This is an archive of past discussions with User:5 albert square. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up
here!
Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!
Hello 5 albert square, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've got it and I do remember you. You have nothing to be sorry for as far as I'm concerned. I've sent you a reply so you now have my email address if you ever need to chat :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad then. I am really grateful for the community on Wikipedia. I'll restore everything and change some things a bit tomorrow, as I'm tired now. I was just too upset to focus on anything that needed to be done. I'll also send out some apologies to a few other users. Thank you very much for the support, it means a lot. --KanashimiHyoketsu00:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Indef requested
Hi 5, you recently indeffed Jt029350 for disruptive editing. He kept changing one episode's ratings at Girl Meets World[1][2] and in one case he crafted a fake reference here by publishing an error-laden PDF at a self-publishing website.[3] If you notice the "publisher's" name at the site, you'll notice the name Joseph Tremitiedi, whose initials are included in Jt029350. We have a new user JosephT. who has been editing on the Girl Meets World talk page. [4] and who is trying to change ratings for one episode by using another self publishing site (Wix.com) as a reference. Pretty ducky to me. I was hoping to request that he be indeffed for block evasion. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tina Carter.1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Yes, subject only to the grounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks and assuming good faith it can be questioned. I've already explained when I blocked that the edit came across as trolling. Looking at the editors talk page, they have requested an unblock twice and both times both editors have agreed with me. It looks to be a throwaway account if they wish to request another unblock they will need to put through another request for an uninvolved admin to judge the case. Thanks--5 albert square (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A brand new account's first ever edit is to an arbitration page, citing policy and displaying a great deal of familiarity with a group of editors. Obvious conclusion: they're not new. I see nothing wrong with the block, even if the edit was not disruptive in its own right. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Kat Slater Age
In response to your twice removal of Kat Slaters age information on supposed grounds of it's unimportance, I disagree.
Someone's age is important as most articles on individuals and characters have their date of birth included in the summary/facts on the right hand side. It is one of the key basic pieces of information about an individual. As Kat Slater appeared to me to have no date of birth listed, this makes her age being noted as even more important. How do you expect anyone to know how old she is now if they are wondering? I cannot add her year or date of birth to the right hand side as I do not know it.
All I know is she was 31 on 4th September 2000. How else can this vague piece of important information be displayed? Do you suggest putting 1968/1969 on the right hand side in a year of birth category instead? This would seem strange as it is not specific to one year. Is your removal of it mainly based on your wrongly perceived unimportance of it, or is it because there are no citations?
If no citations is the real reason, why not just list "citation needed" next to it which would be fair enough, instead of removing it. This would be a far more sensible action instead of destroying important pieces of information. How exactly do you suggest citing a BBC 1 trailer from 14 years ago? This is not very practical, and therefore I do not feel it is sensible to remove this interesting piece of information, and the only one about her age I can see, based on lack of citation which one could argue is vandalism.
Hi
It is already in the infobox, it won't display though because age is not a field included in the infobox template for soap opera characters. It does not benefit the encyclopedia by also mentioning it in the article which is why I reverted it. If you think that the infobox template should now display this information, you will probably need to start a discussion about this on the talk page of the template--5 albert square (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly why it needed to be removed. All that energy into a fairly trivial detail. The quality of articles improved when everyone stopped caring about the non important fansite stuff. By the way 5 albert square - this IP boldy called everyone involved in the decision "idiots" after you linked them - how uncivil indeed.Rainthe 123:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
russavia is indefinitely blocked on five wikis, which makes him a good candidate for a global ban. Your best bet is to go to Meta, and open the discussion. 221.238.140.164 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Scotland: there are many unique customs associated with the New Year. These form the Scottish celebration Hogmanay—the Scots name for New Year's Eve. The street party in Princes Street in Edinburgh is one famous example.
Wales: Calennig is celebrated, with celebrations attracting thousands of people to the capital, Cardiff.
Dear Ms. 5 Albert Square,
I am the Mother/Manager of Tyger. I recently made some correct edits to my son's page and you saw fit in your infinite wisdom to change them.
