The edits were done under your account, so please be sure to logout of the computer you are using. Also, place new comments at the bottom of talk pages and be sure to sign your posts. Srobak (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dance Therapy
I think you just undid my efforts to make a page adhere to Wikipedia standards. The American Dance Therapy Association, thegoverning body of dance therapy has a comprehensive list of dance therapists. The list on the Wikipedia page only includes one pioneer of dance therapy and then two people who I think are just self-promoting. The section should either have a link to the list from the American Dance Therapy Association or the heading "List of Dance Therapists" should not exist. It will encourage dance therapists to put themselves down on the list. 206.69.212.108 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary - the existing heading should be contributed to, or linked to a wiki list, not to an external, un-controlled resource. If users put themselves down, then they can be deal with under WP:COI. Srobak (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding and clarifying. The American Dance Therapy Association certifies dance therapists, so if anyone had the correct list, it would be them. Since this is not possible to put down, perhaps the heading is the problem. It should probably say "Famous Dance Therapists" because there hundreds of certified dance therapists. Would that be more appropriate? I just want the page to be accurate. If so, I am not sure that the people listed could stay on this list. One is a dead link, and the other woman seems to be promoting herself using wikipedia. 206.69.212.108 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo (F07)
Why did you tag this title and its talk page for A10 speedy deletion? Neither redirects nor talk pages may be A10 deleted, and they're quite useful as well. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Srobak. I received a message where you stated that I "added inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Army and Air Force Exchange Service; it is considered vandalism". Well, I don´t consider that is an "inappropiate" image so it is the current logo which has been recently updated as can seen on Exchange website [1] and others. What I did make wrong was to indicate that it was a copyrighted logo (as I supposed) instead of a public domain image.
I never had the intention of commiting vandalism so I have uploaded a lot of logos of different companies before (as well as many articles) and never received a warning about those images. But I´ll keep in mind anyway.
Regards, Fma12 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Limitation of the template. I forgot to alter the wording. However - you keep resizing to a variety of different sizes unnecessarily. Srobak (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I resized the logo once or twice, just because I had seen it unnecessarily big on the page (just an esthetic change). But this IS NOT an edition related to vandalism. Fma12 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, regarding this edit, could you please exaplain in detail how and from where the article is closely paraphrased? You shouldn't drop that tag on an article without explaining. Also, I have addressed your notability concerns on the talkpage, so would appreciate it if you could read that and remove the notability tag. Finally, what on earth made you tag it as a "new and unreviewed article"? --BelovedFreak09:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conduct that edit, however I did the one prior to that. Close paraphrasing from this and is self-explanatory. The article is new (13:43, February 6, 2011 Belovedfreak (talk | contribs) (2,221 bytes) (start article)) and has not been reviewed. I will check out the talk page shortly and followup there on the notability. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above referenced article about a boat builder based in the United States is located in Category:American boat builders, however, you reverted my edit and returned it to parent Category:Boats. Not arguing, but would sincerely appreciate an explanation for the exception being taken to Wikipedia/Categorization/Subcategorization/Diffusion. Thanks,Gjs238 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't understand. Generally speaking, if articles are not placed in the lowest level category applicable, then what is the function of categorization? Can you quote a Wiki policy to support what you are saying? Thanks,Gjs238 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Srobak, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization, which says in part in the "Categorizing pages" section Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. So looking at the article Chris-Craft, it is already in Category:American boat builders, which is itself in Category:Boat builders which in turn is in Category:Boats. The article is already in its most specific category (American boat builders) and so does not have to be in the parent (Boat builders) or grandparent (Boats) categories.Ruhrfisch><>°°20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to execute the same for the parent/child categories of Category:All articles with dead external links toCategory:Articles with dead external links from October 2010 and Category:Articles to be merged from February 2010 to Category:All articles to be merged, all of which the article is categorized in. Thanks.Srobak (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet your warning was placed 4 minutes before the vandalism was reverted. Are you also aware that "only" warnings are supposed to be restricted to serious vandalism? You are handing them out like candy. From example for[this obvious good faith edit] you handed out another lvl 4 warning. Yoenit (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" -then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day. Srobak (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listening to peoples' concerns about your vandalism warnings at ANI and accepting the problem, I was impressed by your response once you understood what you'd done wrong - I hope it doesn't now descend into a big fight.
