.
You have my sincere apologies for this error - i reinstated the article as intended (Without the HTML comment of course).In retrospect i also appologizze for the canned response as it seems it didn't relay the message i inteded to (Lazy me for not just typing a response instead). If i can be of any further assistance, please ask, though it may take some time before i respond due to the local time being past midnight already. Finally, might i also be so bold to point you to [Wikibooks], One of Wikipedia's sister sites? Seeing your statement regarding your books i presume you might be interested in this site as well. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for exceptionally quick and considerate response. In this day and age, those two qualities stands you head and shoulders among many, many others. I thank you too for pointing out that I should consider Wikibooks. I will do that; I'm embarrased to say that as much as I have used Wikipedia, I wasn't even aware of Wikibooks.
Since one good turn deserves another, let me make this offer: Considering how many people on this planet are engaged in working wood, your page on "Woodworking" is woefuly short and incomplete. As a teacher, I find that it does not give nearly enough guidance for the novices who must visit it in droves, looking for ideas and suggestions. I apologize for yet another boast, but as an experienced woodworking "generalist" and writer, I could help with that. Furthermore, because I understand more than most the egos of authors, I could write something that includes what is already there so your original author will not feel slighted or discarded. Would this be something that would help with Wiki's mission?
One last request: If you investigated my background, you are aware that my other recognized field of expertise is pioneer aviation. I have another web site -- www.wright-brothers.org -- that falls within your guidelines as neutral and encyclopedic. ("Neutral" is something of a relative term in this field. If you are from Brazil and believe that the sun rose and set in Santos Dumont and that the Wright brothers were nothing but usurpers, then I am the anti-Christ. However, I think my bio of Santos Dumont would be considered neutral for the rest of the globe.) If you check it out, you'll see that it is very similar to my woodworking site -- lots of info, no advertising, a great place for kids doing History Day projects. It is, in fact, endorsed by several watchdog groups as an appropriate site for young people, unless you're a young Brazilian person. Anyway, may I list it in your external links for "Wright Brothers" without setting off the vandalism alarms?
I am not surprised at all that you never heard of Wikibooks; Wikipedia is maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has, not counting wikipedia, as many as 12 sister projects. However, Wikipedia is a site that is very well known among the mainstream public, while the sister projects never got as much attention from the press. In part they are actually supplemental to Wikipedia though. Wikispecies, Wikibooks and Wikitionary all contain valuable information, yet it wouldn't be fitting to place the same information in an encyclopedia.
Regarding the Woodworking article: If you feel you can improve it, please do so! Except for the people maintaining the servers and workers of the Wikimedia Foundation, everyone else is working here on unpaid voluntary basis. This includes but is not limiting to the article writers, the administrators and the article maintenance people. Therefor article's are completely dependent on volunteers to be written, improved and maintained. If you wish to help, i would point you to a few pages that may be helpful - Don't worry, it is not necessarily to read and memorize all of them. Most times the "This page in a nutshell" section on top of a page offers is more then enough to understand the spirit of the rule. The pages that i think are worth scanning are The no original research guidelines, the neutral point of view guidelines and the reliable sources guideline. Again, the "Nutshell" section should provide enough information unless you wish to know every aspect and detail, which is not required most of the time. As for editing, the Cheatsheet might prove usefull. There are many more policies and guidelines, but the most important rule is to remember to assume good faith in other editors, and to be bold! when editing. Nothing is ever permanently lost or damaged, so no need to worry about "Doing it wrong".
Regarding the www.wright-brothers.org website: it is actually already added to the Wright Brothers page under the external link section - subsection Biographical (3th link). In fact, the link was added almost 4! years ago in this edit, and has been present in the article ever since; I would therefor conclude that it is quite a valid link. Actually, there is another reason to be rather proud of this. On February 17, 2007 the article was marked as a Good article, a special category that signifies some of the best article's Wikipedia has to offer. Before being awarded such a title the article is first reviewed for quality, and undesirable contents are removed or altered. As the link was present during this examination and kept, i would say this also implies something about the quality of the website.
