This is an archive of past discussions with User:Elipongo. 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.
Hi! Forgive my little template. With over 140 of these to do, I try to cut corners. :) Things are awfully quiet at the Drawing Board lately. I guess it goes in cycles. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry everyone for my lack of contributions over the past few weeks. My computer choked on a large update to Vista and what with a modem failure during the interval, I have only just got my system back up and running. I'm trying to catch up on backlogged email and other things, but I'll be around! I suppose an enforced wikibreak is good for the soul every once in a while... —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm going to be out of the country from Friday, March 28th to Saturday, April 5th, and I wanted to know if I could leave it to you for the duration or if I should find somebody to babysit. :) I'll watch your page for your reply. If it's not convenient, I'm sure I can find somebody. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely, I just can't reply as fast as you do. Several days at work lately it's been so busy that I never get a chance to boot up my laptop at all, so my replies sometimes can take a day or so, but I'll be happy to contribute. Have a safe and pleasant trip! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 14:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous. :) Thanks. In terms of the speed of my reply, I work from home and am not that often out of "my office", which helps. :) It also helps that my job is often extremely low maintenance. In terms of response, if you ever feel like you have something more or different to add to what I've already said, I hope you won't hesitate. Also, if you ever want to use it, I've created a template of my own for letting people know I have answered their messages at the drawing board. I did this on the premise that a lot of folks who wind up with us our newcomers. It's at User:Moonriddengirl/DB. It addresses the contributor by name and should sign with the name of whoever places it. (Unless I've seriously misunderstood how it works. :D) (This is how it looks in action.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize
You're absolutely right, and I apologize, but when there's a chapter that is made over and over almost at the top of the Genovese crime family page entitled "the Luciano family", that gives information of everything from the beginnings of the crime family to the reign of Vincent Gigante in the early 1980s, (that is the content of all chapters below) you see that I must do something. But you're right, I just reverted the page to one of mine earlier, which I shouldn't have done. My apologies.. —Charlie (Talk
I'm sorry for bothering, but I really need your help. User:Doc glasgow has reverted the Bonanno crime family page that I've written countless times, due to the fact that he/she means that there are no sources confirming the information I've written on the crime family's bosses and caporegimes, however, I have given up my sources from where I got the information, both from Jerry Capeci's Gangland, as well as the New York Times and the Federal Burea of Investigation news pages on organized crime. Although letting him/her know about this, User:Doc glasgow has not only reverted the Bonanno crime family page, making it seem undone, but also made abusive threats about blocking me from Wikipedia, when really it should be User:Doc glasgow who should be blocked. This person can not be reasoned with, as he/she has been reverting both the Bonanno crime family page, as well as the Colombo crime family page, in addition, the person can not be reasoned with. As well as reverting these articles, which information I've proved by listing my soirces, User:Doc glasgow has completely deleted the Lucchese crime family page for reasons which are completely baseless. He/She claims that there are no sources proving the information I've written on the crime family's top leaders and capos, however, each of these living people had their own article, where you can just click on their linked names in the Lucchese crime family article, where their entire life story is documented as well as being proved by my sources. Please, I need your help! This person is completely insane! He/She has deleted the page hundreds of users have worked on, without bringing the subject up for discussion prior to its deletion!! Please, I really need your help!!! Charlir91 (Talkcontribs)
Hi again Charlir91 and thanks for writing. The best help I can offer you is in the form of advice. First, you need to remain cool, doing things like accusing another editor of being out of their mind can only hurt your position, not help it. Next, if you stay with policy you'll have a much better chance of arguing your case than otherwise. The Biographies of living persons policy is one in particular that we all have to be very careful to follow- Wikipedia is one of the biggest sites on the Internet and people do indeed read articles about themselves or persons they're closely involved with. To avoid charges of libel being leveled against editors (ISPs do respond to subpoenas), we have to make sure that all allegations are carefully cited to secondary, reliable sources. It's not good enough that a link can be clicked through to another article where a citation may exist- the citation has to be right there with the statement. The best way to do this is by using footnotes and to properly format the references using citation templates. As for an article that has been deleted, the proper channel to bring that up is at Deletion review. You'll have to explain there how the article wasn't in violation of policy, just saying that it's an important article that lots of people worked on is not enough.
So, what should your immediate course of action be? If I were you the first thing I would do would be to apologize to Doc glasgow. Explain that you were upset and wrote things you didn't mean to and ask for advice on how to improve the articles in question so they will meet standards.
