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 don't know if that was an evil plot intended to hog all the vandalism for yourself, or if that was intended as a friendly reminder that my cup of coffee was actually starting to freeze. I think i will assume good faith instead of assuming this was an act of "warfare", but that reminder was really the "Nuclear" option, don't you think? I don't believe in using {{Minnow}}'s, but you won't escape my toe-curling bad jokes! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything on your talk page actually notifying you of the AFC BED... there's a december/january drive going on now. Just saying. -- tnumbermaniacc01:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for manning the gates against the barbarian horde wanting to vandalise this. Thought it may have quietened down but obviously not yet. KJP1 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I think my contribution was, not only constructive, but vital; the article analyzes and explains the lyrics, so I put the lyrics in it. It's like talking about the Mona Lisa and not putting the portrait. It's my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanitoeldeldemo (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Ænema"
I've never used this talk page and I don't really know how it works, so here I go again: Hi Excirial, you reverted my contribution to the Ænema page saying that it didn’t appear constructive to you; I think my contribution was, not only constructive, but vital; the article analyzes and explains the lyrics of this song, so I put the lyrics in it, to make the article clear. It's like talking about the Mona Lisa and not putting the portrait. It's my opinion. Please undo your revert. Juanitoeldeldemo (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Juanitoeldeldemo
Hello. The vandal you just blocked on Origami struck yesterday too, using a number of IPs in a small subnet belonging to RIM (i.e. Blackberry) in Canada, while today's IP geolocates to Charleston, WV. Making me believe that today's IP (66.118.71.123(talk·contribs·WHOIS) could be an open proxy. Thomas.Wtalk to me19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Does the bot compute according to information located at the AfC drive's Scoring section? From how it has been updating, this does not appear to be the case. It's likely that reviews performed on previous participant pages will need to be moved to the bot-generated pages. Northamerica1000(talk)16:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@Numbermaniac: AFCBuddy overwrites any content present in the sections it updates. Eg: It flat out replaces the content of the "Scoreboard", "Totals" and "Rereviewers" section each time it is run. The same applies for the user lists - though it contains code that will preserve any re-reviews to a separate section. Also, it did not overwrite any reviews - on the 26th of November the backlog drive was moved to December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive and as of such all content AFCBuddy uploads is a subpage for this particular page. Pages that are created under a December header (Eg: December 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Numbermaniac) are ignored by it since it doesn't recognize those as being part of the drive.
@Northamerica1000: As long as reviews are done trough the AFCH script they are counted - AFCBuddy scans all user contributions for the participating user between the start and end of the drive. Any reviews between that timeframe will be listed, though they are likely in reverse order. And yes, it will take the scoring system into account - any edits that cause some score adjustment will be listed on the adjustment page. Since there is no content at the moment the previous drive's adjustment page may be a tad more informative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Yep, agree there. Updates should go on auto pilot once again from now on so no need to track edits manually. Technically its still a matter of me manually posting the data since i didn't find any time to even look at the underlying issue but no one should notice any difference in that regard. Also: The re-reviews on the old "December" pages will not be recognized by AFCBuddy. A Copy+Paste of these templates to the "December-January" pages should cause them to be counted a-ok though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's a draft of the message I'll send to participants. Please advise if there is anything that should be added or changed. Then, I'll send them.
Update regarding AfC backlog drive updating with AFCBuddy (in standard header2)
"The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name]. Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive pages is no longer necessary.
Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. "
Done Messages have been sent to users who were informed that manual updating was necessary, per those listed in the leaderboard here (diff page) at that time. Below (in a new section on your talk page) is a copy of the verbatim message that was sent. Northamerica1000(talk)19:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Update regarding AfC backlog drive auto-updating with AFCBuddy
Manual updating of your Backlog Elimination Drive page is no longer necessary. The AFCBuddy bot is now automatically updating AfC reviews that are performed when using the Helper script. The bot-generated pages are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[Your user name].