Now, before concluding this rather long reply, i think i should add two things that might interest you. First, you might like to know that the Woodworking article is consistently viewed around 7.500 times a month on average. As a side-note for this i should add that this amount is likely influenced by the rather low amount of content in the current article. For comparison the Lumberjack article - which i think is quite a related subject - is viewed 15.000 times a month on average. Last, i should add that i am always available if you have questions or need help. Writing article's is not my main activity, but i should be able to help with most questions on that topic - or at the very least i could forward you to someone else if i would be unable to answer. Since i am just one person i am prone to downtime or inactivity though. If this seems to be the case, or if a question is urgent i would advice to use the help desk. All questions can be asked there, and more people work there then just me, which increases response time.
PS: If you post a comment, you should add four tildes (~~~~) after the comment. This will sign the comment with your username and the date/time of posting - The result will be similar to the purple and orange signature you see after my comments
I have asked for semi protection. best just leave it until it is protected. It is being edited because of live radio program just finished Polargeo (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that explains a lot. I noticed the message warning while i was writing an ANI topic regarding this article, which i finished before looking at your message. Most of it seems to violate WP:BLP though, so i think it is better of deleted and salted for the time being. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, i thought it was spam. Sorry! (Again, they've been putting it on multiple pages, I hope you can see where i got that idea from, and the whole username makes me not agf :/ Pilif12p (contribs) 13:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Aaah, that explains why Huggle didn't show a warning being added, it was aimed at the wrong person. Sorry for that, it seems our reverts crossed, and that mine ended up warning the wrong user. As for the link, i actually clicked it - Based on the first page it seems to be a male paysite. I just went ahead and reported the user for link spamming; His only edits so far were promoting that website. Oh, and i removed the warning. Feel free to re-insert it if you wish to keep\archive it though :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, but the problem was exactly that: It was an opinion. Opinions are someone's personal perceptions, and therefor they vary for different people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefor content should adhere to a neutral point of view. More easily said, Wikipedia should not contain opinions. I reverted another edit you made at Ford Mustang as it also contained an opinion; However, the rest of the edits you made are just fine. I see your account is quite new, so let me just say Welcome! Glad to see a new user that is working constructively. If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to ask. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting that statement is every much a POV as including it. In fact, since "firm consensus" is a rather high bar to attain, and since there are cited dissenters in the group, inclusion of the statement is more factual and supported than deletion of it. I wish you had read what I wrote before deleting it. I will not revert, but I am confident someone else, who is offended by the implied POV that there really is broad consensus regarding fine-tuning, will revert it. Perhaps an edit war will result and that will be real good for the article quality. 70.109.180.126 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but as you stated it is quite a controversial sentence - Personally I believe that in its current form it requires at least a few sources. I am aware that this is one of those wobbly topics where multiple interpretations exist, similar to topics on Evolution and Religion. In it current form i would argue that the line seems to lean toward the oppose faction, as the line could be read as "There is no firm consensus that the universe IS" - EG, It isn't .Seeing it is unsourced i fear it might end up being reverted over and over. Perhaps "There is no firm scientific consensus whether or not the Universe is fine-tuned" would be better? As both yes and no are included in the question it might give the editors less reasons to revert while stating the exact same thing.
I will leave this up to you though. I am merely busy on vandalism patrol, and it would appear that you are more involved - and therefor more aware of consequences with this article - then i am. So if you deem the original line better and necessary for the article, feel free to reinsert it. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your more then welcome. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, and i will get back to you as soon as possible. I will of course keep an eye on your talk page as well, but asking questions over here might cause a somewhat slower response as my watchlist is a bit full with IP users i need to monitor, so i might overlook changes made by you. Just keep in mind there are no stupid questions, and that i am not bothered at all if i see a talk page change - in fact there is no such thing as asking to much; You will be tired of asking before i will be tired of answering :).
