|
User talk:ChocolateRabbit/Archive 7
Just because Anders Lindegaard hasn't announced his "official" retirement from international football, that doesn't mean he "still plays" for the Denmark national team. He hasn't played for the team since 2011 and as of today he doesn't even have a club. To say he "still plays" for the Denmark national team is completely misleading for any reader when he hasn't even been named in a Denmark squad for more than five years. – PeeJay 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Hey - just wanted to mention I reverted your addition to Marten de Roon because the Daily Mail is discouraged as a source - WP:DAILYMAIL. Home Lander (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah my bad on that typo - was thinking backward (I even left the others alone!) Home Lander (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC) @Home Lander: No worries, mistakes happen. :) --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC) RFAHi, Please read WP:RFAADVICE, In short I've CSD'd your RFA as it will sink quicker than you can blink, Editors need to have over a thousand editors and have been here for 2+ years which unfortunately you haven't so as I said RFA isn't for you at the moment, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC) You can try Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll if you want, but I predict that you'd be given low scores due to your inexperience and insufficient edit amount. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Also see Anarchyte's advice at User talk:ChocolateRabbit/Archive 3#Why I reverted your edit to WP:RFA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Your request for adminshipHello, I saw that you have just submitted a request for adminship. While it's great that you've contributed to vandal-fighting and have made constructive edits, and your contributions and enthusiasm are strongly appreciated, your account is only 8 weeks old, and you will likely need a lot more experience with Wikipedia before you can be considered for being granted adminship. Requests for Adminship is an area where people can have very high standards and things can get pretty heated, and I wouldn't want to see you subjected to such scrutiny. For those reasons your request has been tagged for deletion. I recommend that you focus on improving the encyclopaedia as you have been doing without the admin tools for now. Best of luck. Linguist111 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC) @Linguist111: Okay Thank You Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 01:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC) About adminshipHello ChocolateRabbit! Thank you for your interest with adminship. However, I am afraid that you may not have read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate carefully, and therefore I have removed your submission based on this commonly cited guideline. Becoming an admin requires much more experience, and right now it is far too early. Please keep up the good counter-vandalism work that you have been doing, and let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 01:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User rightsHi. I don't really want to pile on to all the other messages you have received, but as you withdrew your ORCP before I had time to get to it, I would like to help you with some advice. I think you are on the right track with your vandalism patrolling and reporting. It's very important work. However, as regards other user rights, you don't qualify for many of them yet, and we generally assume that admin candidates will have significant experience in those areas too. The most important thing to do is read instructions before you do anything. If you had read the instructions properly you wouldn't have wasted your time on trying to start an RfA or starting a poll at ORCP. For all the maintenance tasks there are a lot of instructions to learn, not to mention the complicated policies that go with them. Keep up the good work, learn as much as you can while you do it and in a few months you might even be ready for New Page Reviewer - which is a very big challenge. If you ever need help with anything don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Neymar scoreNeymar score 2 match 3 goal not 4... Md Saymun islam (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Neymar score psg 2 match 3 goal.. you write 4 goal.please write Right... Md Saymun islam (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I see there was a spate of vandalism on the page but the thing about his online rant was not vandalism, there were reliable sources. It is not tabloid gossip either as it had real life consequences, he was suspended by his club. Removing this is like taking the Kung Fu kick out of Eric Cantona or biting out of Suárez. This event has been covered again recently since Aurier's move to England, just search "Aurier homophobia" for even more sources. P.S. in the interest of legality, I do not consider Mr Aurier a homophobe, rather as someone who made a bad judgement and used a word without knowing its effect on some people Harambe Walks (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC) [1] Harambe Walks (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
(FC) BarcelonaIf you want information, it'd be that we'd normally use [[FC Barcelona|Barcelona]], and just Barcelona when not linked, because that's common usage in English. But if you want advice, it'd be remember that being right doesn't justify edit warring, apart from in very specific circumstances. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC) September 2017 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lionel Messi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Comma removalHello, re your edit summaries at the Truck article and others: the commas you've been removing are called serial commas, and Wikipedia has no official position on their use (as long as each article is internally consistent). Therefore, I've undone all the removals of serial commas you made that I could find using the Edit summary search tool. Graham87 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC) RevertsSorry, this was about two months ago, but I have been away from Wikipedia for a while. When I came back, I found you had reverted six of the edits I made just before I went. Please can you explain what you were doing here?
