This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wayne Slam. 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.
Reply
Hello Wayne Slam/Archives/2010/November, You left a message on my talk page:
Also if a user or IP address vandalizes my user talk page, will you please revert it?
My reply:
will do :) althought yesterday Huggle went funny and only showed the top lines of pages =/
If you can not see your message anymore, I have probally archived it.
My sincerest apologies for any misunderstanding. I am new to Wikipedia & understood that I could offer valid information to the site.
Please help me understand what I did wrong. Others on this site have interesting information that also leads to blog pages or other content that complements it. Thank you very much for your kind response. Know that I will honestly & fully abide by Wikipedia's rules. Architect7
Trying to respond again, I wrote:
Hi Dabomb87, I appreciate your help. 1) I do understand that. I've done a full review of the Policies, and 2) I will herein describe my useful edits: The updates were to describe a type of Walking Cane not listed in the Assistive cane article, but is prevalent. These are canes made from wood and it's many forms, all listed with interesting articles in Wikipedia. How can I write this short addition in order to fit the guidelines precisely? Also, I submitted the wrong supporting URL. The correct one is Why-To-Choose-A-Wooden-Walking-Stick written by a third party from a respected web site called About.com. Does this informational URL better fit the guidelines? Grateful for your help, Architect7.
Your edits were spam links as well as unreferenced edits. You use the sandbox and click edit on the top of the screen and then when you make an edit, click preview and it'll show yours edits before it's saved. Wayne Olajuwonchat00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Wayne Olajuwon. I am just letting you know that I deleted Daniel J Smith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wayne, I am the one attempting to edit the North American Lutheran church's Discussion page. I am the one who wrote the comments I am attempting to delete because they ALL refer to the older article which no longer exits and my discussion comments no longer relate to the current article or the content that has been listed, which corrects the previous article. That is why I wish to delete them. You should note that what I wrote refers to specific content in specific paragraphs which no longer exist. Therefore I wish to delete all my discussion, which would also render your later comment mute as well. You apparently did not see the replys from the original poster, and I see they removed their comments from the discussion, so I would like to remove mine too. If you can do this for me, rather than restoring them, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Rodney Lilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.47.130 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Who is this guy who keeps adding garbage about time travel and nuclear reactors in the Midsummer's Night's Dream entry? Any way to block his IP?
wheatdogg (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, again! Since you are fine with creating the new newsletters, after the next one, please change it to the second volume. Or do you think it would be better to wait until the time of the year that the first one came out. (June to August, I think) Also, you can reply here, as of I added your talk page to my watchlist. Nascar1996 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No, in July I referbished it so the project will be ready for future editors, and good ones at that. Also, since all of the vandalism, you may consider talking to an admin for semi protectection. You can also create another talk page for them. Nascar1996 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry because I thought you was talking about WP:NASCAR but my user talk page was semi-protected once by Tide rolls on 28 October 2010 at 00:07 (UTC) time. Should it be semi-protected again? Also, will you put my name on this edit? Wayne Olajuwonchat22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll wait until the vandalism picks up on my user talk page again. Thanks! Also, I'll keep creating the newsletters as well as creating the talk pages for the new NASCAR-related articles while you keep editing each race doing what you're currently doing is by adding the race results, race winner, etc and Airplaneman can protect the pages. Do you think this plan will work? Wayne Olajuwonchat22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Its the last race of the season. After that I'll probably will try to reach each of this seasons race articles to GA form. Maybe some FAs too. Nascar1996 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool, but if there's an IP address that put something unsourced, I will revert it because Huggle doesn't mention it unless if somebody's vandalizing it. I will also continue to fight vandalism on Huggle when I'm not editing a NASCAR-related article but how do assess a talk page? Wayne Olajuwonchat23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Your signature looks nice anyway! Are you still working on the NASCAR articles? Do you think you won't always be working on NASCAR articles? WAYNEOLAJUWON02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Once the season is done, I may start doing more automated edits, such as using AWB and / or Huggle. However, I will continue to edit NASCAR articles probably until I retire sometime in the future. It also depends what happens in the races, if my favorite driver does't do well, I may not edit because I have a bit of a temper sometimes. In otherwords, that is a completely different story. I will edit the season article, and I'm also working on imporving P:NASCAR to FP status. Nascar1996 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I know if Jimmie Johnson struggles, you may not have to edit or use Huggle more if you want. What are you going to do when your favorite driver retires from NASCAR? WAYNEOLAJUWON02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends what happens in real life if I leave or not. I'm not planning to retire anytime soon. Once I get a job, and a family I may, but that is still some time away. (10+ years) Nascar1996 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I probably am, that date above is for like permanet jobs and stuff. I would like to be an admin, but not right now. I'm not ready. Nascar1996 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wayne. You may not have realized this, but with
this edit you removed our ability to template people for removing speedy delete templates from pages in main namespace that they have created. With this edit, I restored it … at least I think I did …
As I understand it, no one other than the people who maintain, compile, and release the Huggle software are supposed to change either the project config or the global config. We are only supposed to change our own personal config files (yours is at User:Wayne Olajuwon/huggle.css). Thanks! — SpikeToronto05:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Damn! He should never have removed those. I know he developed and has maintained the program, but I think he needs to take a step away from Huggle for awhile and let Sidonuke maintain it. He should never have removed those templates unilaterally like that. We Hugglers have to be consistent with the structure that starts with {{Uw-speedy1}}. Removing those templates from Huggle means having to manually template the offenders. The whole point of Huggle is that, once we decide to revert, the program takes care of the templating. This introduces an unusual requirement inconsistent with the rest of Huggle’s operation. Damn! I think we need to keep that page watchlisted and object to any such changes in the future. In the meantime, I reverted him with this edit. Now let’s see the sh*t hit the fan! I’m sorry I thought you were the one that made it inoperable. Thanks for the explanation. — SpikeToronto19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, I declined[1] your WP:AIV block request for this editor.[2][3][4] Mountaineer1976's edits did not appear to be a classic case of blatant vandalism. I see this guy has created 3 decent-looking articles; if you disagree with their creation, I suggest you pursue the appropriate deletion venues.