I have gone trough your edits to see if i noticed anything i might be able to help with, but it would seem that you are doing exceptionally well for such a new account. Am i correct when i assume that you have been contributing for a longer time(As an IP), or perhaps worked on other Wiki's then Wikipedia? If not: Congratulations, you are a natural. If you are: Keep up the good work as you are doing perfectly fine.
Perhaps there is one thing i should mention, and that is that i tend to be reactive as a mentor - This means that i will respond to questions and keep an eye on your edits to see if i can help in any way. Some mentors prefer a proactive approach and bombard their mentee with a lot of information, tips or area's to work in. On default i don't do this, but if you would like it just say so - its a matter of me not doing it, not a matter of me not being able or interested to do so.
Many thanks. Yes I am new at this, so it is surprising to see that I am doing well so far. I have contributed as an IP but not that much just started out this month actually. I will probably have many questions for you so I hope all goes well between us. Yimiju (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Hynady article - neutrality disputed.
Hello, as you know the history on this article , we have some problems which we can`t solve. To avoid another edit war i give up, and left the other users to do as they want, but i challenged the neutrality of the article. Now, even with that some of them have a problem. Can you please help me, and explain why is that removed since it is clear (from the talk page) that this article is not neutral at least. If i am doing something wrong, can you please explain me please what could be the problem. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You added the tag correctly, yet seeing the situation i think you should consider which template fits best. If you believe the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint the current tag should be used (To give an example: In an article about Creation–evolution controversy leaning towards either viewpoint is disputed neutrality). On the other hand, if you believe certain facts are not correct, the {{Disputed}} template should be used. (Examples for this are disputed birth dates, countries of origin et cetera). In short: The current template states that the article is giving undue attention to a certain viewpoint, while the template i mentioned warns the user that there might be factual errors in the text.
No, the facts are generally all good, i don`t see any problem with them, just with the summarization some users write on the article, the way they say it change the whole meaning of the facts. Yes, i believe that the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint, so this form is correct. Since it is clear even from the Talk page that the neutrality of this article is not clear, how can i stop certain users from removing the tag? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are an administrator with locking rights, you cannot prevent other users from simply removing the tag. The only thing you can do is ask them why they did it and revert the tag, with the risk of creating yet another edit war. I know this can be frustrating at times, as it is something i regulary experience on newpage and vandalism patrol, but little can be done about it. The only option i can think of is going trough a DR procedure which can be quoted later on. Safe for that, i think this is just one of the few drawbacks of a "Free to edit for everyone" encyclopedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Excirial, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of FC Leopardos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a test page. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit i find the timing a rather amusing. At 23:34 this message was posted, and minutes later i see this: 23:37, 20 March 2010 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs) deleted "FC Leopardos" (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban). i believe i tagged this article this morning - which is at least 12 hours ago for me - and suddenly two administrators review the same article within a couple of minutes of each other? There truly are no coincidences! :)
Now as for the article itself: When i tagged the FC Leopardos article, the user had first been trying to make his own article, before copy and pasting an article about an entirely different football club. I decided to add the test template as (i believe, it is some time since i tagged it) that user overwrote a couple of CSD templates already. A prod template removal might not be picked up by a fellow patrol as the article looked fine - it just wasn't describing the subject. I know that G2 didn't apply entirely, but at time it seemed the best option to keep the article in view. I hope this explains, and with kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit again on the basis of WP:NPOV \ WP:BIAS and factual accuracy. Let me give you a quick explanation as to the why:
First and foremost, stating "Muslim" when linking to "Turkish people" is inaccuracy. Certainly, most are Muslims, but not all.