I hope in the future you'll remember to assume good faith more from newbies and IPs. For the ones who aren't being willfully destructive, a friendly note explaining how to improve generally helps change their behaviour better than an automated warning. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best advice I can give you...
...respond to ANI. But very slowly. Give it 12 hours at least between replies. And if no one else contributes to the thread, don't say anything at all. Otherwise this is going to end badly. Egg Centric (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
appreciate the feedback egg, but I am curious - very often I see action taken out of ANI well under 12 hours from original complaint, and often without the person targeted being able to put in any sort of response. I'm not the type to just "let what happens happen"... while some things have certainly been pointed out to me about my use of vandl templates that I need to re-evaluate - the pigeon-holing and borderline witch-hunt it has turned into isn't something I can just up and ignore and let action be taken against when I feel I have a very sound reason for things. How can I just sit there and let that happen without at least trying to show the justification/reasoning for what's going on? A couple people seem hellbent on revoking my abilities, or intent on vilifying my efforts because of a couple of isolated incidents stemming from frusteration (which I have owned up to, less the templating the regulars bit), and ignoring the positive impact I have tried to keep on the quality of the articles. If that's how they want it - not much I can do about it is there? I'm not to just roll over and die - but if the end results are going to be "bad" as you say... then I will simply walk away from it all. I don't know how to do things half-way. I'm either here to improve the quality of the articles and keep the vandals at bay - or I'm out. It's not worth the stress and other associated bullshit otherwise. Srobak (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing - you can do something. You don't have to accept their complaints have any merit; you merely have to profess to them that you will do what you were going to anyway; just in the way that they want to hear. It is social niceties garbage, but it doesn't make you a liar or someone giving up on your principles to say things how they want to hear it - you need to think of it as a different language, basically. Translate hard facts to fuzzy feelings... — Precedingunsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk •contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See - that's not me though. I do not do fuzzy. I do very, crystal clear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. THere's no reading between the lines, and I do not know how to... "pad" things for the benefit of others. Even if I did know how - it isn't who I am, and I wouldn't be able to do that in good faith. Hence why I would rather just 'walk away'... if I can't be true to myself and my principles - then there isn't a point. It's not being a diva, as Belean suggested... it's being me. I don't do things half way - I'm in 110%, or I'm not in at all. Maybe it will be my undoing here - if so... so be it. Part of the price, I guess. Srobak (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
re: Musician template image formatting
The 220 note is standard and is intended for uploads whose pixel width is less than that number. IE, if someone uploads a portrait that is only 100px wide. And then adds it to the template...WITHOUT specifying that the width is only 100px....then the template will default the pic to 220 and the result will be a low quality grainy image. That is for "portrait" format only. For all landscape (or wide) formatted images....the field for landscape must be set to yes and the image width set to250. Otherwise the result will be a box that is WAY too wide. The IP edit setting the Clapton image width to 250 was valid as it was setting the image to the proper width for landscape images. All musician templates which contain a wide format image should be corrected to the values found in the Clapton template for consistency. So if you notice any super-wide musician infoboxes....they aren't formatted properly and should be corrected. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw that you reverted some of my recent edits to The O.C. page. I've brought up the reasoning for my editshere. Your opinion would be very much appreciated to get the dialogue started. Ryanlively (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheJiggySaw
Hello, I've declined your nomination of the above page because it doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria you specified.
WP:U1 - I don't see where the user blanked or otherwise requested the page be deleted
WP:G1 - As another admin pointed out a couple of years ago, it is poorly written, but not WP:NONSENSE
WP:G5 - the user was blocked after the page was created
Please be more careful with your tagging, and I'm not sure that you're going to get the expected result from this sort ofshotgun tagging, anyway. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The U1 was an error on my part. While it is a registered account - it is a blocked account - in essence a dormant/banned one. There is a very, very fine line between poorly written and nonsense. As absolutely nothing of substance has ever been added and likely never will over the inane rambling that is present on it - I'd contest it leans more towards the nonsense side. When it was blocked is not of any real consequence - especially to the (lack of) content. The fact that it was blocked - apparently permanently - gives all the more reason whack it. Just my $.02, and I urge reconsideration, or at least field it out for consensus. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U2 can be used for userpages for which there is no corresponding user, but while this user is indef blocked, it is an existing account. It may be reasonable to call the contents of that page nonsense, it isn't nonsense as defined by our guidelines. And G5 applies to pages created by blocked or banned users in violation of their ban or block, which is clearly not the case here as the page was created months before the block.
