This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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.
I stated the reason in the edit summary, but in retrospect it might have been smarter - and friendlier - if i also dropped a note on your talk page. The article Cantwell (surname) is a so called disambiguation page. These pages only lists links (and a short description) to direct people to other pages. For example, someone searching Cantwell might not know exactly what Cantwell they are searching for.
Since your edit added content and not a links + summary i removed it from that particular page. Normally i would have moved it to the correct article as well, but you already did so yourself. I hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspected, but now i know for sure. Then let me be the first to say Welcome. Welcome to Wikipedia, and may your stay be a pleasant one. If you need any assistance or advice, feel free to ask - ill gladly help if i can. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the clarification at AIV. I have protected the article, deleted the abusive edits, and blocked a bunch of the IPs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, and thanks a lot for taking care of that issue - it has been quite a while since i saw such a hailstorm of vandalism. By the way, you might want to include User:DetroitBobby, User:R9stone and User:Holidayschedule among the banned - i have a feeling those belong to the same user as the IP's. Either way, thanks again for the protection. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I already blocked all three. I think they are all different. From what I can tell, some morning radio show must be encouraging listeners to vandalize that article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem whatsoever - i already figured it was a mistake. In fact, the same thing happened to me twice already today, so im quite used to the reverse situation myself. Welcome back from your Wikibreak by the way! Have fun fighting the forces of Fandali... er, vandalism. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not quite 100% back yet; I just have a bit of extra time to edit due to March Break. I should still be semi-actively editing after this week. See ya around. -- Meäghân talk 18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And it is good to see you again as well! Had i not been so busy with other things then Wikipedia i would certainly have found the time to congratulate you with your DYK spree; I see you collected a nice amount of them while i was away. So even though it is a little late: Congratulations for all those well earned DYK's!. Since i am combining both new page and vandalism patrol, i suspect i might actually run on some of them by chance, which is always a positive thing.
He he - you shouldn't encourage me - I might start going on about all my DYK noms I've got in the queue which aren't getting any ticks or crosses at all, due to the backlog, e.g.:
That's why I've been trying (clumsily) to help out with DYK reviewing. It's hard work, but you do learn from it, don't you . . . at least I hope so.--Storye book (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
O well, aren't we Wikipedia editors a bit like water, always flowing around to fill all available space? After all, i became a vandalism patrol after i read a swear word in a random article over 2 years ago - and frankly, i kind of came to enjoy patrolling. By the way, if you are interested in learning - have you ever considered submitting one of your articles for GA review - or perhaps even FA review? If they get approved you could display a shiny GA or FA badge next to your DYA awards - and if they don't get approved, you will receive feedback on how to improve your article's. So if you like a challenge... :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for encouragement re GA and FA reviews. I've been hesitant so far as it would be like throwing an article to the dogs. Bramhope Tunnel might survive it fairly unscathed, though.--Storye book (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Im afraid i'm of fairly little value regarding the judgment of GA and FA articles - So far i have made just a couple of stubs and one DYK article. For me, DYK is the limit of my writing skills (or at least the level i can be bothered with). However, seeing you made a ton of DYK's in a (very) short time, along with the fact that the article's are excellent, makes me confident you should at least try it. Even IF an article doesn't make it, it will always yield some constructive feedback that may help improve this or future article's. Just give it a try! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I just wanted to check regarding the edits on the Nespresso page.
The first edit I made contained an external link that was against the Guidelines, so I appreciate that it was reverted.
The second edit I made contained the same information that I feel is very relevant to the Nespresso, but did not contain any external links or references.
The reason you gave on both occasions was due to external links.
Since the second edit had no external links, I would be grateful if you could let me know why the changes were reverted.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
First and foremost i think i should point you toward the advertising policy - i know its a long article, but a short summary would be that Wikipedia isn't intended for promotion, which is therefor forbidden. The first edit(s) you made as an IP user were clearly promotional for the outpresso; Frankly i have a feeling that you are an outpresso employee or a PR respresentative of the company. If this is correct, please have a look at thethe conflict of interest policy as well.