You may ask why, if the majority was Muslim. Keep in mind that this was a conflict limited to certain geographical locations, which makes it more accurate to state two countries were at war. Religious reasons may have been a factor, but it was not an all-out war between two religious groups. For the same reason i changed "Orthodox" back into "Greek"
The term "Mussulman" is the most accurate one for that time period, regardless of meaning that are present these days. As for an example, we still refer to the roman spearman as Hastati, even though they are being called spearman in plain English. However, calling them "Hastati" is the most accurate way to describe units from this time period.
Lines such as "and Greek clergy repeatedly called for their murder" are biased unless a source is provided. The same goes for "Oddly, some", which is an WP:Opinion
I hope you will understand my points, and frankly, i see no talkpage concensus for your edits. Even IF there was editor concensus, it would go against the guidelines i stated. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. As you can see the current version (Well, at time of posting this not anymore, as i corrected it) contains vandalism as well. Apparently some vandalism revision was not reverted this morning, and subsequent vandalism caused me to revert back to that version. I reverted a bit further back, and now the article should be A-Ok. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is removing systematically the symbols of the city alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. You are being partial. His editions are the ones to be avoided. Emerson Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a party in this dispute, and my only concert here is the violation of WP:3RR. However i do notice that your [7] are taking out several references at the same time, with no real explanation. Furthermore i would advice you to log in while making these edits, as using an IP instead of your account could draw WP:Sockpuppet suspicion onto you. Also, please keep cool. Editing while being angry or annoyed with someone is generally a bad idea; Instead of reverting each other over and over you should discuss the issue on the article talk page. If you cannot seem to solve it, please use Dispute resolution to come to a consensus. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Excirial. I requested for several times for help, but nothing happend. I asked for a third oppinion, I announced the edit war and I announced the vandalism of User:Domeleixo. The discussion at the talk page is about the CoA and flag of Dili, but Domaleixo is deleting the sourced chapter about the Administration, too, although I warned him. Anyhow, Domaleixo is insulting the other users in the discussion. There are three against his sole oppinion. There is high time for an administrator to stop him. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even so reverting each other over and over will not solve the issue as the other user can do the exact same thing. I listed the page for protection so that the edit war will at least temporally be stopped. I see the Third opinion request was added just a few hours ago. Wikipedia tends to turn rather slowly in the weekend, so give it some time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see: There are several opinions against Domaleixo and he is trying again worldwide to press his image inside. There is really the need for an administrator. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Exciral! Domaleixo changed again the article Dili against the opinion of four people, including the "third opinon". He is offending everyone and is not following the Wikiquette. It is high time for administrators to intervene. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, i remember sighing earlier this morning after i saw the page history. I would advice making an Ani or AN3 report on the situation, and see what happens. Since it is a content dispute rather then vandalism, WP:AIAV cannot be used. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merebau and me made several reports at AN3 and there was even a "third opinion", who supported the opinion of the majority. You warned Domaleixo not to go on with the edit war, but he is still doing it as IP-socket puppet. It cost a lot of time to repair Domaleixos doings and I want to respect your request not to go on with edit war, but the only solution this way would be, to accept Domaleixo's minority one-person-opinion. I do not think, that is the right way. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only report i see on ANI is the report made by Domaleixo, which is apparently not being actioned due to canvassing. If you didn't make a report yourself i would advice making one yourself, which describes the situation, including links to the 3th opinion and previous talk page discussions to show you have already attempted dispute resolution. As for it taking a lot of time: I hope you are aware that you can undo or revert to previous revisions? I assume you know it, but it is always better to say it is possible, then to find our someone is doing it the hard way. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you ask me NOT to re-edit all the time? ;-)