Hi. I'm sort of confused by your revert of my contribution to the Beats by Dre page.
I edited in the "product placement", stating that Beats by Dre appeared on American Idol numerous times.
Isn't that what product placement is? The placement of a product in a situation? Please advise. Thank you.
Soyseth (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The continued, exhaustive, listing of every.single.instance.beats.products.appear.and.who.with not only borders on being promotional, but also serves no genuine encyclopedic purpose or value. Please see the talk page. Srobak (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or on the article's talk page.
Listen, I don't know what happened or where you came from, but Luke Vibert has elements of acid jazz written all over his work. Even down to the trip-hop elements. I see that you have a history of being controversial, so let's just leave it that. Don't revert my edit! Lighthead (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where I came from or what happened (eh?) has nothing to do with your DFE. There are elements of Mozart in Garth Brooks - that does not get a country artist labeled as classical or orchestra nor does it get Mozart labeled as country. It doesn't take a genius - or even your un-trained ear - to figure out the genre of music. Hell - jazz isn't mentioned in his WP page even once, let alone being a genre class his music represents. The similarities between acid house and acid jazz are less than Garth and Mozart. Your boy has the acid part - but I am fairly familiar with is work... and acid jazz it certainly is not. Sorry, but you will have to do more to substantiate it than what you have nothing). For starters - you can list that genre on his page and make references within the article to tracks which would classify as acid jazz. Once the other editors of that page see you do that however, I think we both know what will happen. Let's leave what as that? What does that have to do with your DFE? Some people don't understand the difference between being controversial and being factual. That's their problem - not mine. Oh - and you're not the boss of me. :P :P :P :P Oh - and you are being marked for false-flagging of vandal. Srobak(talk) 05:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just ask you; if I told you I found a reference backing up my claim that he's acid jazz, would you undo my revision of Acid Jazz? Bravo!Alfa!Papa! 17:09 24, June 2011
Tell me the truth, when you hear Lover's Acid you don't hear any overt style of jazz and especially trip-hop? Let's forget about acid, because as is obvious in the term acid jazz, acid just means electronic. Forget about what his Wikipedia article says. I might edit that later. And what does DFE stand for, I've never seen that (I looked it up, I couldn't find it).Lightheadþ 17:40 24, June 2011
I'll take another listen tonight, but from recollection - no. That being said - acid != electronic. If that is the perception you have, then your entire perspective on music genres is severely skewed. DFE - deliberate factual error. Move this discussion to Talk:Luke_VibertSrobak (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what acid generally means, it means analogue in most genres. But in the term "acid jazz" it means electronic. Or you tell me.. At least that's what I gather; there's nothing analogue about most acid jazz. Lightheadþ 19:10, 24 June 2011
I'd have to disagree with that assessment. Take a listen to these 3 tracks by some of the pioneers of AJ:Groove Collective, Brooklyn Funk Essentials and Liquid Soul. Aside from some accenting turntable work and an occasionally sampled stab - the only thing electronic about it are the amps and post-production gear during mixdown. Historically, AJ hasn't necessarily meant acid in the traditional interpretation - or at least what it meant up to the advent of AJ. This is part of what made AJ so avant garde as it was anything but what was typical for its respective namesakes. At least that is my take on it from watching it during its birth :) Srobak (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that Acid jazz is acid in the same way that acid rock is acid. That sounds true. But take a listen toLover's Acid, there is a strong trip-hop and avant garde jazz feel. Okay, so clarify for me, what separates acid jazz from what is obviously avant garde jazz such as John Coltrane (ex. Love Supreme)? See! Now we're having a good discussion! What I seriously don't know is where you're getting house from. Much more trip-hop than house. And at the risk of repeating myself, very much a jazz feel. As for your previous mention that acid jazz isn't even mentioned once in his article, you and I well know that a lot of articles here on Wikipedia are far from perfect; his article in particular has issues as well. Lightheadþ20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warning abuse
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User_talk:Dimaspivak has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of awarning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Looking at your talk page, it is clear that you have been warned in the past against abusing warning templates. As I was clearly not vandalizing your page, your use of it once again constitutes continued misuse of said template. Please attempt to engage in civil discourse in the future before simply trying to intimidate editors with whom you have a disagreement. If you need a refresher on what constitutes actual vandalism, please read WP:VAND.Dimaspivak (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No recent warnings have been issued to you, least of all by me. The valid, appropriate warning issued 4 days ago for your vandalism to my page was reverted by you also 4 days ago, and that is the last edit which occurred to your page. Your attempt to come back at it today is not only excessively delayed, but is also un-founded and if that is what you are referring to then this wouldn't be the first time you have been referenced as Johnny come lately. Your reversion of an edit which I made to my own talk page does indeed constitute vandalism, and it also violates WP:TPO. As a registered user, you know better than to alter talk page edits made by the owner of the talk page. Anyhow, your conduct is now bordering on WP:HARASSMENT, and if you continue down this path any further your account will be sanctioned. It would be in your best interest to move along, as I did 4 days ago. No response by you is wanted or necessary, but your compliance is. See to it. Srobak (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglestorm Edit War
Thank you. I was very angry at the time, and I'm sorry if I sounded like a jerk in my response to Eaglestorm on his talk page. I will reconsider giving up. I'm very inexperienced here, and I've screwed up a lot. Thanks for your reply.