The second edit was better, but it still does not belong in the nespresso article. It is a complimentary product made by another firm. If it is to be covered, it should be covered in its own article, or rather: It should be briefly mentioned in its parent company article, as i doubt it will qualify for a stand-alone article. Just compare it to this: There are dozens of firms making skins, coverer, ring tones and what-else for gadgets such as the IPhone, yet these are also not covered in the main IPhone article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)11:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Excirial,
Thanks for coming back to me so quickly.
You are correct that I have some affiliation with Outpresso.
After placing an order for a Nespresso, I read the Wikipedia article regarding the Environmental impact. Being an avid recycler, I was quite concerned by this and therefore researched the situation regarding recycling the pods. I discovered the Outpresso based in Switzerland, but was slightly put off by ordering fom a company based outside of the UK (I think a lot of British residents may feel the same). Therefore I contacted the company and am now a UK based distributor for this product.
Whilst this could be seen as an unfair advertising opportunity, as a Nespresso user and a conscious recycler, I would have welcomed the inclusion of this information on the Nespresso site.
I do fully respect your decision, and will not attempt to make any further changes without your consent. However, I do feel that this inclusion will be a huge benefit to Nespresso users and the environment.
Well, as you may know, Wikipedia's popularity as a website has been steadily increasing for a couple of years, and therefor it has also become a prime target for product promotion or product placement - especially due to its open nature. Because of this several clear-cut policies such as WP:SPAM and WP:COI - but don't let me bore you with a load of policies and history lessons, and get back to the Outpresso.
First and foremost, i don't think that the Outpresso will have a real chance of being included in the Nespresso article. The only reason i can think of that will warrant even a mention, is Nespresso endorsing or promoting the product as part of some environmental campaign. Generally taken products pages are solemnly about that particular product; Just imagine what would happen if a similar device came on the market, and then another, and then a third! It would have the same effect as covering all ring tone providers in the main ringtone article.
Now, what can you do? First and foremost you should realize that Wikipedia is not a great vessel for promotion. If the only intention is promotion i would say: Don't even bother. Spamlinks and spam article's are deleted rather fast, and everyone can edit article's, both positive and negative (I can remember a school which made its own article, and demanded it to be deleted after someone covered their performance based upon a government document. The article was kept). Now, if on the other hand your intention is not purely promotional, you might consider creating an article about the company that creates the device, and briefly cover the service itself in that article. This for the simple reason that standalone article's about products and services should be covered in the parent article.
Note that in order to create an article, it has to be Notable, and that notability has to be Verifiable trough reliable sources. Besides that, the article should be written in a neutral style, thus being completely non promotional. In other words: It should only cover straight hard verifiable facts and not opinions (See WP:Peacock and WP:Weasel).
Now, i understand i have been bombarding you with a load of rules and guidelines - but just keep in mind that you can just skim trough those. A lot of new article's are deleted so i think it is better to warn you in advance, then have you invest hours and hours on an article just to see it go down the drain. If you intend to write a company related article, have a look at Primavera Systems or perhaps even a stub article such as Dunlop Bremner & Company. Generally taken old article's make excellent examples on how to write new articles.
Thanks for your detailed feedback - much appreciated! As I mentioned above, I am fairly new to this end of Wikipedia.
I fully appreciate what you are saying with regards to the products - particularly if more appear. As an Outpresso distributor, it would be great to have the product shown there and a reference to the website. However, as a Nespresso user, I do feel that it is important to mention that there are products available to assist in recyclying the capsules (my first recycling attempt which involved a pair of scissors was a very messy affair!!) After all, the only reason I became affiliated with Outpresso in the first place was due to the Nespresso article on wikipedia :D.
The externa link I was referring to was for the Nexpod single use capsule. Having had a closer look at the article, I can now see the relevance of this link. However, the Caffitaly link above just seems to be a link to an online store that sells coffee machines.
Ah, i gave up trying to count the amount of companies that wanted a Wikipedia article on themselves or a link in a popular article. 95 out of 100 times this ends in either the editor being blocked, a load of talk page abuse from the editor, a blacklisted link or a page creation block - for that matter i very much prefer a sensible discussion like this one. Even so, i can only give advice as to what you can do. And i fear that adding a link in the nespresso article will b futile, as another user will eventually remove it again.