It is very difficult for an non-native-English-speaker to understand the several different report options and procedures. I gave up trying to understand the sockpuppet report procedure. I made reports at "Edit war" and "Third opinion request", but by now I really get lost in this bureaucratism. In German Wikipedia it is quite simple. If there is a problem, administrators are acting after a request quite fast. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not re-editing, what time is spend cleaning up then? :P
I agree that the WP:SSP page is one of the least accessible report pages due to its somewhat unusual report mechanism - i remember botching the first two reports myself. Don't worry, i will create and fill it out for you. Give me a few minutes to complete it, and then i will drop you a link to it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April Fools jokes tend to work best when you don't play them on April first, as people are on their guards then. But seeing the word "Wikipedia lawyer" i just wanted to quote that policy, so i thought i could just as well prepare for Currentday+10. :)
And it is a pleasure to keep your talk page clean - The more talk page vandalism a you attract the better. After all, it signals your doing a great job (And it keeps the article space clean at the same time). Other then that, the "Less Work" feeling is completely mutual; More patrols is always better. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at my user page on March 18th and saw that you did some protection of it. Thank you very much. - Pingveno06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author blanking of article
I noticed recently that you have more than once reverted edits where the author of an article has blanked that article, and you have placed a warning on that user's talk page, using Huggle. Certainly generally it is not accepted for the author of a page to remove a speedy deletion tag, but it is generally accepted that if the author of an article blanks the article, and no other user has added any significant content, then the blanking is taken as indicating that the author wants the page deleted, and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-blanked}}. This commonly accepted view is mentioned at WP:CSD. Very often new users who don't know how Wikipedia works see an article they have created tagged for deletion, accept that the article should be deleted, and remove the content, thinking that is deleting it. It is much better in such a case not to bite the newcomer by giving them a warning that they have done something wrong by trying to comply with the deletion notice. You may know all this already: I know from my own experience of using Huggle that it is very easy to slip into simply clicking on the revert button and moving on without checking the edit history carefully enough, but I thought it would not harm to mention this. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, i'm not entirely sure what i can say here. Yes, i knew this, as i am quite active in new page patrol if in not on the lookout for vandalism. As you didn't list any article's specifically i can't comment on any specific case either. So perhaps i should just say: Sure, ill keep an extra eye open for this :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)
No, Excirial, that wasn't vandalism. That was a mistake on my part, and I was trying to restore it, but the edit conflicts... My bad. Sorry for interrupting your work. ALInomnom14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, mistakes can always occur. Just look at my edit history, and you will see a couple of bad reverts as well :). Besides, reverting it only took half a second. And the timing couldn't have been better, because it seems we actually have an overcapacity of patrols today. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! That's a first. Good to see it. Well, keep up the good work- I'm off. ALI nom nom 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that only [{WP:Administrator|administrators]] can lock pages, while i only have the rollback privilege. Page protections can be requested at WP:RPP, but i doubt they deem the amount of vandalism enough to warrant a lock. Generally taken it requires either longterm vandalism, or 30-40 vandalism edits in a short time span. Don't worry though, there seem to be plenty of vandalism patrols about today who will revert it in an instance if it is vandalized again. (Of course blocking the vandalism IP's / Usernames in the process). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of, sorry for the somewhat to fast warning regarding this edit - i have removed the warning and reinstated the article. However, you state that there is "No citation", while the text contains 4 references which your edit also removes. Mind giving me a quick explanation on that issue? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, do you know who of Cornell South? Obviously not.
05:15, 8 September 2007 Satori Son (talk | contribs) deleted "Cornell South" (Expired PROD, concern was: "Article is incoherent and is likely a hoax.")
What about the article was incoherent, and who gave you the authority to judge it's authenticity? How is it "likely a hoax? How did you determine this conclusion?
Aah, now i see what you were trying to do. I appreciate your intention to help with removing the article, but only adminitrators can remove article's. Clearing them will make the page appear empty, but it will not actually remove them. And no, i cannot see you on Irc, but all edits to Wikipedia are logged on the recent changes list, and people such as myself evaluate the edits to see if they are not harmfull or otherwise objectionable.