Stevie011 (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BLANKING, the prohibition against removal of declined block notices only holds as long as the block is active. Once it's expired, the user is free to dispose of notices. Favonian (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just happened to see your post before I logged out. Should all be sorted now anyway; Ferrariman1954 and Wikipedia have parted company. EyeSerenetalk18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand what your problem with my addition to the Adidas page was. I simply stated the facr, as neutrally as I could, that they had been criticised by Greenpeace, a story that ran widely in the international press. In fact, I linked to an article in the British Telegraph, though there are myriad other respectable news outlets on all sides that reported. You also say 'We've been over this before' though I'm not aware of having any edits reverted by you. Perhaps I missed it?
Also, you changed my edit to the possessive of Adidas. Because Adidas is the name of the company - a proper, singular noun - the correct possessive form is 'Adidas's'. Surely there are neutrality issues with grammar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshstride (talk •contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will fix the possessive form. The Adidas article has been run through the Greenpeace hurdle before, was reverted, the propagandizing editor persisted to push his agenda there and elsewhere and was subsequently banned. You can look through the recent article history for neutrality violations. WP is WP:NOT a platform to pursue WP:AGENDAs, stand on WP:SOAPboxes or to WP:PROMOte civil/environmental/political positions. GP is also not considered a WP:RS and thereby referencing it becomes an issue. At worst, a brief mention of your sourced article is warranted in the Greenpeace article, but it is certainly not beneficial to WP to have it attributed to multiple pages as it is obviously propagandizing in nature at that point. Your other, recent edits are also being reviewed to confirm WP:AGENDA. Here at WP you need to contribute withWP:NEUTRALITY, not grandstanding. Srobak (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
T. Rafael Cimino deletion discussion
Hi. I'm the person who started the Afd for T. Rafael Cimino, and am glad to see participation in the potential removal of an incorrect page that has polluted Wikipedia for about four years. I hope you understand, but I've removed some of your comments per WP:AFDEQ, as they are unsourced negative comments about a living person. I'm as anxious as anyone to see this Afd resolved, but we should keep our discussion limited to the claims made in the article, and whether or not they can be substantiated. And as you're probably aware, with or without those comments, it pretty much looks like this article will be deleted. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, but the only way it would affect the outcome of this particular AfD would be as a keep argument (of course, with major rewriting to remove all the false info). That is, if the sources were reliable and the coverage were substantial. My opinion is to let the AfD run its course without the extraneous stuff. Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So noted. One thing I found interesting is that his Azon bio cites WP as it's content source - yet Azon is being used as a ref for WP. LOLz for circularity. Srobak (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a mess. But I especially enjoy the Editorial Review of Mid Ocean, where George Jung is quoted as saying: "Cimino nails it slap dash!". I'm not sure they know what "slap dash" means. Then again, maybe they do. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MAJOR problems with COI and article fornat, style, and sourcing. I do believe that, poor as its current state is, the article can be fixed to show meeting of GNG and ENT, and as it is currently written, the problems would take several days (part-time editing) to rectify. As no one else has opined for delete, and it cannot be userfied to its COI author, I request that the AFD be closed early and the darn thing moved to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Del Zamora. I will check back with you once it has been brought into line with existing policy for BLPs, and will urge the author to observe its step-by-step inmprovement as a learning exercize. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into a debate with you about it. The item is not listed on the official website anywhere. Your reference formatting does not follow WP:MOS. Even if it did - Youtube is not a WP:RS, and the context of the mockumentary is of no encyclopedic value to the article. Srobak (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my changes to the Eric Clapton article...