Importantly, please note that any re-reviews you may have performed will need to be manually copied and pasted to the bot-generated pages. Thank you for participating in the drive. Northamerica1000(talk)19:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Important: AfC Drive request for assistance
Hello Excirial: Thanks for your work for the bot to perform automatic updating. Due to the bot previously not functioning, I had changed the text within the section at Running Total to:
prefix=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/{{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>#time:F Y}} Backlog Elimination Drive/
Which created pages titled: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[User name]
I have attempted to fix this, by rewriting the text to:
prefix=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/{{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>#time:F Y|+1 month}} Backlog Elimination Drive/
However, this is creating pages titled: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[User name]
The bot appears to be creating pages titled: WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/[User name]
@Northamerica1000: The entire "Create subpage" part is a tad redundant these days: A signup template under the "Participants" section should be all that is required. AFCBuddy will create all the appropriate (sub) pages for the user automatically. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I think I'll go ahead and send out messages so others are made aware of this. Basically, something that states "AFCBuddy is now automatically updating your entries" etc., with information about where the new pages are located. Northamerica1000(talk)18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I had noticed some inconsistencies there having to do with the fact it is a two month drive. I planned on going through and moving pages where page moves are needed and cleaning up the mess on Wednesday sometime when I have a few free moments (it's finals week right now, so...). I'll also update the preload and page. I may just remove it from both if it is no longer needed. Thoughts on that? Technical 13 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Technical 13: I'm pretty sure everything is in order at this time. Changing everything around will likely just create more confusion, taking time away from people doing reviews. I've notified people about the automatic updating now being functional and that any reviews they have performed will need to be manually updated on the bot-generated pages. It may be best to just leave things as-is at this time. Northamerica1000(talk)18:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I made edits to this page and you changed the page back to incorrect information. I am the Communications Director for the hospital. Please do not edit this page to include old and wrong information. You can find our website at www.mountianview-hospital.com and you can contact me through the "contact us" portal if you have any questions.
The information you added to the page has two problems:
First and foremost it is a copyright violation as the information is directly copied from this page which is clearly marked as being copyrighted. Wikipedia can only accept content that is licensed as CC-BY-SA or GDFL (Or a license compatible with these licenses).
The content added is clearly non neutral. Statements such as "state-of-the-art, full-service medical", "dedicated and talented staff of employees and outstanding physicians" and so on are promotional, which is explicitly not allowed.
Due to the above two reasons i re-reverted the edit made on this page. Also, seeing your current position as an employee i would strongly advice reading the FAQ for companies. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully this will be the last of my queries for awhile. Does AFCBuddy update the numbers in the Reviewers section, or do people need to manually input these? Northamerica1000(talk)19:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Very cool. I've updated the section accordingly, essentially per how it was in the October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive. There are some manually-inputted entries there which I assume the bot will overwrite. Northamerica1000(talk)20:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Both your page on 1saleaday, and your page on Ben Federman fail to recognize the rampant fraud that he and his company are involved in. Any 2 second google search will return you a mountain of complaints to the FBI, the BBB, and Consumer Affairs. Your pages make him and his company look reputable, which contributes to thousands of people being robbed everyday. If anything, put flags up on the page that point to this information. It may be that this was a legitimate business once, but now it is ruining christmas for untold thousands of families. My edits probably were vandalism, but something needs to be done... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.174.168 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources available that back up this claim, a section of the article can be dedicated to this. Note that "Reliable sources" are not random complaints found on the internet, blog posts and so on. Also, the "a section" part in the above line is intended to be interpreted as "A mention". This explicitly does not mean a rewrite of the article's lead so that it will contain a long complaint, nor does it mean that half the article should be dedicated to this issue (See WP:UNDUE). Finally, please note that wikipedia is not a soapbox. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this revert might indeed need a little bit of explanation for it to make sense. When i made this revert i was busy looking around for vandalism using a tool called WP:Huggle. Huggle will display a diff between two revisions, and lets the patrol decide if the edit is good, or if it should be reverted. The diff that was displayed, was this one. Note that only the topmost part (The Diff) is displayed, while the actual article preview below it is not visible.
What this looked like, was a removed of a large share of the article's text. This is actually quite common: sometimes sections are accidentally removed during an edit, though at times these removals are done in bad faith. Naturally a deletion of a large share of content is (sometimes) quite necessarily as well. The problem in this edit was that there was no edit summary explaining what the removal was intended to do. In those cases removals tend to be accidental and it did give this impression in this case (Based on the diff it looked as if the entire article was removed from a certain point onward, due to categories being the last content in an article). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am trying to create a page for the company, Storyhunter Inc. a global video platform. What have I done incorrectly? If you go to http://storyhunter.tv/press you will see plenty of links to third parties which will verify the company's legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.157.103 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi 38.117.157.103 (talk). Apologies; you have references under two separate headings -- I must have only seen the first three references, one of which is the Storyhunter site. Can you fix the formatting and resubmit? Thanks (and thanks, Excirial). Julie JSFarman (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Reblocking 62.31.127.199
Hi,
The IP address 62.31.127.199 shouldn't be allowed to make new wikipedia accounts while blocked. Please re-block with account creation disallowed.
Thanks!
Thewikiguru1 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
@Thewikiguru1: O bother... It seems you've just managed to spot a rather bad bug in Huggle 3's beta release that i managed to miss entirely. The block form defaults to "Account creation disabled" when issuing a block, but it seems that the actual block removes talk page access instead and leaves account creation disabled. Off to report that one posthaste, and thanks for noticing that! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Speed-up AFCBuddy?