By the way, Welcome to Wikipedia! It is always a good thing to see IP users who are trying to help improve wikipedia, instead of destroying it. You don't have to keep pressing F5 - Once i leave a message on your talk page you will get a message that i have done so. Wikipedia isn't exactly real-time chat, but talk pages do well enough for communicating. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, i accidentally skipped a vandalized page, and mixed up the "Go back" and "Revert and warn" button. Sorry for the useless message. I reverted both the rollback and the message on your talk page. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias. Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :) Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus? And if I crossed any rule then so have they. However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.
As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus. And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen? Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it. Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News. Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV. So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV. I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified. I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)
I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Macrophage
User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages in the body protect against infection and gobble up debris. Macrophages on Wikipedia protect against vandals and gobble up vandalism. This Macrophage is given in recognition of your work in reversion of vandalism and warning of vandals. Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia healthy. Happy editing! -- Dlohcierekim22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, technically it was incorrect, as you stayed within the 3RR rule quite admirably. However, in these cases it often seems to help if you give a quick warning to all parties involved as this forces the users to their talk page. Adding a template quickly also reduces the likelihood of users reverting another time, and thereby sparking the issue yet again. I hope you don't mind i sacrificed a bit of accuracy for speeds and preventions sake :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The User has done nothing but insult, swear, and has been downright unworkable. Compare these two edits: [8] and [9] and the edits on the talk page. It's the same user and he's got 6 reverts today. Should I go straight to AN/I or just 3RR? Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that Jonovion already made a report at ANI at this time, so i think that renders the question moot. In general i would say SSP if you believe he is abusing that IP, WP:WQA if you believe he is just outside civility guidelines, WP:AN3 if the user is edit warring, yet trying to improve the article, and WP:ANI if you believe this is both not civil nor constructive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Midland Metro
Please read the page history, please go and see why Haskinak got banned before, please go and observe that the edit you just re-reverted was in fact one by Haskinak that removed a ton of referenced material and added all sorts of unreferenced and highly dubious claims. Alan Cox (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have accordingly put back the referenced material and removed the defamatory content. If you think this is wrong please stick a third opinion needed on the page, as it needs an independant moderator to sort out really Alan Cox (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue as to why i reverted this page - and frankly, i cannot even remember seeing it altogether. You are right, there is certainly nothing wrong with this edit, and normally taken i would never have reverted it. The only explanation i can give is that i missed some sort of vandalism on another page while having pressed "Next Page" already (Thus reverting the wrong page), or that i should get a cup of coffee and a break to refresh my attention and accuracy. My apologies for this miss - i see you have already reverted my edit, and ill stripe the warning on your talk page for being invalid. Your of course free to remove it altogether if you wish though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down-- Huggle is so fast, it can get you into trouble. Keep up the good work, just take an extra couple of seconds to let it all register. (I recently blocked a vandalism reverter instead of the vandal. Sometimes the fingers work faster than the brain. They just go off and do things on their own.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pedro José Triest
Hi. I appreciate your efforts reverting, but, in that case, it wasn't quite appropriate. The story was,
A user submitted an article for creation in Italian. I declined it; we cannot accept foreign submissions
They blanked it. Fine - it was 'their' submission.
Of course that is all ok, it is exactly what should have been done in the first place. Most times i would have tagged as such myself, but it seems i missed it this time. Since your the second person who notifies me of an error within minutes, i think i better get a 30-60 minute break and a nice cup of coffee refill my attention span and to prevent more errors from occurring. Might be a good idea to take a break regardless, as i have been busy reverting 6 hours strait now - kinda hard to stop if you notice to little people are busy on patrol. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Chzz - drinking coffee is always more relaxing if your not in a hurry (Though i really shouldn't be, less i want to burn out. It seems i finally handled every talk page issue i had, so it is time to step back and get a nice, LARGE cup of coffee. Good luck on patrol, and with the best wishes, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed out very clearly that the information I added is NOT opinion, it is easily verifiable FACT. Yet a pair of idiots keep reverting without cause, while claiming I am vandalizing. THEY are the ones vandalizing the article.