As a sidenote, i had a look at the external links you mentioned and i removed the last three links as spam. As you can see, spam can always sneak in, and Wikipedia is always a work in progress :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Helpme Template
Unfortunately that was not the way the helpme template should be used, but the effects are the same i guess. I will be happy to help you, but before i can do that, i would like to know: What can i help you with? (Just add the response under this message, i will be monitoring your talk page) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I've started a page for what I beleive is a worthy entry. I am a member in the largest co-ed slo-pitch league in Canada, and we would like to start an entry. I want to know if i have started it correctly and can have help in posting it. Prevous entry was unsigned bu User:Blawes
I believe you are referring to User:Blawes/Langley_Mixed_Slo-Pitch? I copyedited and wikified the article, and made a few minor changes, but overall it didn't look quite bad. Just keep in mind that there is no "We" on wikipedia, as all article's should adhere to a neutral point of view. Apart from that, a few more references are always a good thing, but it is not a major issue, as many new article's don't have any references at all. Oh, and keep in mind that not every reader will know the sport or Canadian geography - i for one needed a few minutes to figure BC meant British Colombia and not Before Christ.
Now, as for publishing the article: (Assuming you don't use the new beta interface (If you do, please tell, the procedure is a tad different then)
You will see a couple of tabs on top of the page, one of them being called "Move". Click that one.
Put the title the article should be moved to in the "To new title" field. (For example "Langley mixed slo-pitch" - sans quotes of course)
In the reason field add "Publishing article from userspace" or some similar reason.
And presto, your page will be published!
If you receive an error that you are not permitted to do this, drop me a note as well. To move pages you need to be auto confirmed (10 edits + 4 days account age required). In that case i will happily do it for you. The only reason i didn't do it myself yet is that you might want to have a look at the article, or that you might still want to make changes. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thank you for the straightforward help! Prevous entry was unsigned bu User:Blawes
Glad to help - i just saw the article appearing on the new page so that went just fine. Oh, a few minor pointers as well: If you need help in the future, you can use the {{helpme}} template as well, but in those cases, just add the question right under it - that way other editors can see what you need help with. Alternatively you can use the help desk, and of course your always welcome to ask a question at my talk page.
By the way, remember to sign your posts! To do so, add four tildes (~~~~) after your messsage. That will sign your post with your username and a date/time which makes it easier to see who wrote something. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks again, I'm slowly learning how to do this. I'm a people person, not a computer person, so thanks for your assistance. I never would have been able to complete it with jumping through all the hoops this website requires. It's VERY difficult for the computer illiterate person such as me. I would have just given up and thrown my monitor across the room, lol.
Thanks again for the human assistance!
ps - how do I add content on help after I've posted a comment? There is no edit button anymore? is this how? or should I wait for a reply and an edit button to appear?