The second time around you did not change an edit about the role my son was playing in the new Friday Download movie. Why you changed it the first time around, I don't know. If you have absolutely no idea of the role my son is playing in a film then please do not write incorrect information. I have his script in our of office with his character name on, so please do not go back to this and say he is playing himself - he is not.
And with regard to changing me/Tyger's Mother back to being a 'pornographic actress' that's just ridiculous! I was a glamour/nude model in magazines and the Editor of Penthouse magazine - how that qualifies as me being an actress of any sort, I don't know! It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia being non-censored its all to do with your incorrect information. There are quite a few other inconsistencies - like where Tyger lives as well, but I'm not about to change that as I prefer not to have his address information on this site. Please reverse the change you made yesterday as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolene Hawary (talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello
When I reverted your edit the first time, it was because you removed the entire infobox for no reason. I put the article back to the last safe revision because it looked like possible vandalism. The second time, you just added his movie role which looked ok.
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies, the content of Wikipedia is not the views, beliefs or experiences of its editors but published information. Wikipedia does not pretend to be 100% correct. We do have sources like this one stating pornographic actress. As pornographic actress is verifiable I can't really remove that, however what I can do is change the wording to adult actress as that is also verifiable.
Dear 5 albert square, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
No worries, not sure why they targeted her, could be because she's not long died I suppose. A week of not being able to edit it should stop the frenzy of IPs, new editors and socks spamming it--5 albert square (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Victor McMahon
Hello 5 albert square.
Thank you for your help with my article on Victor McMahon by deleting the page Victor McMahon. Unfortunately, I still don't know how to get my draft (about Victor McMahon) called Draft:Gderrin renamed Draft:Victor McMahon, out of the Afc page [[6]] and into an article space called Victor McMahon. I could retype (not cut-and-paste) the whole article because I have been able to create a page before ([[7]]) but if you could tell me a simpler way I would be very grateful. (I am enjoying this Wikipedia thing immensely.)
Gderrin (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a blow-by-blow account but a synopsis. You have not included important parts of the storyline, Wikipedia should not have substandard articles.
We do not need to know everything about the storyline, the edit you have included has far too much information. A brief outline is all that is needed--5 albert square (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes we do especially important parts of the storyline. The current edition is extremely vague and is risible. It also forgets that Nick Cotton's alias is now 'Reg Cox' (according to the BBC Wesbite) and that he stitches Phil Mitchell up (part of the long-running storyline). The whole point is that Nick is a fugitive and not supposed to be in Walford in the first place. Dot discovered by accident. Ronnie paid him off with stolen money and he only cut the brakes as revenge. Also, the fact that he ended up killing Emma is important because it saves Lucy's killer. It is extremely vague, can you please extend the article.--Cindy's Cafe (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What you have added though is not an important part of the storyline. The article already mentions that Nick returns for Charlie and Ronnie's wedding. What it doesn't need to state is that he looked on as they got married in The Albert and that Ronnie saw him - not important as nothing happened - that is counted as drivel. The article mentions that Ronnie tried to bribe him to leave and that failed - Nick's article does not need to mention how she got the money as that is not important to him. That's her side of the storyline - Nick only cares that he got the money, he doesn't care if she stole it from Phil or raided The Queen Victoria. The article already mentions that the wedding car crashes - whether that's in Albert Square gardens, into the funeral parlour is not important. What is important is that it crashed and had it's brakes cut. As for Emma, she will probably be mentioned as the storyline of Nick framing Phil starts to spread more. That story is only really just starting and at the minute, it's more to do with Phil.
By the way, I couldn't help but notice that this account was created about 10 minutes after @Drmies: locked the article so I sincerely hope that you haven't just created this account to carry on the edit warring that was happening on the article. I can tell you that will not be tolerated.--5 albert square (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
User Freesenf
Just wanted to give you a heads up that Freesenf has created another nonsense article, and you blocked him for it about a month ago. You may want to monitor further contributions. War wizard90 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The person who was using the 24.228.163.143 IP address earlier this week and back through November has been doing the same thing on the Moviepedia Wiki that is hosted by Wikia. You will find more information about this user by checking Wikipedia's block log for 108.5.70.195. I will be setting similar rangeblocks on Moviepedia. —RRabbit42 (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The entire article has problems, but "History and origin" and "Education in the community" sections need to be gutted in particular. Most of the additions have been added in the past week. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I'm afraid if I start hacking away, things won't be pleasant. Bgwhite (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to update my page with accurate information form articles and form the gallery that represents me- but when I try and even when I site sources someone deletes my changes and restores the old inaccurate page. This is very distressing -
Much of what is currently on the page is incorrect or so outdated that it's not longer relevant -
I have many many legitimate articles written about me to back up all new information -
I DONT work in watercolor anymore and haven't for years- I don't do illustration almost at all anymore and 99% or what I do is for gallery and running my mentorship programs and schools- and I haven't worked for wizards for years and years.