Check the talk page for Snopes, you'll see it's fact, not fiction.
It might have been better to back away from this one and let someone else deal with him/her. When people are this excited, they tend to act in ways we all regret. Never be afraid to say to yourself, "this person's anger is not my problem." Dlohcierekim14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hmmm, in this case i intentionally used a blank revert (Meaning no user warning) as i deemed this edit a good faith opinion. Frankly i don't really mind if a user is uncivil towards me for reverting an edit - it is understandable that no one really likes being reverted. (Though in this case i removed the message as it was just a bunch of swears.) Hence, i deem it completely understandable that a user might be rude or nonconstructive if he or she has just been warned, but if the same user decides to go to two more talk pages and repeat the same thing, i prefer having them blocked for a bit so they can cool down. I agree it could have gone better, and perhaps a 30-60 minute ban would have been sufficient in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the block at this point. Cool down blocks are not a good idea and should not be applied. However, the disruption and incivility had to be checked. The user, if you read the talk pages, came here with a chip on his shoulder. The very first talk page edit said, "now watch some idiot editor," Hopefully, he'll heed my advice. Dlohcierekim15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even look at the article and what you're doing before you revert an edit? Is it a robot that does it? Please look at the article Michel's Baguette and reconsider the revert you made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.71.95 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, today really seems to be a day where i just keep goofing up on vandalism patrol for the one or other reason - and even worse, it are the kind of goof-ups that make no sense at all when i look back at them. Sorry for this, you are obviously right that this is (another) bad revert. I think ill better slow down and triple check everything from now on - and if that doesn't work out well enough, quit patrolling for the day. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you were editing, so i hope you don't mind if i ask your assistance with a BLP article and someone claiming to be the subject of the article? It seems we have an IP user claiming to be Jeffrey Caissie, and he requests that his page should be removed due to inaccuracies. Im not sure if it is true or not, but he complains about the death date, and about the name of his daughter (Incidentally the daughter would be his cat, and since he is talking he obviously never died). An IP added this information along with the mainpage of a newspaper, though i cannot seem to find the particular article, even though it should just be a year old. Seeing it is not being handled in the most "optimal" way so far, might i ask if you have some time for this? If you do, this is the talkpage with the discussion. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very bizarre is this? I guess when he found the vandalized article, he thought to just undermine it completely? In any event, it seems that the article is being cleaned up, and I've left him some potentially useful links. Good job figuring out where the "death" information entered; does seem to have been vandalism! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It seems that the situation improved quite a bit during the time i was typing, but i is a good thing you left the user a short note. There is nothing like figuring out you are apparently being a corpse, and subsequently running in the problem that you have no clue as to how this should be undone. I have no clue if this was an attempt to delete the article, or if this was just vandalism utilizing the lack of a reliable source. Even so, the information was completely unsourced, so whatever the reason - the article is cleaned up :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing the issue with the article. The problem I saw was that the subject was requesting the deletion of the entire article on invalid grounds. Huggle gave me no way to see that the article was claiming that this person was dead, given where he wrote his comments. I have removed all user warnings from his talk page, and the dubious information as well.
As an aside, the article has a notability tag, but I think this person passes our notability guidelines, albeit barely. As for the offender, it is way too late to issue user warnings, especially given that the edits were anonymous. But I think we should keep the article under watch, just in case. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been added a long time ago, so i think the article has an equal risk of being vandalized as any other BLP page. Requesting deletion of an entire page seems to be a common response people give when they see inaccurate information, and seeing the sourcing i figured i might as well try and look it up. On the first glance it looked like vandalism though, and the only reason why i presumed this might not be a vandal was his persistence on your talk page. Thanks for removing the content though - that saves me a few minutes of doing so. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was a case of pressing the wrong button. I pretty much went like this: "Lets see.. that diff looks okay. Next pa... O wait, it adds "gay-hard", so it is probably vandalism, better check again.. o, Wait again! It is an article related to the "Bruno" movie so that information is likely correct *Hand still hovering over revert*. Now, just to tap the button for the next page and continue *Hits reverts instead*. Dang. wrong button, better undo this quickly.".