Okay dude how come when I just try to have some fun I get yelled at someone else messed up and they got away with it I believe it was Michael mad you can't let him get away with this he even threating to kill me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.162.200 (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ridge just loves noodles, and I think you know that Megalark! thats right i know who you really are! megalark! you shal never get away with you evil plans!", so my edit isnt constructive so you revert it to this? im sorry but i think you are just reverting things for the sake of feeling powerful.--Wiki-admin2004 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathtopplintheir40s (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 April 2008
Hi Elipongo. This revert of yours to the Xbox article restored vandalism into the article. I'm sure this was accidental. You might want to take a little more care with the reverts. Best, Gwernol01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. Tracked it down and reverted back to the unvandalized version. Reverted another vandalism that editor did and gave him the {{welcome-vandal}} template. I guess I relied on Cream's edit summary- I should've looked at the one posted by the anon too- not to mention look at what he had deleted! It's very easy to go too fast with the Huggle tool. Thanks again! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 02:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Heehee
Using Huggle tonight, are we? I noticed you beat me to a revert on a vandal's userpage. Guy just got indef-blocked. Cheers. Enigmamessage02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am indeed. Such a deceptive name for such a powerful tool as this. I'm still getting used to it and making some mistakes. I'm going to put in a feature request for a button to show the cumulative diff of the latest editor so one doesn't have to page back through the edit history to find their first edit. Popups does it* so I don't see how it would be too hard to implement. (*Actually, my popups' function for that seemed to stop working sometime in the past week, not sure why...). —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 02:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, would be helpful to see the cumulative effect of the series of edits, not simply the last one. I've never really used popups, so I can't comment on that. Enigmamessage03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Not so much, sitting at home with the tag ends of a cold- listening to show tunes and playing with Wikipedia! How have you been? —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 03:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the cold. It's been a long time since my non-understanding of the recent changes link ;) I am currently in Admin Coaching and hope to become an admin soon. Good Luck with that cold. Thedjatclubrock :-)(T/C)22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC).
Help Please
Hi My name is Judith and I live near Cardiff UK.
I recently looked a the Wikipedia page for Samuel Pepys and there I clicked on to the link for his wife Elizabeth. There was only a small entry and I thought that I could add something to her page so I clicked on to the edit page and posted my information.
I receive a brief notice to say that my edit had been reverted as it appears to be unconstructive. I am not sure what that means in Wikipedia terms so I retyped my text and posted it again by using the save page facility.
However I received a curt message saying that I had vandalised the page, and now you have also sent me a warning saying that I have vandalised the page, but no info as to how I can get my edit accepted.
Can you explain to me what I have done wrong as the information I had sent was truthful and can be verified at the National Archives website.
Wikipedia says that they like to receive new information and they encourage edits so what have I done wrong and how can I get my edit to be accepted.
Hi Judith. Thanks for the email and for this note too. I'm now back at my computer and have been able to look up the edits you are referring to. I believe you mean this edit and the ones immediately preceding it. I'm afraid that I and the two other editors on recent changes patrol that night who reverted your edits didn't read through the text of the wills that you posted to see that it did actually have something to do with the subject of the article. Frankly, it looked like a bunch of random text posted at the bottom of the article- something a lot of vandals do to articles on a regular basis. I would still probably have deleted the section for a couple of reasons, even if I had recognized that it was related to the subject. Quoting the text of the wills is inappropriate in the context of the article and the conclusion you're making. Then there's the fact that we have no way to check the authenticity of the text of the wills you posted since you provided no citation. The correct way to have gone about this would have been to place your conclusion (that she was a descendant of the Earls of Oxford) into the article somewhere (you wouldn't even need to use a full sentence, really), then verify the information with a citation to a reliable source- I myself like to use citation templates to make sure the citation is in a standard format. Of course, footnotes are to be preferred when providing citations too. Again, I'm sorry that your good faith submission was reverted, and I hope I have helped you to understand how you might go about adding it in a way that won't be deleted. If there is anything else I may help you with, please feel free to ask me. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 12:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict>It wasn't. That's why I reverted myself seconds later and replaced the warning on your page with a welcome template. Sorry again. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you placed that report there in error? Please be more careful the next time and remove this from there! UserDœαTΩC22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Boy, I'm really, really sorry about that! It was most certainly an error and I would've removed it myself but I had to log off at the end of my shift and only got home just now. I think I was trying to report the same user you had just before that, but Huggle's focus must've gotten shifted over to your edit instead. My most abject apologies! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report about UserDœ (talk·contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Unfortunately, your report has been removed due to the username not violating policy, or not being blatant enough for a block. Please remember you should only post infringements on this page if they are so serious that the user needs to be blocked immediately. Others should be discussed with the user in question first, for example using the {{Uw-username}} template. A request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. Thank you. UserDœαTΩC23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I'm doing fine thanks.