I'll also note that this person did not have enough warnings to justify blocking as of the time of your report.[5] You reminded me a few hours ago that we don't template the regulars. We don't block them without sufficient warning, either. --A. B.(talk • contribs)19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw the back-and-forth with this, and tried to dialogue with this user via their talk page regarding it -- but have so far been unsuccessful. For what it's worth, it looks like the article did get speedily deleted and the user re-created it after that, and it hasn't been tagged again (yet). -KGasso (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey,
You keep flagging me up for vandalizing the 'Quiff' page and I was wondering why, I have a feeling I'll be banned if it happens again.
I noticed there was a post saying Jedwood were popular quiff wearers, so I thought I'd also mention Mark Kermode, seeing as he's one of if not the most famous film critic in the country and his quiff is so well known. I was pulled up for not referencing so i made a reference to the BBC page where he's described as having an 'impeccably-coiffured quiff'. I was pulled up again, not sure why, so I quoted from the page to show why I was using it, the BBc, a reliable website, describing Kermode, a famous film critic, as having an impeccably-coiffured quiff on his biography, therefore showing it to be key to his public identity as perceived by the bbc. Post deleated again.
I was just hoping you could tell me where I've gone wrong so I can get through the barbed wire. Do you just consider Kermode less relevant than Jedwood? I'd consider him a much better example of the quiff, as Jedwood's are exaggerated caricatures.
Man I need to get a life.
Cheers,
R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.252.115 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, so can I use the BBC site as long as I explain why its relevant? Or do you not consider the BBC reliable?
Does that apply for all references?
R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surells (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You may add it as long as you put a reference and explain why its relevant and it shouldn't be reverted. If it does get reverted, report it as a false positive. If you don't know what a reference is, please see WP:References. Wayne Olajuwonchat22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I'll read the rules more carefully before I edit again.
sorry, haven't edited for ages an remembered I have an account. Don't know if it matters but feel free to message or respond to me here in response to my 'quiff' question above.
Salvio giuliano has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
I saw the work you did (and undid) on Ripley Hampers (disambiguation). Please evaluate what the change is before clicking or using an automated tool. I know I had some difficulty with getting the tools to work the right way, but I found that at bare minimum, manual editing is nearly always the safest solution. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
We do not template[6] editors for adding material that is unreferenced! We explain politely the need for references and invite them to provide references. This editor's contribution that you reverted[7] is supported by other references and material in the same article as well as this press report that I found in a 30 second Google News Archive search.[8] You, Cirt and I made what I consider to be a grave error in hassling this editor regarding an innocent edit. (Cirt and me more than you). --A. B.(talk • contribs)15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, Wayne, point well taken. Personally I prefer to use a more personal more touch for situations like that but clearly community consensus allows for use of these templates. But then let me ask this -- how come you gave this person a level 2 vandalism warning instead of {{uw-unsourced1}}? --A. B.(talk • contribs)15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If we're going to get slap-happy with templates, how about I give you a {{uw-agf1}}, a {{uw-bite}} or a {{uw-tempabuse1}}? (Heck, I deserve these even more than you do.) Do you start to see how chilling this can get, especially for a newcomer? --A. B.(talk • contribs)15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I encourage you to reflect carefully on this whole fiasco and consider being more judicious, if for no other reason that stuff like this could really come back to cause problems for you later. Our community has become very sensitive to potential admins being too bitey and trigger-fingered as a quick scan of recent unsuccessful RfAs will show. The sort of stuff Cirt and I did is exactly what they don't want to see admins doing and you want to avoid it like the plague.