Anyway, all bickering aside, isn't the rule on overlinking that there shouldn't be two of the same links within the same screen? Not the same article. Because someone might, for instance, go directly to the Legacy section and want a quick link to SRV, but not have that handy link to click. Do you see? Vranak (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OVERLINK - it refers to "page" - meaning article/web page. To that effect - the page is already a Sea Of Blue... no point in adding to it with redundant links.Srobak (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OWNTALK - users may remove comments from their own talk pages. As the IP in question is a confirmed, dynamic, anonip - it thereby has no owner and is used by different people on a daily if not hourly basis. With how much negative and repeated block history there is associated with that IP already - it should obviously be restricted so only registered users from that IP are allowed to edit. Srobak (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in WP:OWNTALK that even includes the word IP. The IP is allowed to delete the comments; it does not bias against IP addresses. So give me Gfoley4 here actual proof that says dynamic IPs cannot remove a warning from their own talk page, please. Thanks.
It doesn't have to. Static IP's have individual owners - confirmed, dynamic IP's do not and are frequently re-assigned. The IP in question is a confirmed, dynamic IP from an ISP. Connect the dots. Srobak (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. Your warning to me on my talkpage seemed to end in a threat. I would believe that is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS, or more specifically, this line in WP:NPA#WHATIS:
Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.
What are you babbling about? You have been warned TWICE in the span of a couple hours for violations of WP:TPO - of which you committed 3. The "threat" was informing you that if you violate WP:TPO again I will WP:ANI you - having not a damn thing to do with any of that other nonsense you are trying to quote in effort to substantiate your action. Srobak (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - that's rich - coming from a person who constantly violates WP:TPO. Owners can remove comments on their ownpages... dynamic IP's do not have owners. Srobak (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a hysterical that someone who repeatedly violates WP:TPO has the [audacity] to stomp around, preaching, rules are rules. Learn to follow them, then start worrying about others, k? The ISP did not make the post, and the random users from the IP do not own the page. You are finished discussing this with me. Srobak (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he restored your WP:TPO edit 1, which was then reverted by another user2. That being said - you are to stop darkening my userpage now. You have nothing more of value to say. Srobak (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of WP:BLANKING is incorrect. Until fairly recently, anons could even remove active block notices if they so desired. No distinction is made whether the IP is static or dynamic or whatever. Please desist.--Bongwarrior (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will - however I will also be bringing it as a TFD, cause you and I both know that's a bunch of crap. In addition - you do realize that with your reversions here and here, that you are actually allowing and endorsingWP:TPO[5], right? AnonIP never reverted that edit - 3rd party LikeLakers2 did, violating WP:TPO. Srobak (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a closer look - because that is a completely different, and un-related warning, which the anonipNEVER reverted. I cited everything above, so please look at them closely. You are still allowing and endorsingWP:TPO by LikeLakers2. As an admin it is prudent that you observe the details, such as the fact that the anon was combing through my edits to try and rally registered users to lodge complaints against me on his behalf, constituting WP:HARASSMENT -hardly something "trivial" - which is what that warning was for. Srobak (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I failed to notice that there were two separate warnings. I apologize for the oversight. That said, neither incident warranted a level four warning. The first was a plausible (although unsourced) addition, and I'm having a very hard time seeing the second one as harassment. If anything, the IP probably feels a little harassed. In many ways, overzealous vandal patrolling can be a greater detriment to the project than the vandalism itself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think an anonuser combing through edits and contacting users who were warned in the past and lobbying them to lodge complaints against the warning user to be the very epitome of harassment or a personal attack? I think a look at the anonip's warn and block history will reveal more where the detriment is. I'd be really disappointed if you disagreed with that.Srobak (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewording "Kamikaze"