Hello Excirial: Is it possible to increase the number of runs AFCBuddy performs on a weekly basis? Some users who have performed more than 15 reviews (e.g. Ninney) are still not present on the leaderboard. If possible, daily runs would be awesome, but any increase in bot runs would be helpful. Northamerica1000(talk)23:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: What is the advantage of running AFCBuddy on a more frequent basis? Discounting the fact that each run requires about 15 minutes of work (Which is quite irrelevant really), is there any real need? There are still plenty of unreviewed reviews available on user drive pages, and the backlog itself is still about 2k pages as of current. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought this would just involve adjusting a time parameter; since it takes effort on your part, the way things are is fine. I just like current, up-to-date statistics. It's all good the way it is. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk)22:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Excirial. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Christmas dinnerMachinima of Santa Claus's reindeer filmed in Second life Imploring that Excirial enjoys a sumptuous Christmas holiday and a naughty New Year! First play this → → →
Now play this! I dare you to tell me that you did not smile.
Hi! This is regarding the December backlog drive in AfC. I added my name in the participants list but my name does not show up in the 'totals' list. Based on what I have read about AFCBuddy, it should have put my name automatically in the totals list and kept track of the articles which I have reviewed (sorry if I didn't get that right). Please help. Gif-unrelatedtalk!16:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
(Not since the 16(?) December though.) If Excirial can read this post, maybe it is time for a run with the program? (Happy New Year! BTW!) -(t) Josve05a (c) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
antitoxin
hi
I received a message from you stating that I created something about an antitoxin, that you thought it was not constructive and that you deleted it. You didn't state my username, just an ip address. I got the message before I logged in. My username is Fletcherbrian. I didn't create anything about antitoxins as far as I am aware though I am interested in medical topics.
What you are most likely running into here, is a so called dynamically allocated IP adres. Whenever you edit Wikipedia (Or navigate to Wikipedia) without being logged in, Wikipedia only recognizes you trough the IP address your ISP (Internet Service Provider) allocated to you. It is extremely common for these addresses to rotate dynamically - today you may be user 172.12.22.121, yet tomorrow you might actually be 172.12.24.121. This is done by an ISP to maximize the efficiency of their IP block (There is only a limited number of IP addresses that a company has, so if you have 10.000 paying users and 5000 IP addresses you should have plenty as it is unlikely that more then half your users will be online at the same time).
Basic IP information aside here is what likely happened. If user A submitted an article without using an account, that edit is logged as being made by an IP adress. Once the edit is reviewed by an AFC patrol the AFCH script will leave a message on that IP users talk page. However, if that IP address is reassigned in the mean time another user may receive the usual "You got new messages" notification before they log in (Before you are logged in, Wikipedia only recognizes you as an IP user). Long story short: An IP user submitted an article, and you were the first person to use the IP address on Wikipedia after it was reviewed (Thus receiving the notification). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia Article About Me
I recently stumbled across a Wikipedia talk page from February 2013 in which you rejected a brief article that was written about me (Thomas Edward Jeffrey) on the grounds of notability. I wanted to assure you that I did not write that article (I do know the difference between "where" and "wear"), nor was I "aware" of it until a couple of weeks ago. I interrogated my 14-year old son, and he denies writing it as well. My best guess is that it was submitted by a well-intentioned student. Since it still appears to be hanging around in Wikipedia limbo, I just wanted you to know that I have no problem if it is permanently removed.
AFCBuddy says that it should count reviews which result in a deleted page, however, it didn't count those for me at my backlog page on its last run. I added in #10-13 manually. I have no problem doing this manually and this isn't a complaint, it's just if you would like to know. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me)23:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: Fixed, thanks for mentioning that issue. A rather silly long term bug - the DateTo check accidentally looked at the DateFrom year when determining what edits it should download. Effectively it was trying to load all edits between 1 December 2013 and 1 February 2013. Since that isn't exactly a valid date range no deleted edits were found whatsoever. This worked a-ok since most drives were in the same year (Thus the bug didn't manifest), but this cross-year drive caused it to trigger. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
re: User talk:Jcha1040
Hello,
You just sent me a message that details 'doubt' of originality---I am an administrator at Bergen Catholic High School in Oradell NJ, USA and have been working on our Wikipage. The information/pictures I am using is coming from our website and photo collection. I would like to know why exactly it was deleted. I am going to be putting the info that you just deleted back on the wikipage.
Please let me know if you need any clarification. Thank you very much!