Ah, Wikipedia is easy once you get it, as it is at least pretty consistent. However, "Getting it" might actually take some time - so feel free to take that time! We all started as novices once. I would advice to go trough the tutorial if you have trouble with the basic Wiki functionality - it covers the basics pretty well, and the inclusion of some images will make it easier to understand then me writing it in text. But as always, if you need any assistance feel free to ask! If im slow to respond, you may want to leave the message on My talk page. To do so, just click the link i added in the previous line, and then click on the tab with the + on top of the page. That will allow you to create a new section on my talk page, and as you might have seen, it will immediately notify me that someone has been there, so i can get right back to you if im online, or when i log in. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi. Thanks for fixing up my Talkpage. Concerning that Worldwide News page, the author has recreated the same nonsense about 7 or 8 times over the past few days, and has had it speedily deleted every time - and I see it is already deleted again. -- Boing!said Zebedee13:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all. I considered just removing the nonsensical content altogether but then again i figured you might actually want to reply - or that it was part of a larger situation. And part of me thought that you might actually get a good laugh out of a text containing the sentences "educating better than you will ever do" and "you are jelous" in tandem with a cartload of spelling errors. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the heads-up on that situation John, i would have gotten back to you earlier if i wasn't busy with a couple other discussions. However, this made me think: Should the uw-delete user warnings contain a part for subjects of BLP pages? It makes no sense to add a custom text for every page blanker, and i doubt it is good PR - nor friendly for that matter - if we flat-out block the subject of an article. In those cases blankings are more understandable Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
A great many blankings are ordinary vandals, and I doubt if a high proportion are aggrieved article subjects. What might be worth considering, to save typing time when one suspects a "vandal" is the article subject, is a new template {{aggrievedsubject}} which says something like "If you are the article subject, please stop edit warring, we will be responsive to your concerns, state them on the article talk page, see WP:BLP/H for advice." As far as blocking goes, a short one may be the only way to prevent disruption in the short term, and as long as it is short, 1 or 3 hours rather than indef, and is accompanied by explanation, advice and corrective action, I don't think it's too unfriendly. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That might indeed be a good idea. The vast majority will indeed be pure vandals, but for the couple of "Real" angry subjects that might be a good move. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The vandal in question seems to have managed to put in a derogatory reference to Will Hanrahan - again - but only when 'googling' the name. The article originally penned, I think, by a student many years ago and which is, broadly, fine has been returned on wikipedia NOT featuring the derogatory comment. Might I leave a message for the vandal in question? I have reported this as 'harassment' to the nearest police station to the address the vandals IP suggests the article was posted from. The WEB IP address has identified the permanent address in Birmingham used, which the police now have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhanrahan (talk • contribs) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ehm, before going into more detail, i think i should point you to WP:NLT first. Stating you will take, or actually taking legal action against another editor is a blockable offense. I assume you might ask "Why is that rule in place?", so let me give a brief explanation: Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia read by millions and edited by millions, and opinions differ at time. Sometimes the subject of an article or other people closely involved will attempt to use legal threats in order to enforce their idea's. Since this creates an unworkable editing climate it is explicitly forbidden. Therefor, i would urge you not to take off-site legal actions, even if it is a vandal.
On a less serious note: Yes, if someone vandalizes an article you are free to leave a warning template on his or her talk page. Generally this means you select a the appropriate level warning and add one template for every offense. If the user is already at level 4, or past level 4 within a recent time after the last template you can report to IP to AIV to have the IP or username blocked from editing. For IP users the reasonable time would be 1-2 weeks or so, as IP ownership can be dynamic. For registered usernames i would suggest a month or more. Hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)10:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Section title
[1]. I don't revert that, but I thought that intelligibility is of high priority. "János Hunyadi" and "John Hunyadi" are the widely used English forms. Isn't it important that other, not yet involved readers easily understand what the section is about? Squash Racket (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the intelligibility part, but seeing the fuss concerning "Removed\edited comments" i deemed it more prudent to keep the original version. Partly because of WP:VAN, partly to prevent another edit war over something - excuse me for the wording - as silly as a comment and a header. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish I had a good tool for it. I do it by going to the specified decimal coords in Google maps, then copy and pasting them into a converter website like this one, rounding off and plugging back in to accuracy checking. If I find a tool or if you find one that helps with this please let's help each other out. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
REASONS
I demand reasons why my edits are being characterized as vandalism. If there are none, I think this issue should be dealt with my others. 193.188.47.23 (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summary on a previous edit: how was this vandalism? you dont own wikipedia. get a life!
The edit contained "Bum".
Had it not been for the first two, i would have seen this as an alternative for the song and just ignored it. I presume - but i cannot be sure - that Malke reverted in error, while The Thing That Should Not Be reverted on the basis of the edit summary you filled in. With me reverting on a combination of the two. However, i am interested: Is there a [{WP:RS|reliable source]] that support this alteration of the song? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You're all a bunch of dolts playing at being scholars. Wikipedia is a joke because of this. Do some research dummy. I'm donnnnnne wich'oo. Boo ya. 194.79.29.4 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
For that record, i prefer looking at myself as a maintenance man who makes sure the floors are cleaned, rather then as a scholar. For what it is worth, it is a pity that you are leaving, and you have my apologies if i caused this. But seeing your commenting style in regards to the Civil behavior guideline, i doubt you would have stayed, or even liked to stay an extended amount of time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the insult?