I've haven't had red hair in years either- I'd love to change that
I've had SO much work that had been recognized and what currently here only represents the first part of my career- it shoula all be EARLY career info.
Please do let me know how can can better complete and edit so people don't put it back to the old inaccurate and out of date info
Thanks Rebecca
[Email redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illustrationmasterclass (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rebecca
With biographies of living people, they must adhere strictly to all applicable US laws, the BLP policy and the encyclopedia's three core content policies which are:
The reason @Materialscientist: has reverted your edits is because it contravenes the above. As you are the subject of the article, you cannot edit it from a neutral point of view.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of EastEnders characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Altman. 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.
What the f***? Since my previous block I've done only 2 things: re-add image to Umbrella (song) (1 time) and talk with Binksternet. You block is really mistake. You should be ashamed!
About this image: I think that this screenshot passes WP:NFCC#8 and this image some people being deleting only in last of the year.Υμβρελλα (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Right after the release of your 23 November block which expired on 6 December, the very first thing you did was to add the screen shot again—the exact edit warring that got you blocked in the first place. That is why you got blocked again. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been blocked for it. Addition of image is NOT violation! If I decide that images passes WP:NFCC, but others decides otherwise, it not give a right to block. Seems like you think that your opinion is always right, but opinion of others (including me) isn't always right. Υμβρελλα (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see the image you were trying to add was up for deletion for failing NFCC8.
You were advised numeroustimes why the image could not be added but you continued to add it which led to you violating the three revert rule and thus one of your blocks.
When you came back, the first thing you did was try and add that image again which was the reason for your previous block. That is classed as disruptive editing because you are preventing the article from progressing. If you go back to the same behaviour upon a recent release from a block, you can just be blocked without warning so I blocked you for going back to the same behaviour as before. You asked to be unblocked and @PhilKnight: refused this because my block was absolutely correct given your behaviour.
Your explanation doesn't address it not meeting NFCC8.
I don't know why it wasn't discovered earlier, you might like to ask that to the editor that nominated it for deletion, it may be that it's just taken time for the image to be patrolled by an editor.
No NFCC8 is just as strict as the rest of the rules. A number of editors have tried to explain to you that the image doesn't comply with it, it's had it's own deletion discussion there and the consensus was that it be deleted. It's you that's refusing to accept Wikipedia's rules and consensus. If you carry on like this it won't be long before you're blocked--5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
consensus… Seems like you think that consensus it's when only you with youself agree, but in really consensus it's whan all (including me in this case) users which discussing certain theme agree with each other. In this case I disagree with your “consensus”. I understood, you all are crowd of … I don't see any reason to continue conversation with people like you. Υμβρελλα (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Given you've blocked this user, you may want to see 219.74.60.146 who editted the blocked user's comment. Forgive me if you've already looked at this. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The IP user editted the signed-in blocked user's post, withought indicating or signing the edit, in the blocked user's voice. This is not article space, but a help desk. Either the IP was vandalizing someone else's question, was working in colaboration with the blocked user, or simply is the blocked user (my assumption) not signed in. I realize you admins have issues with IP blocks that I don't know about. But it seems worth looking into. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah must be my mistake, I just cannot seem to find an official confirmation from the BBC stating his departure. Can you also unrevert all the other edits I made to the article? — M.Mario (T/C) 19:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Locked to IPs for a month. There's too big a variety of IPs to consider anything else. A rangeblock would have knocked out half the internet. This way they'll have to use the talk page to discuss any edits. Hope this helps you @Mlpearc:!--5 albert square (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I've just checked and it's already been blocked by another admin. Just for future reference, requests like this can be filed at WP:RFPP. Thanks for the comment about the user name, it's from EastEnders :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
Thanks for replying. Next time I will leave it on WP:RFPP, I was just replying to thank you for telling me, and good choice on the username, Love it!