I left a message on your talk page and in the history of the article itself explaining the removal (No problem if you didn't see those - just explaining that i didn't flat out delete the content you added since that would be quite impolite)
There are actually a few problems here. First and foremost is the fact that the data you added was copied directly from this page: http://www.bergencatholic.org/testpages/flagship-of-achievement. Due to legal reasons Wikipedia can only accept content that is licensed as either CC-BY-SA or GDFL, or has a copyright status compatible with these copyright licenses. The added content comes from a website that states "Copyright 2014", and the disclaimer present on the website is quite clearly not compatible with the above two licenses.
Outside the content itself there is also a problem with the content itself, and this is more or less inherent due to the fact that the content was directly copied from a website: Its promotional instead of being neutrally worded. Normally i would add some specific examples but in this case i suppose that the entire text is... well, let us say that i would expect the added text in a brochure, and not in an encyclopedic text (If you want specific examples irregardless, feel free to ask).
That brings us to the third issue. Since you're an employee at Bergen Catholic High School (To be fair: i already suspected this to be the case) you have a clear conflict of interest with the topic of the article. If it strongly discouraged (bordering not allowed in severity) to edit an article you have a conflict as interest with, as writing a neutral, encyclopedic article may be difficult or even near impossible when one has such. Just ask yourself: If the school would ever receive negative publicity, would you add this to the article? And if another editor would add a sourced section containing this criticism, would you delete it? Even if it is not intentional it often proves to be difficult to keep an article overall neutral in tone. Exceptions to the rule exist of course, but the added text is quite the polar opposite of expected article content.
I'll be removing the "FLAGSHIPS OF ACHIEVEMENT" section once more - a copyright violation is a legal issue and these quite simply cannot stay around. I've also (slightly) reworded the Golf section since it was equally promotional ("The best" is a clear example in that case). Also, that section needs sourcing. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I just got a message saying a change from this IP was reverted. After looking at the changes I talked to my 11 year old son about it and he admits to making them. He did not realize what he was doing, or the impact of it. We value WikiPedia very much and we are teaching our son how to use it (latest lesson: don't make changes!). We have also contributed to WikiPedia through Paypal.
At any rate, my son now understands what he did was wrong and has promised never to click the 'Edit' buttons again.
FYI, My understanding is that links to a user page (which is what {{ping}} and {{U}} actually do) only trigger notifications IF a signature is added to the same block of text in the same edit. Adding a ping later doesn't do it unless you re-sign the post. I did a talkback in the Adam Jones case on the AfC talk page. DES(talk)00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@DESiegel: That is actually some very useful information - thanks. Normally i wouldn't use {{ping}} without a signature, but in this exception actually knowing that it needs one is nice. And more importantly: thanks for forwarding the message that i didn't send as i should have. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. I only learned this fact fairly recently, it should be more widely known as people start to rely on notifications in place of talkback or other userpage messages. DES(talk)19:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I really like your AFCBuddy-program, but I have a question.
Under #Running Total and #Totals it says that I have 108 points and in the #Leaderboard it says that I have 205 points. Wich onw is corrrect? (t) Josve05a (c) 18:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Josve05a: Nice catch there - the leaderboard was correct, and the user total has been corrected, so it is valid as well now. The upload code uses some dirt simple "replace everything between two sections, and leave the rest in tact" logic, and it seems the Participants header was slightly modified in such as way that the code failed to notice the user totals section that should have been replaced. Either, fixed, and thanks for mentioning it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
One more thing, I don't really understand how the Adjustment-page works. I have re-rewied around 30-38 pages, but there is only one under my name. -(t) Josve05a (c) 18:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Fixed The problem was that the {{AfcDriveQC|<Username>|<PassFail>|<Comment}}} template expected a pipe ("|") after Pass or Fail, even if no comment was actually provided. I could have sworn i fixed that issue ages ago, guess I've accidentally used an old copy of the re-review regular expression. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have offended you with my recent changes to the Southern State Community College Wikipedia page. It is for a constructive purpose, however, as I am attempting to prove the sometimes unreliable nature of the site to students. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.215.143 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
You Undid a Correct Edit.
Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I saw there was some incorrect information on the "The Truth About Love" Pink album article. In the Track Listing, song #7 says "Just Like You." This is incorrect because the actual name of the song is "Slut Like You." I corrected this error, but you changed it back. I wanted to let you know that while I appreciate your keeping on recent changes, the song is, in fact, named "Slut Like You" and if you look at the back of physical copies of the CD, you can see that. Here is more information about it:
The edit did look like a straight-up case of vandalism which caused me to revert it as such, but it seems that you are entirely correct on that one. I have reverted my incorrect revert and striped the warning on your used page (Feel free to remove it altogether). And of course: Apologies for the hassle! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Excirial! No problem, I understand. I appreciate your quick and solid work! :)
In that case, it should be simple to provide a reliable source explaining why Kim Jong-il would be on a Mexican banknote, even though the image source and about every other website states that Diego Rivera is on the note itself. If a reliable source can be found that trumps the large amount of other sources stating the opposite by all means correct the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
removal of link
Hi Excirial,
I note that you have removed my link because it seemed inappropriate. Are you able to expand why. The info page provides the reader with relevant information.