I request that the word Kamikaze in the plot of Space Battleship Yamato (2010 film) be reworded into something else. Many Japanese friends of mine have seen that and are offended by it. Please simply change the wording.67.183.156.150 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted thisedit you made to the article as the cited reference confirms the statement made in Kumwat's addition. I will also be shortly removing the vandalism warning you placed on that user's talkpage. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the entire article, twice. Nothing in there states they are dating or otherwise involved other than for the interview. The fact that it says they played golf once is inconsequential. I noted this in the edit summary. Please read for fact and effect. Also note that he was not issued vandalism warnings, he was issued WP:OR warnings, which includes incorrect conclusions and synapses derived from referenced articles, which he has done in this instance. Thanks Srobak(talk) 19:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll use quotes from the article: "She politely declined to answer questions about the 55-year-old pop star Phil Collins and the spring romance that has extended her fame beyond the local-news broadcast radius.", The two hit it off and began dating—quietly, until she brought him for a tour through the WCBS newsroom on June 20 and word leaked to Page Six. When the story broke, Dave Kaylor, Ms. Tyler’s former co-anchor in Ohio, sent her a congratulatory e-mail. As usual, she responded promptly: “It’s been a very unusual day. Thanks for your kind thoughts.”.... I can't see how that can be misinterpreted. I've found a newspaper reference though which can perhaps back it up.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that statement - which was essentially refuted earlier in the article by the interviewee herself (from same article:She politely declined to answer questions about the 55-year-old pop star Phil Collins and the spring romance that has extended her fame beyond the local-news broadcast radius. “I interviewed him as part of the Tarzan press junket,” she said, “and I don’t want to talk about my personal life.”) - is sufficient to support the claim, then while I disagree with it I am not going to get into an endless debate about it. I would think it prudent however to cite the individuals themselves, their PR reps and/or other WP:RS. Anything short of that is best-guess/speculation by the reporting agency and conjecture.Srobak (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as the New York Observer's journalist is explicitly stating the relationship and there's been 5 years in which they could have been ordered to take down an untrue piece, I don't think it's unreasonable as a source but I certainly take your point as far as a direct quote being preferable. I've found a broadsheet article in which Collins directly refers to Tyler as his girlfriend (and dismissed talk of marriage) and is dated 2010 so I'll try and work that in as a more up-to-date proof.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak21:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note
Talk pages are not to be used to complain about other editors, and your comments at User talk:Colofac were not acceptable. If you have an issue, then WP:ANI or the dispute resolution process are the proper forums, not a blocked user's talk page, and insinuations that a third editor will be "dealt with". Courcelles19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried ANI, as did the blocked user in question. It got nowhere because some admins are more interested in harboring, protecting, placating to and enabling disruptive editors than dealing with them and stopping the downhill slide of wiki-cesspool. That will stop - one way or another. As for the terminology - I did not say it, so your words to that regard are falling on deaf ears. Please direct your energy to the appropriate party. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are (still) not paying attention. This has nothing to do with LikeLakers. It never did. See your page, and continue the discussion there. And try paying attention this time. Srobak (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for bringing your attention to this disruptive user. I'm almost certain that this person is deliberately trying to be annoying (as they ignore eveything said to them), but I'm hoping that your message will discourage any further incidents. -- James26 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. It's nice to see the efforts are appreciated by someone. There are a few admins who could stand taking note of that. We really must bring this place back under some sane control. Srobak (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and undid my edit because I'd noted that. Still, I appreciate the advice. The warnings are still in that person's edit history, so things are good. -- James26 (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Colofac
Please provide a good explanation as to why you placed a FORUM message on this talk page. Talking about how a user can acquire better people skills is entirely on topic and relevant to their current block. I'm inclined to remove your comment as unhelpful and disruptive. Viriditas (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the discussion is WP:PUFFERY, is laced with commentary and innuendos, and comes across as though the people involved are only interested in hearing themselves talk. That being said - there are certainly valid portions within the conversation... however, a few people trying to figure out how to best enact & implement process/procedure/desired outcomes & behaviour modifications for WP users en masse certainly does not belong on a individual user talk page - nevermind a blocked one. There already exist numerous fora and other resources in adminspace and RFCs where there are entire studies on implementations and the overall shaping of WP. You talk to people if you want to be taken halfway seriously and respectfully, not at them- something for you to consider. This conversation is complete. You no longer have anything of substance to add here... so don't. Srobak (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't thank you enough