Silly as that was written, it is quite accurate. I thought it was vandalism for a second, and when i realized it wasn't i hit the wrong key. I reverted both edits within a minute, but i forgot that you would get an orange message box even if i reverted. In retrospect, i should have added a quick message on your talk page it was an error :). 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see what you mean. Thanks for explaining and sorry for messing up your talk page formatting (thanks for correcting it). Best wishes.Qwerta369 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A question.
Hello, sorry to bother you , again :), but since you were provide a clear explanation about the previous matter, i would like to ask you another question. EX: We have a location, city Novi Sad, now that city have other language names that are present on that city page. Now we have that Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina, and on the article about Vojvodina, we don`t mention other language name of Novi Sad, only the state language which in this example is Serbian language. Is that correct? Thank you again. iadrian (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those questions that has a level of detail which goes beyond normal editing questions, and therefor i cannot give you an answer that is based upon the policies or agreements on naming such items. I can, however, say the following: Normally each article has a specific topic, and man should try not to add detailed information which isn't about that specific topic. For example the Comparison of revision control software article should not add long descriptions on each piece of software - that should be added on individual article's instead.
The question for you would be: are the alternate names for the city necessarily to understand the Vojvodina topic? Would users fail to understand the article if the alternate name would not be mentioned? Many countries and cities have alternate names in another language, but generally taken they should be mentioned only if required. Hence, that is why we add the native names of the city on the english wiki, but not the name a random other country uses. There is no sense adding the French name to the New York article for example.
Note that i am just quoting a basic policy now, and applying that to the current situation. It is possible that some other policy or wikiproject overrides this though, so if you want to be sure you may want to ask at Wikiproject cities. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the users understand perfectly the article without other language names. I know that other language names can be present on the city`s article in standard form Ex: Novi Sad (in Romanian xxxx, in Hungarian xxx , etc), but not when ever that particular city is mentioned in other places, like "Novi Sad/(other language name) is a city in Vojvodina". Ok. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to my talkpage, meh, I kinda like it, reflects my oh so organized personality :). I'll slap a bot on there some day... Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There we go, i added my comment. Quite interesting that the 138. IP seems to be related to the university of San Fransisco - The "Dude" in front of that line made me doubt the comment but seeing that it might very well be true - or perhaps he is a student. Who knows?
I can see the student a bit, but honestly, I cannot think of a professor telling another person to quote "Blow Me." Just can't really. Soxwon (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your statement about the A.C. Moore page. But I will accept it anyway due to it's accurate nature. I was wondering, how do administrators find pages to scrutinize and pick out details, so quickly after changes have been made? If you could respond rapidly that would be enjoyed thoroughly.
--Garlikguy (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no statement whatsoever on the A.C. Moore page. If you think it's inaccurate, find some reliable sources and change the info accordingly. I only reverted your revision because the addition looked dubious. Also, duct tape was misspelled "Duck Tape". Regards, Airplanemantalk22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Wikipedians are just Psychics who read the minds of everyone on the planet, filtering for people who edit Wikipedia. I just read yours as well, so i thought i would drop in for the "Spooky" effect. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC) And hi Airplaneman! Hope you don't mind me dropping in like this - seeing the edit i just couldn't resist making this silly comment[reply]
Ah, I was going to say that... but decided not to :). Hey Garlikguy, the above is almost true; Wikipedians (and a bot) tend to sift through revisions at the speed of light! When I'm vandal patrolling, nearly a third of my reverts are aborted, as somebody (or somebotty) else has beat me to it. Airplanemantalk22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you accused me of being a "disruption-only account" at WP:ANI. Aside from being a failure to assume good faith, you are simply wrong. In fact, I created the following articles in the last few weeks from scratch alone.