But of course. What applies here are ELNO points 4, 13 and 14:
Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. See external link spamming.
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
To explain this: the "paperchainweddingstationery.co.uk" website at its core is a company selling wedding services. Adding a direct link to this website on Wedding invitation is considered spamming, since it (mostly) draws traffic over to a site intending to sell goods or services. If this type of linking would be allowed any company in existence could place a (decent) explanatory or informative page on their website and subsequently link it on Wikipedia, hoping that people would be drawn to the site and ended up looking around.
Quite simply put: Linking to specific company websites is (should be) rarely done on this type of article to start with. If i factor in the actual content of the page being linked to, its a definite no-go due to the promotional tone (For example, the "We understand at Paperchain just how much time and effort planning for your big day can take" right on top of the page).
There are a few other policies that apply here as well, but I'd say the above one is quite insurmountable as is for the added link. Hope this answers the question and kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I was attempting to delete the photo. The problems with the article are the birth date and photo in the info box. I'm Brian Froud. That is a picture of a fan sitting at my table at Fan Expo in Toronto last year. If you Google images "Brian Froud voice actor" you'll see what I really look like. I'd also rather not have my birth date shown publicly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfroud (talk • contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the current version of Brian Froud (actor) should be in decent shape. It no longer contains the incorrect photograph, and the birth date has been removed as being unsourced (Using the rationale that Biographies of living persons must adhere to higher quality standards). Please do keep in mind that birthdays are fairly standard fare for biographic articles - if someone were to re-add it while backing the date with a reliable source it would stick around in the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
"Ænema again"
Hi Excirial, it's me again, since I haven't received any response to my inquiry from last month: you reverted my contribution to the Ænema page saying that it didn’t appear constructive to you; I think my contribution was, not only constructive, but vital; the article analyzes and explains the lyrics of this song, so I put the lyrics in it, to make the article clear. It's like talking about the Mona Lisa and not putting the portrait. It's my opinion. Please undo your revert. I know there is a swear word, but there are a lot of articles that include such; I really believe the chorus of the song should be included, there are other articles which include lyrics, and my contribution was honest. I really hope I get a reply from you this time, because I feel very upset that you don't believe my contribution was constructive. Juanitoeldeldemo (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the cases where an edit summary would have been really helpful. Have a look at the diff the edit generated - while it was intended to be constructive the wording made it look identical to the usual dozen of vandalism edits that add random content / swear words in an article. A quick summary stating "Adding related song text" or something similar would have been enough for me to determine that this wasn't vandalism at all.
By the way: you don't need to ask me to revert an edit (It is done now though) - just Be bold! and simply reinstate the edit yourself and drop the editor who reverted a quick note stating you reverted it. That last step is entirely optional, but it can clear up misunderstandings regarding the edit itself. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your response. What I can use a lot from now on is your suggestion of using the edit summary (I didn't know what it was for until now). So I'm going to undo your revert, and I hope this time my contribution stays. Juanitoeldeldemo (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Excirial, hope this finds you well. I have a puzzle for you. My recent DYK Aerial suspension has its DYK banner template on its talkpage. The DYK banner for the same article, which was sent to my talkpage is different if you check the source, i.e. it's not a transcluded template. This wouldn't matter, except that the check-the-hits link on the article talkpage banner says it got 80 hits, whereas if you check the hits via the equivalent banner sent to my talkpage, the article apparently got over 15,000 hits. Some difference, huh? Since the article got top position (with image) in DYK, it had a good time-slot when the US was awake and browsing, and the subject of magic illusions and the dyk image are curiosities, I'm optimistic enough to guess that the 15,000 hits is the correct stat. So what's gone wrong? Do you know how I can put this right? If it's 15,000+ hits, then it should get into DYKSTATS but it hasn't yet. Help please? --Storye book (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I can see the problem. It looks like your DYK article was moved around the time it was a DYK. The title of the page was Aerial suspension (illusion) during the DYK and Aerial suspension afterwards. The template on the article's talk page was added on the 14th, and the statistics link refers to Aerial suspension (illusion). The DYK template on your own talk page on the other hand was added on the 15th and refers you to to the stats of Aerial suspension. That last page was a redirect at the time your DYK was on the main page and thus it received very little traffic. In other words: Congratulations with a very nice score of 15.000+ readers for your article! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Woohoo! Thank you - now I understand. Yes I remember it being moved by someone at that time - I didn't make the connection though - well spotted!. And I noticed something else. On the stats page there's a second spike on the following day. I don't know which time zone affects the dyk count - presumably USA smewhere - but it looks as if the dyk time slot may have carried past midnight in that time zone, so that we can count the second hits spike? So 15,278 + 2011 = 17,089? The fun thing is that Aerial suspension was my 50th dyk. Some days are good days. How do I enter it in DYKSTATS? I looked at the markup for the other DYKSTAT entries, and there's some sort of required url in there which I can't find for this dyk. --Storye book (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
And another thing - just thought - can we also add in the 80 hits registered under the pre-move title Aerial suspension (illusion)? Or am I being greedy, haha? --Storye book (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
According to Dykstats you can count both days if the page left the main page after UTC 0:00 - and seeing the view count I assume it did. Also, it seems that half the edits from the day prior and after the DYK are subtracted to counter "Non DYK related" views. I don't think you can count the redirect since it was never linked from the main page. Having said all that i guess the calculation would be: (15278+2011) - (6 + 6) = 17.277 views (There seems to be no views for "Day after" yet, so i just cheated and used 6)
The "Required URL" on DYKSTATS is the same url as the "Quick Check" contains. To make things even easier: The below wikitext should be all that is needed to list it (It seems its the second most visited DYK article for January).