I can't say thanks enough for the support you provided on my talkpage during my block. It is a shame that it descended into an opportunity for other users to grave dance but you were there defending me. Thanks again :) Colofac (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... of course those voiced against took it upon themselves tostir some shit about something that didn't apply in order to deflect attention from their own abusive acts. As you can see by reading the thread - they are clearly, deliberately ignoring and altering the actual issue. Oh well... more fuel for the fire that is rapidly spreading offline. Get me your contact info and I will link to the site where efforts are moving forward to get this sort of thing dealt with. Srobak (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the ones you did. Both were with respect to specific WP users being targeted, and none were - in either case. Believe me, I agree with the spirit of what you were gunning for - but it wasn't accurate. Unfortunately - there isn't a policy which covers it, despite what Only claims. Srobak (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an entity, however. Instead of having this parallel discussion here, we can continue it on the ANI instead. I really hate having to repeat myself. Srobak (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OVERLINK it is, as SBTB is already linked in the first mentioning in the article. I also removed your warning on my page, as I did not add any links to the article. Srobak (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Srobak (talk), Please make actual tangible edits --, like the ref [4] is a dead link, but you don't make that correct, instead you revert me--, instead of reverting for a high edit count!
Since you are focusing on overlinking, all the Carrie HeffernanDoug HeffernanThe King Of Queens are clickable, yet you arent making them unclickable! Instead you are focusing on Saved by the Bell. SBTB is mentioned 2 times in the article.
Carrie Heffernan is in the article 2x, and both times clickable.
Doug Heffernan is the article 2x, both times clickable.
The King Of Queens is in the article 5x(not including filmography table) and it is clickable 4x.
So I dont think that Saved by the Bell in the intro & early life sections is overlinking. It is just 2x in the whole entire article.173.79.59.83 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will clean up all the overlinks. You need read WP:TPO - of course after you read WP:LINK. As an aside - in response to your edit comment for your most recent addition to my page - do not tell my why I make the edits I do. You do not get to make that decision. Srobak (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the thing. THERE ARENT OVERLINKS. The links of SBTB, KOQ, Heffernans are all ok.
Are you reading /understanding properly ?I didnt tell you why you make the edits you do.
Lastly, I didnt edit your page. I didnt do anything to any other comments on your page. I posted a response to you, is that what you mean ? YOU need to to read WP:BLANKING bc I am following the rules. 173.79.59.83(talk) 18:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are overlinks. You need to read the links above and comprehend what is written there for policy. I am not going to spell it out for you - the responsibility for understanding policy is yours to be had. Yes, you did tell me why I am making the edits I do in your edit comment... I shall quote it for you: "please make actual tangible edits, like the dead link that is [4] instead of rverting for a high edit count!". I have added emphasis for your benefit. You did violateWP:TPO and WP:BLANKING by restoring material on MY talk page which I had deleted in the first part ofthis edit. Don't do that. If you have questions, read the links mentioned in the warning on your talk page.Srobak (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article isnt overlinked.
1) When I wrote 'please make tangible', it isnt me telling you why you are making edits. I'm not in your head. I wrote that out of frustration as I see other things in the article, so I dont get why you are on my back for 1 edit. If you took it as an accusation then perhaps it was wrong of me to accuse of you trying for a high edit count. I dont know you to know if that is your mantra however there are many like that on here.
2) I copied what was on my page into the section here on your page for it to be a conversation so all I did was paste on here what you wrote on my page. That is wrong? To put everything together? about WP:BLANKING I thought you were saying to not blank my page after I responded to you. That is allowed. It makes sense for the coversation to be in 1 place right?
3) This here makes sense. PERCEPTION is everything. I did feel like you were coming after me, when now you share that you watch WP:PATROLS.173.79.59.83 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quickly exhausting my patience. As such - this will be the last bit regarding it here. If you still cannot understand or insist on disagreeing - you will take it to the article talk page where other editors can deal with you.
The article was overlinked. By your request, a 3rd party editor has affirmed this. You have either failed to read or understand WP:OVERLINK. This is on you. As you already WP:3RR'ed prior to his affirmation - you really need to consider your next action (if any) in response.