Theramin (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Help
When an account is described as a vandalism-only account does that mean it has only made bad edits and no good ones or that the majority of the contributions are vandlism?. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 09:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Non-free image use
Anna WindassHi ChocolateRabbit. You have cited the WP:CRYSTAL policy as your reasoning for not including Anna Windass' departure date. I have reverted your changes based on sources - [8] - that state Anna will depart in early 2018. When a character is announced as departing a show, it is often announced a date when they will leave; in Anna's case, this has been stated as "early 2018". This is confirmation that Anna will depart in 2018, which we therefore include in her character page. I'm confused as to why I should not re-add Anna's departure year in her duration parameter? Soaper1234 - talk 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
November 2017 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sutherland Springs church shooting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC) ChocolateRabbit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I understand that I should not have engaged in edit warring and I will refrain from making such actions in the future, and I will seek discussion to prevent conflicts with editors. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 23:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Accept reason: If there had been some indication of willingness to discuss or engage with the other editors involved I probably would have let this slide in the first place. However, given your positive contribution history in the past and your assurances not to do so again, I'm reducing this to time served. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC) The other editor was edit warring and continues to edit war. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Closing Moving discussion to page archive. Re: November 2017 (Catalonia)Thank you very much for your message on my talk page. Even though I have some time as an editor on Wikipedia, I consider myself more of a newbie than of an experience editor, and I am not quite used to the proceedings. First of all, I apologise if this is not the appropriate place for this kind of message. I realise that there is a difference between what I think the page should read and what other user (Impru20) thinks the page should read. I appreciate the point of his edits, and I do consider that he acts in good faith. I need some time to sensitively express what I think it should read and why, to take others' input into account when discussing, and so reaching a consensus that satisfies the whole of the community. This is not an excuse but a pledge. I will in the coming hours or days go to the talk page to discuss the points where there is lack of consensus in order to reach a consensus. I am quite optimistic and feel that all of us will be satisfied with the final result. Especially if we consider, as I do, that the differences are quite nuanced. I also promise not to edit the challenged matter further without consensus. In short, I will act in good faith, taking your message on my talk page into account. Thanks for taking your time to leave me the message on my talk page. Sam10rc (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC) P.S.: @Impru20: This mention is for you to be notified of this message, as I think it also matters you. I don't want to engage in any edit war, and I think this needs time and a bit of debate on the talk page. See you on the Catalonia's talk page? :P Hi, Sam10rc, You're more than welcome to leave messages here, as it is what talk pages are for. Of course, my message was simply a warning, I have been warned about the same thing myself just a warning. Just letting you know to be careful in future. I hope you enjoy editing here. Thank You. --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC) > Oh great. Thank you! Sam10rc (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Rollback privileges revokedIt has been brought to my attention that you were using rollback in the aforementioned edit war. This constitutes abuse of rollback, and from a review of your edits, you have been abusing rollback on other pages as well. For this reason, your rollback privileges have been revoked. Swarm ♠ 20:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC) Content removal{question from my talk page) If I see that a IP or Registered User has removed content from a page without any explanation is it grounds to revert on that basis? No, not without looking at the edit and making a decision as to whether it's constructive or not: editors ought to explain their edits, but many don't, either habitually or occasionally or through ignorance/inexperience. Look at the definition (my highlighting):
and therefore vandalism. Such an edit can be removed, with suitable edit summary and warning the user if necessary. If you're not sure whether the edit is OK or not, assume good faith: ask the editor concerned about it, or ask at the article talk page, the relevant project page, or the Teahouse. Use your judgment, which usually improves with more experience of editing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In a related matter (since this exchange has to do with the user that edit warred/edited your talkpage messages), i fail to see what the problem is in writing the clubs' full names in the storyline and leave them compressed in box (after all, if it is so wrong why name an article CD Numancia instead of "Numancia", just to name this example?). But whatever, i don't want this to escalate into a needless edit war. Attentively, all the best --Quite A Character (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Trequel"Hello ChocolateRabbit. (Nice username, btw.) Regarding this edit, in which you restored the change you'd made earlier that I had undone: providing the url of a web aggregator in the edit summary isn't an adequate response to my objection. As I'm sure you can see, assuming you've read the page you linked, the source is Wiktionary. Like Wikipedia, Wiktionary is crowd-sourced and not reliable. That Wiktionary chooses to include an entry for a neologism in no way means that it is appropriate for us to use that word. If the word becomes commonly known, and found in major general-purpose dictionaries, it might then be appropriate to use it here. If you'd like to make a case for our using the word now, please do so. If not, I'll revert again in a day or so, and I assume you won't edit war but rather follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle that is best practice. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
|