|-
| [[Aerial suspension (illusion)]] || [[File:Brahmin aerial suspension ca 1830.jpg|100x100px]] || [http://stats.grok.se/en/201401/Aerial_suspension_%28illusion%29 17.277]|| || ... that the '''[[Aerial suspension (illusion)|aerial suspension]]''' illusion ''(pictured)'' was first recorded in the early 19th century in [[India]]?
I'm having a problem with another user. I went to the talk page for [elephant], saying that I thought it was time to unprotect the page. Then User:Apokryltaros issued me a warning saying that I would be blocked for "using talk pages for inappropriate discussion". I posted about the incident on the Noticeboard and he deleted my section. Can you do something about this? Thanks 67.182.171.189 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Well if that's why you don't think it's a good idea, then fine, just say so. It isn't necessary to delete talk page discussions to advance your opinion. You gonna delete this too? Because this is on an administrator's talk page. It'll be noticed and you will get a vandalism warning. 67.182.171.189 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it is - there is an open report regarding an "Two editors warn at once" issue, but i believe that this issue is different. Thanks for mentioning it - i've just reported it on the feedback page. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
When you have a minute, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on HG3. I've tried it a couple of times and it seems faster than HG2 (as one would expect), but for me the absence of the History and Contribs graphical interface cripples it too much. —SMALLJIM21:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally i prefer Huggle 3 over Huggle 2 by a sizable margin. Huggle 3 is simply an order of magnitude faster for me - both in actual performance and in perceived performance. Ofttimes i would run into a situation in Huggle 2 where it was preloading 5 diffs only to time out downloading the diff it should display next (While newer reviews were already loaded). At other times it seemed that i could review edits faster than Huggle 2 could load diffs, which constantly caused small waits and pauses that were quite annoying for me. Since Huggle 3 preloads everything before placing it in the queue the perceived speed is a LOT better and that is definitely a huge plus as far as i am concerned.
As for the graphical interface: I barely even notice it is not present anymore. The page history tab displays the information i need: Previous edits, editor names, comments and size changes. On the other hand the User Info tab displays the previous edits of the user; The only thing it does not seem to display is the current warning level for the user though i suspect this is a bug rather than a missing feature. I am a bit curious though - what's lacking in Huggle3 as of current according to you? Or is the issue that the tabular presentation is less practical compared to Huggle2's interface? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've always liked HG2's graphical display 'cos it's vital (IMO) to know a user's recent editing history to decide the most appropriate action to take, and that display (and the warnings/blocks popup) shows that at a glance with easy access to view the previous diffs too. I think it's a great piece of design. If HG3 has the same info available in tabs then it's time for me to look at it again (it was a few revisions ago, and I don't remember seeing those tabs). Mind you, I don't suffer from the performance issues you describe with HG2 - it's been pretty quick for me tonight, and there's a definite rhythm to it which one gets used to. The other useful feature in HG2 that I don't think is carried forward (yet) is multiple page tabs - I run it with several pages open at once (7 tabs fit neatly) and the page's tab (usually) goes red when a new edit is made to it. That makes it easy to keep track of individual pages suffering from a spate of vandalism.
In the middle of editing you messaged me why i am deleting page. The reason being the correct name of church is NOT St John Maddermarket ( no such person exists) but to church of Saint John the Baptist, Maddermarket, Norwich. Okay ? Signing unsigned comment for user:Norwikian
If a page title is incorrect the page itself should be moved to the correct location - not blanked (Edit histories of pages should be preserved - and blanking a page will not delete it). I see in the logs you never moved a page around before so this help page on moving may be handy. If you need a hand with the move, just give me a nudge. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't panic I am not vandalizing anything. The page i am editing is wrongly named Saint John Maddermarket. No such person exists, i have left a re-direct on this wrong title to the correctly named page Church of Saint John the Baptist, Maddermarket, Norwich. Okay ??