In what way did I vandalise the Tiananmen protests page? I had my entire contribution deleted by John for a small rule breach that I was unaware of. I think he should have just deleted the bits he was unhappy about but I apologised to him on the discussion page in any case because we got off on the wrong foot. I stand up for myself and admit it when I'm wrong but I'm no vandal. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed absolutely and completely my fault, my apologies.
As for some background: I was busy checking for vandalism with Huggle, and i noticed that the edit contained "John Is OK :)". Around that time there were a lot of "X is Hawt" / "I am cool" and similar edits, thus i reverted it. However, i completely missed the fact that this was a talk page, and not an article. Had i seen that, i would have (obviously) never reverted it.
As for the unfriendly warning: Huggle checks the users talk page for previous warnings, and automatically placed the next warning level on that users talk page. Since a level 1 and level 2 warning was already present, it added a level 3, which assumes bad faith. I striped the error on your talk page, but your obviously more then welcome to remove it should you wish to do so. The reason i didn't do so was that it would seem as if i was hiding this incident.
Thanks. It's ok. You seem like a great guy. Only the best people admit when they make mistakes. I would say that because I've just done it too ha ha. Anyway nice to meet to meet you :) Shieldsgeordie (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And it is a pleasure to meet you as well, though it would probably have been better if another reason would be the basis for our meeting (Somehow i cannot shake the cinematic of two persons walking around a corner and colliding full-force, with me being the person that is holding the newspaper and not watching anything else). Either way, based upon your edit history it would seem you are a fairly new user edit-wise, so let me say "Welcome!" as well, and slap one of those slightly-useless welcome templates on your user page for good measure. Somehow it seems no one got around to pointing you to 150+ pages of policy no new user is ever going to read. O well, guess ity is a custom to welcome new users that way, and seeing you didn't get that treatment yet...
I wrote in the lead "Yugoslavian-born American former World No. 1 professional tennis player"
Should we write about the Hungarian citizenship that she also gained in 2003 in the lead or inside the article? I mean the lead should be "Yugoslavian-born American Hungarian" or should we mention about the Hungarian citizenship inside the article? Thanks(Umumu (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC))
Well, I don't think that "Yugoslavian-born Hungarian\American former World No. 1 professional tennis player" would sound well. Personally split those two topics: Have one line say that she is "the former World No. 1 professional tennis player" and have another (new) line discuss her heritage. Concatenating two independent subjects could cause some confusion. besides, seeing that she changed nationality a few times, it would well warrant for some extra information anyway. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see nothing huggle's that would suggest they are still on it, but those are in my eyes definitely sockpuppets. Just have a look at their edit's - The few edits they made before today would suggest that someone is hopping accounts. No edits in 2008, both vandalism, and both managed to get entangled in he same article in just 3 minutes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. Confirmed as well trough the good ol - "My friend was on my account and...". (Edit) Sorry to keep bothering you with this, but is there any chance you can see who created Cowdrey Cricket Club before it was deleted on 15 October 2007? The user suddenly added an old CSD warning from somewhere on his userpage origionating from that date, claiming he made it. Might be another sock to mark. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
i took of the sizle video to youtube meaning the coyright issue was remove your delition and blocking is considered vandalism, do not delete the page, because there is no more copyright issues, thanx youAlxknight (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
that i took of the copyrigth issues, with the sizzle reel, why would you have delete the page twice, i have been working on provinces of night for days now, but now you deleted it without any talk of conseous, what's the problwm now, if i took off the issues, please fix the problem asap Alxknight (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The page you created twice, Provinces of Night, was a direct copyright violation of this page. There is no consensus required to delete a new page that is a direct and complete copyright violation of someone else's content. Note that simply rewriting the material is not sufficient to have the article remain; it still may not meet notability guidelines. But at least if it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, some amount of discussion may possibly be had. As it stood the two times I deleted it, it was a blatant copyright violation and could not remain on the site, and no discussion was necessary. Frank | talk 21:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
(INDENT) i do not get what you were saying on the talk of user frank, what was your point, what i was talking to him, was that teh copy iusse with the sizzle reel was deleted (he said that was the problem) i deleted the infrigment but was deleted again, a page i had worked on for days, Alxknight (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was pointing out to frank what removal you meant, since you didn't mention it. I have neither read not seem the page you made so i cannot comment on that aspect - but it seems Frank already left you a reply on that matter Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh boy, i think i better call vandalism patrol quits for the day, as two (reported!) mistakes in 600 or so reverts is starting to go out of tolerablelimits. Sorry, this was just me not paying attention as i should be. I stupidly presumed that "The Daily Camera" was a photographic shop located in that particular mall - and that the link added was promoting the store. Stupid me for not checking that, and blindly assuming vandalism. Apologies for this mistake - i reverted the edit i made, and i striped the warning on your talk page. Naturally you are more then welcome to remove the warning altogether should you wish to do so.