I belong to the lazy persons who don't like to create archives them selfs ;). I really never thought about inserting a code to automate the process of archiving (although I knew it is possible). I guess due to my laziness ;). Well I did it now. I decided to use Cluebot III. Thanks for the idea :). UserDœαTΩC13:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
This is for being a damn good vandal fighter and for beating me to reverting vandalism on many occasions. Keep up the great work! --Kukiniháblame aquí16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have gotten welcome templates before. But thanks!!! A friendly welcome is always welcome. And I don't consider myself new anymore. I place the newcomer cutoff point at
I must have missed it in browsing your talk page's history. I see you've set up for automated archiving, you might also want to go back to the old versions of your talk page and archive those posts too in order to prevent similar errors like mine in the future. I don't use an algorithm like yours to determine whether someone should get a welcome template, I figure the links in those templates are so useful that everyone deserves to have one no matter how long they've been here. I've still got mine in my archives. Anyways, cheers and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 23:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Trolls
Hi Elipongo! First of all I applaud your patience and will to enter into dialogue with trolls and your optimism on trying to guide them. Then I would like tip you about this. I seriously doubt our friend will be ble to find references for this :) I don't quite agree with your "philosophy" in this case...but... Keep up the good spirit!Inge (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh certainly! Once he started adding obviously ridiculous and defamatory information to the article I simply reverted and warned him. However I wasn't engaging in debate, simply informing him of the rules, so I don't really consider it troll feeding. Thanks for your note and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 08:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To me his first edit was just as ridiculous as the last, but I can see how it might be seen as plausible. Sometimes when you see editors trying to guide obvious trolls you just want to go "What is he dooing!!" you know? But I prefer editors who give the benefit of the doubt and try to guide to those who jump at every oportunity to bite off heads. Keep it up :)Inge (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Explanation?
I am confused - I have edited numerous Wikipedia articles with no problem whatsoever. The Evan Lysacek article has numerous errors, both factual and grammatical, and so I edited to correct them. PureRED (Kyle Floyd) reverted the article twice to put back the incorrect grammar and facts and sent me what appeared to be a rather sarcastic message thanking me for "experimenting" with Wikipedia and saying that my "test edits" had been removed and that I should use the sandbox if I want to "experiment" further. He also wrote something about "undo vandalism and then talk about it on the appropriate talk page", but I had not committed any "vandalism" and I had indeed already posted on the discussion page my reasons for editing.
I am unsure as to why it is necessary for incorrect information to remain in the Lysacek article, and for misspelled words and grammatically incorrect sentences not to be corrected. I have never been required to have a Wikipedia account before in order to edit, so that cannot be the problem. The entire Lysacek page reads as if it is written by Lysacek's personal publicist, even giving a shout-out to the kind of skating boots he wears, which I believe he has a paying deal to endorse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.244.219 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your note. I think the biggest problem you're running into is that you're not including edit summaries with your edits. Putting your comments on the talk page is indeed very good, but most people who are performing recent changes patrol don't visit the article's talk page if the edit doesn't seem to stand up on its own merits. Your edits trigger a lot of suspicion because some of the stuff you're deleting has citations, so you need to explain why you're deleting it in the edit summary. To address your other point, you don't need to have an account to edit, but there are a lot of good reasons you might want to consider getting an account anyway. I hope you find my suggestions useful and if you have any more questions feel free to ask. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
don't spam me please
I've been around wikipedia over 4 years, I know about edit summaries, please refrain in the future spamming with your scripts. -- m:drini18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you dropped the message regardign the image, I'm posting to the talk page for that article- Again I apologize, I thought it was an automatic bot message. -- m:drini18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- 24.108.67.56 (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are more appropriate times and places for humor. Many of your edits are good and you have potential to be good editor, you need to restrain yourself a bit though. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello Elipongo, I noticed your welcome message on its talk page. But shouldn't this user change his user name. The word Fcukubs (Fcuk) usually matches with Fuckubs. What would say--NAHID09:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My edit on James E. King was reverted by you for not being notable enough. You claimed that I didn't cite enough "national coverage". The "Truck Nutz" incident has received PLENTY of national coverage, seen here:
Coverage of the incident has made its way all across Florida and even to a national wire service. Plenty notable for a State Legislator, don't you think? I'll allow you to fix your mistake and work the incident into the entry. 24.115.224.185 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Feel free to re-add the information, if you can think of an encyclopedic way to phrase it. I won't revert it again, but I can't speak for other editors. You should probably use the Reuters reference, but I'd point out the last sentence/quote from that article, "It won't be much of story in a few days." Cheers! —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 21:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey =)
68.250.178.85 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi there. I'm sure you didn't mean to violate Wikipedia's rules, that's why I gave you the welcome. There are some really good links to different sets of policies and help pages in that welcome, I would highly suggest you read them. You might also want to read through Your first article to learn a bit about article writing. Regarding the We Were Gentlemen article specifically, there are a few problems. The article makes no assertion of how the band meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. You need to explicitly state in the article how the subject meets the criteria and verify that assertion with citations to reliable sources that are published by third parties. Also, the fact that you stated that you are a member of the band here brings up the point that you have a conflict of interest- you should avoid starting or editing articles with which you have a close relationship with. I hope I have addressed your concerns. If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask me. —Elipongo (Talkcontribs) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Dwight mcbannerson
He's actually a vandal writing fictional articles but I can see why you might think he was legit. Can't win 'em all I suppose. ;) Rob Banzai (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't classify this kind of vandalism as a hoax but I take your point. If you think it's true that's good enough for me. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