Good evening Excirial, That was very kind of you. I appreciate your involvement, although most surprised to find you visiting my userpage. I trust all is well with you and yours. Still wondering what caused you to notice. Kind wishes, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gareth,
All is well with me, and i definitely hope the same same applies to you. I was busy patrolling for vandalism using Huggle 3's beta version which displayed a sizable text removal from a user page. Naturally it was an innocent edit, but then i noticed a familiar username and some leftover PHP code so i figured i'd stop by. The rest is my usual "I see some section bunching, a few clears will solve that" followed by "I see some edit count data that would likely look better in a table, lets just create a table while i am adding those clears". Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Now I just have to worry that I can add to your table at the end of January without messing it up! Thanks for your good wishes. You will remain as the person that gave me the encouragement to stick at this lark when I could have so easily walked away — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| —23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
About Frederick the Great reversions
Leaving you a message as instructed. I'm in the process of undoing the vandalism by 216.6.139.94 from a couple hours ago. I did the first one manually before realizing he had done a bunch. Using undo now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulsme (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Crap, just realized I just undid someone else fixing the vandalism instead of the original vandalism. Sorry. Will revert my own change and be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulsme (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries whatsoever - you were trying to fix vandalism and that is always a good thing to do. The easiest way to remove multiple edits in a row is to use rollback, though that requires a specific user permission (Rollback) to use. An alternative to actual rollback is using software that can emulate it - an example would be twinkle which offers a software version of the rollback functionality.
If neither catch your fancy, or if multiple editors edited the page in the meantime you can use the page history to restore an old version. In this case i simply loaded the "00:11, 21 January 2014 - Rebel Redcoat" version and saved it, thus removing all changes since that edit. Just be mindful that this option resets a page to an older version - all changes (Including good ones) are lost in the process. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I had reverted changes before, looked for the revert, only saw the undo, then got my left and right mixed up on the confirmation page, so thought I was removing things when I was actually adding them. I was going to do the Rebel Redcoat reversion as you ended up doing, but thought the undos would be easier. But then it turns out that user had both added and removed things. I was going to undo everything 216.6.139.94 had done, which would have gotten me back to the same state things are in now, but you caught me half way through, changing one of the edits where he had actually fixed something, and then you fixed everything before I did the copy and paste of the good version, which is what I should have done to begin with. Urgh. I am not a frequent editor, but I've been editing for many years, and this is the first time I have screwed something up. Although I guess if I had finished the five undos I had planned before you found it, it would have ended in the same place. Again, sorry for the mixup. I should have done each undo one by one and looked carefully at the change, rather than just saying "I'll undo all of these". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulsme (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Birthday
You have taken out my piece regarding Birth date and Born Date. You say something to the effect you do not think it is right. Unfortunately it is. and unless we get the word out the Governments will continue to deceive us. I put the word "corrupt" My son says it is not corrupt, but it is wicked, deceiptful and cruel what they have done and are still doing.
There is remedy and it is up to us to find it. The legal interpretation of the words they use as opposed to what we think they mean is unbelievable. You do need to get a handle on this.
What you will not allow thru is in fact, correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.79.197 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a grade twelve student talking here, I have noticed that my school's IP has been the source of many spam edits to wikipedia (and has recieved a surprising amount of warnings). If it's possible, you may wish to block this IP's ability to make edits entirely, as I do not believe this continuation of spam edits will stop.
207.195.80.128 (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I see you reverting vandalism around here a lot. And you've reverted vandalism on my userpage too. One good deed deserves another, so here's my good deed! K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have been asked to update the information on our school's page (Shattuck-St. Mary's School). I have attempted to do so several times and each time, the information is removed. I am confused as to how I can improve the information if it keeps being flagged, then removed? Please advise me. Thanks, Jesse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessewfortney (talk • contribs) 21:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jesse,
I think there are several issues i should comment on in this particular case. Since you're an employee or at least closely related to the Shattuck-St. Mary's School (To be fair: i already suspected this to be the case) you have a clear conflict of interest with the topic of the article. It is strongly discouraged (bordering not allowed in severity) to edit an article you have a conflict as interest with, as writing a neutral, encyclopedic article may be difficult or even near impossible when one has such. Just ask yourself: If the school would ever receive negative publicity, would you add this to the article? And if another editor would add a sourced section containing this criticism, would you delete it? Even if it is not intentional it often proves to be difficult to keep an article overall neutral in tone. Exceptions to the rule exist of course, but the added text is quite the polar opposite of expected article content.