Inoticed you recently updated an article dealing with Sport in Canada. You might be interested to know that there is a project aimed at improving articles on this subject. Feel free to stop by and help out, we'd love to have you! HalifaxRage (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I just wanted to drop you a private note following your ANI notice. The whole thing at Will Hanrahan was unfortunate, and it would have been nice if he had been wiki-savvy enough to explain his blanking, but please remember that in accordance with Wikipedia:Vandalism, blanking is not regarded as vandalism where reviewing the content makes the reason for the blanking clear. BLPs are listed as a specific example where such blanking may be legitimate. As WP:BLP says, "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." I don't know whether this guy is really the subject of the article or not, but it's a good idea to review the content that is being blanked when something like this happens. As here, for instance, the removal of the words "and narcissist" might suggest legitimate concerns. Anyway, I know that recent changes patrol can be challenging, and I appreciate the time you put into it...I spent a lot of time there, a few years back, and I remember how frustrating it can be...but I just wanted to note it for the next time you encounter a situation of this sort. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
*Nods* Your absolutely correct moon, and i am not particularly proud of the way this was handled myself. Personally i noticed that cluebot was being reverted, and that the page was blanked while doing so. I failed to notice the username which implied that the editor was the subject of the article, and i could have sworn that the uw-delete had a section explaining what to do with BLP issues. However, seeing the edit history of that template it has never been there altogether. Frankly, i didn't notice the issue until John dropped me a notice regarding the BLP issue.
I guess this (again) proves that to much vandalism patrol can cause tunnel vision in the end. A few regular breaks to cut trough the addiction should prove useful. And of course watching if blanked pages are BLP's might work as well. After all, Wikipedia didn't crash and burn during my 3 month wikibreak :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something about BLP issues *should* be in uw-blanking. That's a good idea. And a change of scenery is always a good thing. I don't go so far as to walk away from Wikipedia, but when the copyright work overwhelms me I'll write an article or two and get a second wind. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I actually proposed that on JohnCD's talk page, and he suggested a separate template for this with the reasoning that most blanking would be pure vandalism. Both idea's have its own merits. Adding it to the blanking templates would almost certainly guarantee a 100% reach, but at the same time it would be prone to imitators and false positives. A separate template would require manual addition, but would likely cause less errors. Though i admit that i lean towards 100% coverage myseld.
Also, my absence was caused by Force majeure - taking form in a mountain of work that left me exhausted during the evenings \ nights. I figured that taking a break altogether was a better alternative then risk making a load of errors - with the added possibility that stress would cause me to snap at people. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought about that; I've always got beans on my mind. :) But as I said at the template talk, I was thinking more that BLP concerns may be hard to see if we are not familiar with the subjects. So, like you, I'm thinking more 100% coverage. Sorry about the work stress! I can see why you wouldn't want to risk it spilling over. Glad that it seems to be gone. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:08, 19 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
With the new revisions, you delete is moot, but for the record, what you call a WP:Peacock was linked to [2]. 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 [3]. Here's a thought: look before you leap! 68.43.236.244 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
During that revision the added link was [4], 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[5] 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.[6]
Under the username Umumu, he was also trying to interact with FisherQueen. [7]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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