I was not referring to the tangibility portion of the edit comment. I emphasized the portion I was referring to. I could give a rip less as to my "high edit count". The reality is that it is quite low. I have already explained why your edit stuck out to me, and once you pointed out the other overlinks within the article - I advised I would take care of it as well and did so.
What makes the most sense is instead of moving things around between talk pages just to "keep it all together", would be to have the discussion in the place where what you were moving was at originally. Either way - I removed it from my page (as it actually looked like you were issuing a baseless warn to me) as per WP:BLANKING (for me), and then restored it (already linked that edit above), violating WP:TPO for my page. Why am I addressing this yet again? I really hate having to repeat myself. The questions you have and clarifications you seek have already been provided, however you have to read and understand it.
With that - this issue has drawn to a close. Please bring up any further misunderstandings on talk:Leah Remini - and it would be prudent to do so prior to continuing down that edit path. One further note - you should WP:REGISTER.
Edit warring
I asked for an impartial/neutral editor to look at the page. Didnt you see where I asked? But no you want to make threats. so you too are warned. 173.79.59.83 (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it - but the edit you conducted under the guise of "asking" was a WP:3RR. No threats were made - you received template warning messages in response to your improper edits, as per WP:USETEMP. I'm sorry you don't like this - most people do not, and it is understandable. However - there is a very easy remedy. Please advise what you are warning with regards to, and post an appropriate warning. Srobak (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this discussion for a little while now. I would just like to suggest to the IP user not to regard this as abattle. All of us are trying to improve Wikipedia, so please assume good faith when you disagree with another's edits. Instead of warning people back when they warn you, try to discuss the problem. You have been told a number of times to read WP:OVERLINK, which clearly states that a term should be linked when it is first mentioned and then not again. Srobak has been patiently trying to explain this to you; I advice you heed his advice. ItsZippy(talk • contributions)19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not force to hate Wikipedia because of you! I did not vandalize any article. I just added lost column, which is the soundtrack and with citation and references not as you mentioned.
You need to read your talk page and look at the diffs in the articles in question. You also need to stop testing in live articles. See the talk page comments and all links provided in them. Srobak (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Do not modify it.
I don't understand
I "created a hoax"? All I did was follow the rules! The guy was vandalizing, I warned him, he continued, so I reported him. I don't understand the problem here. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. See my response to your post on his page and on the faux AIV you initiated. We can continue the discussion on either of those. Srobak (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the invite Sp33dyphil, I will be taking a look at it this coming week. It would be cool to be a part of the project and contribute my military background and experience. Thanks again! :) Srobak (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I cannot agree with the conclusion you have drawn from the Oxford Dictionary. If I might cite the passage in question:
Personal names that end in –s
With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.
I would suggest that "Wells's novels" follows exactly the same rule as does "Dickens's novels," since the s is not pronounced separately (see "Bridges" below).
Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:
St Thomas’ Hospital
That, of course, does not apply in this case.
If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.
With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:
The court dismissed Bridges' appeal.Connors' finest performance was in 1991.
The last rule is invoked when the addition in speech of a possessive s would result in inelegant pronunciations such as "Bridges's" or "Connors's." That is a separately pronounced s. The s is omitted in speech and therefore not written. I hope you will agree that it does not apply in the case of Dickens or Wells.
I think it may be a little harsh to give that IP an 'only warning' for every vandalism made. A level 1 warning for the 1st vandalism, and then a level 2 for the second if he continues and so on. Just a kind suggestion. Anyway, I reported that IP already. Cheers. GrayFullbuster (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a closer look at their warn and edit history. This is nowhere near their first warning nor their first act of vandalism. This IP should have been blocked ages ago. Srobak (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mars Williams
Srobak, I see now that I interpreted the Mars Williams ref incorrectly. The thing that threw me, I think, was the original description (in the Wikipedia article) of him "training" as a classical clarinettist, a description one doesn't usually use for a child who was about seven when he started. So I incorrectly assumed that he trained on the clarinet after he was an adult. Now that I've read the ref more closely, I've changed the article to say that he played classical clarinet for ten years, then switched to the saxophone his senior year of high school. Hopefully, we can agree on the new wording. -AlanUS(talk) 04:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit baffled about the messages you left on my talk page -- the edit I reverted was a bot edit, and the bot edit didn't add a person to the Snowmobile article, so I don't qute understand the rationale behind your messages. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