Now, it might also help if i offer a few specific examples:
In this edit you added a large amount of external links to the article. External links should always go in a separate "External Links" section, and not in the main article body. That said, the sheer amount of added links amounts to link spamming; generally taken only the main website should be linked, and not every single subpage / subsite.
The other edit you made has similar issues. Try re-reading the added content yourself; If i were to place a copy of the Encyclopædia Britannica on the table and a Brochure made by the Shattuck-St. Mary's School and told you the content of the page was copied verbatim et literatim from either of those, which one would you choose as the most likely candidate?
The above is pretty much as rhetorical question but it should illustrate the issue with the edit. As opposed to being neutral in tone it is highly promotional in nature which is not allowed. In normal circumstances i can quote a few lines in an edit, but in this particular instance pretty much every single line suffers from this problem: recognized as a rich and engaging , SSM’s determination and drive , student-centered creative experiential learning and i can quote many, many more examples in the text.
Seeing these edits and the edits made by other accounts related to the school i would very strongly advice against editing the article, except for menial corrections such as typo's or factual errors (Locations, dates and so on). I hope this helps, and kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted page (vandalism)
Hello and I hope that this message finds you well, Excirial!
Although I am unaware of what intricacies may have lead to the deletion of the "Michael Todd (game developer)" page (19:25, 30 January 2014), I know that this is a page where a number of individuals in the game dev community are aiming to come together to contribute to this Wikipedia article. Without a doubt, we aim to maintain the integrity of both Wikipedia as a source of validated information and to reflect accurately and without bias for the person "Michael Todd" himself, even as we gradually add in stubs of information. (Some of us are also quite new at this. ^^) Please advise on how we might be able to contribute to the article's page in the future! Thank you for your attention and time in addressing this!
Have a look at the article's content. There are some... differences between the text below and a quality biographic article:
Michael Todd is a game developer. He created the game Electronic Super Joy, and also crowd-sourced entries to this page by leveraging social media. Seven feet tall he was, with arms like tree trunks. His eyes were like steel: cold, hard. Had a shock of hair, red, like the fires of Hell. He can also juggle oranges.
If you are serious about starting an article and just started out editing, i would suggest reading this page on starting an article as a primer. It is relatively short and should give you a basic feel as to what is required in an article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response! I'm not sure who did those original "troll" edits, but I am glad that it is something that we can address firmly. Thank you for pointing out the primer resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklightscraft (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm - just spotted this when you beat me to a revert. HG3 has issued two wrong warnings on this IP. If you're going to continue to use it you'd better persuade Petrb to fix it quickly! (Another one at User talk:216.126.81.34). —SMALLJIM20:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
AFCBuddy
Could you have AFCBuddy use dates that start year-first or which spell out the name of the month, even in HTML comments? This edit was a bit confusing because 1-2-2014 can mean either January 2, 2014 or 1 February 2014. Being from the "wrong" side of the pond I thought I'd fallen back in time about a month. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Marlfield House
Hello Excirial!
Thank you for taking time to review my edits of an article about Marlfield House. It appears that you have removed it due to "copyright violation"; however I was unable to establish such. Kindly advise of such violation and I will gladly resolve it but please do not not remove other content :) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7eventy7 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What needs to be done about the edit this page prior to my most recent edit? If the claim is true, then it should stay, as it ties the two accounts together. If the claim is false, it should be rev-deleted or the page deleted entirely, as it is malicious. The older account doesn't seem to have email enabled, so Ic can't just ask him. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
We re-read the welcome page, regarding advertising. We are more than happy to reword our site to show that it is an informational page and not a promotional page. Awareness of what it is, what it does, and just all the aspects of the material and process is what we were aiming to do. If this is still agains Wiki policy, please let me know and will adjust it accordingly to stay within compliance. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaailChris (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Chris,
Based on the page you created, your username and the usage of the terms "We" and "Our site" i think i can reasonably conclude you are a company employee or otherwise very closely related to the Xytek Plasticoat subject. Due to this you have a very clear conflict of interest with the topic of the article. It is strongly discouraged (bordering not allowed in severity) to edit an article you have a conflict as interest with, as writing a neutral, encyclopedic article may be difficult (The removed page demonstrated this).
The best advice i have to offer you is probably not the advice you wish to hear: I would advice against writing this page yourself as it is likely to be removed again in the future. Besides being a straight advertisement the page was also a copyright violation, and had no claim to notability and no sources that could back up its notability claim. Also, while Wikipedia has many article's on companies and products the vast majoritity of those are removed soon after creation due to the concerns i just mentioned. If you absolutely wish to write the page i can only advice reading the Business FAQ and the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and caution you that the effort is quite likely to be in vain. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