apologies if my comment came across as sarcastic, just came back here to dial it back a bit and saw you'd replied already Bazj (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, 5 albert square. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse. Hi, I put Brianna Wu on my watchlist to see if I could help bring a more civil process to it's editing, which I am sure is the intent of most of the editors. I see that you reverted some edits, & thought you should join in a discussion. There is an editor who would like to include some links & I am seeking your (pl.) guidance. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to apologize for reverting you - My aim was to actually thank you ... Not revert you so my apologies for that!,
The mouse is buggered and I'm trying my hardest not to use the laptop mouse-pad as I can't stand it
Anyway sorry again, Happy Editing! :) –Davey2010Talk02:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha no worries it did make me laugh! Kirkwood didn't introduce Lauren, her break was under a year so according to Wikipedia she never left haha! He simply changed the actress and because he can't do that overnight, Lauren went off to summer camp!
No lie.... but this is my mouse .... It was an xmas gift and to this day I have no idea why I'm using it but meh it's a mouse and it well kinda works , Unlike the useless mouses from Staples this one has last for around 3 years so it's outdone all of the other mouses I've had so I don't wanna get rid just yet , –Davey2010Talk02:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone!
Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
Since you blocked this guy for a month for edit warring he's been ranting away on his Talk page. He's been saying some very unpleasant things about me (and others) which would ordinarily have earned him a severe warning:
"like he's making a ear necklace or something"
"has the clout to get his countrymen to do his bidding"
"thinks he's above discussion, would rather just get Irish admins to ban Wikipedians instead of dicuss"
His talk page is filling up with invective against me and plans for his comeback. I can ignore this - sticks and stones - except I noticed that at one point he even accused me of making death threats - the post was there for several minutes before he thought better of it. That's a red line.
There's also a comment on his talk page from an admin user (user:Huon) calling for an increased ban for trolling.
Hi, I was actually thinking about this earlier. I've withdrawn his talk page access so he won't be able to edit this for the duration of his block now--5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Why has it been protected so only you can edit it now? The page is outdated and you don't seem to be around to update it. There was no reason at all to protect the page – if a user is being disruptive, you report them – it's simple. — RachelRice (talk, contribs) — 16:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been protected so any admin can edit it. The reason being was for edit warring which involved a number of editors, not just one. If a number of editors are involved then the page should be protected. If anyone wants to edit the page they can put the request on the talk page and it will be added if it's appropriate--5 albert square (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Nihongo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.
See no reason with that logic but I only reverted a user who kept removing information for no apparent reason including a sourced line (source from a few weeks back), which I believe has been printed in a lot of press today. Also may want to look at EE live week as well to protect. 88.105.150.197 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Are all their edits subtle vandalism? If so, it's not quite full BLP vios as they're all fictional, but still need ot be sorted out. —George8211 / T20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Callumgrainger200: there is consensus at WP:SOAPS not to include every single relative in the infobox to stop the infobox becoming too cluttered. However, you keep adding relatives that have never shared a scene together, despite the fact that I have already told you this more than once. You also keep changing Whitney Dean from adoptive daughter to step daughter even though I've provided a reliable source saying she is adopted. You changed Lily Branning to Lily Slater when she has never been credited under this name. That could be seen as disruptive editing.--5 albert square (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Just because they are divorced does not mean that she will go back to her maiden name. Until the BBC credit her as Tanya Cross then the page should read Tanya Branning. In any case the page still should not have been saved like that--5 albert square (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you blocked this user because their name gives "the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website". I don't really see that. Far as I can see, they use the name of a deceased person, but that's a different issue. I'm not necessarily asking you to unblock (it doesn't look like a very constructive editor anyway), I'm just trying to see whether I perhaps misunderstand things... :-) Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, it's because the edits come across as promotional, they were certainly not neutral. Maybe a member of his family created the account--5 albert square (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the edits, in my view it was. If they don't agree with it, they will need to request that an uninvolved admin reviews their request.--5 albert square (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!
Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