And don't worry, I don't think I'd ever give you a template. If I was that way, I wouldn't have invested 30-60 minutes discussing this with you. --A. B.(talk • contribs)15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Admins being too bitey won't make them very successful. Can you give me tips to show which types of warning templates I should give to each user of each type of edit a user makes? Wayne Olajuwonchat15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Just look at their edits and if they're made in good faith, leave them a note explaining the issue. I like to refer them also to Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; that's a good summary and a way to steer them past our labyrinth of red tape. If you really want to use a template, see the grid at WP:WARN. I really prefer a personal note, though, for good faith edits, even if they're inappropriate in our eyes. I think that anonymous editor from Sweden was just clumsily trying to improve our article and we really chewed him up badly.--A. B.(talk • contribs)16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If I can give some, albeit unsolicited, advice, here’s what I do:
If someone adds to an article something that is unsourced but not egregious and not obvious vandalism, I do not use Huggle to deal with it. Instead, I open the wikiarticle in a broswer, I go to the text that they have just added, and I add a {{Citation needed}} tag. Then, if I am so inclined I use an {{Uw-unsourced1}} template on their talkpage because that template — unless it has changed at the time of this writing — does not say that their addition/change to the article was reverted. It just alerts them to the need to use verifiablereference(s)/citation(s). An example of this might be someone who adds to an article on McDonald's that the Big Mac is made from two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onion, on a sesame seed bun, but doesn’t source the statement. That only requires a {{Citation needed}} tag. But, if they say that Big Macs are made from rat tails and snake skins, that’s vandalism and you can Huggle it.
If the addition/change to the article is vandalism, then label it as such and warn as such.
If the addition/change is to a biography of a living person and unsourced, is it potentially libelous or not? If the addition/change is potentially libelous, then Huggle selecting “Inappropriate biographical content” since the warning template that that selection uses indicates to the editor the potential for libel. If the addition/change is not potentially libelous, but, because the article is a BLP and therefore requires greater adherence to the rules pertaining to verifiablereference(s)/citation(s), then Huggle selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc.
Libelous means text that is likely to get Wikipedia sued! An example might be someone adding to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he used to beat his third wife mercilessly all the while he was having an affair with his children’s nanny. That requires reversion and warrants a warning using “Inappropriate biographical content,” which gives the offender a template similar to the series starting with {{Uw-biog1}}.
An example of something added to a BLP that is not libelous, but that should still be reverted, would be if an editor adds to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he earned $20 million on his last picture and gave 75% of it to charity. It’s not libelous per se, but it still needs to be supported by a verifiablereference/citation. So, revert selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source,” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc., using a template similar to the series that starts with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.
Libelous text is inappropriate biographical content and needs to be labelled as such. It is not mere vandalism.
Pure vandalism would be something like someone who adds John is gay to an article. (By the way, adding that a living person is gay to an article about them, without a supporting citation, needs to be reverted as inappropriate biographical content.) Or, adding Sarah sucks sardines. Those are obvious examples of vandalism. But, changing the name of a president, without a reference, and you and I do not know the real name, is most likely subtle vandalism. So revert it, but do so as discussed above here where you indicate in both your summary and the warning to the editor that the problem with the edit was that it required a reference.
Another example is, The moon is made of cheese: clear vandalism. However, The moon has a density twice that of Earth’s: add {{Citation needed}} to the text, and place a {{Uw-unsourced1}} on the editor’s talkpage.
Another example, in the article on William Henry Harrison, for example, if someone adds that his favorite food was honey and that he opened the first Chuck E. Cheese’s, that’s plain old vandalism.
So, yes if one labels everything as just vandalism, one will be fast, but one will not be accurate, and one will get into a sh*tload of trouble. The more time one spends deliberating over each diff, the more accurate one will be, the better informed the editor being reverted will be (after all, what does unconstructive mean?), and the less negative feedback one will get. Good luck! — SpikeToronto04:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If someone reverts an edit that really only needed a {{Citation needed}} tag, I will sometimes restore the edit, and then manually go into the wikiarticle and add the appropriate, inline template. (By the way, there is a whole raft of them at {{Fact}} when you scroll down.) Unfortunately, because we can rarely edit another user’s comments on a talk page (see WP:TALKO), we cannot take back any warning template the other editor may have given the editor reverted. — SpikeToronto20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Your response confuses me. What I was trying to say above is that if you decide to revert a revert, and instead add a {{Cn}}, you will only be able to reverse one half of the previous transaction. That is, you can revert the edit to the wikiarticle and add the {{Cn}}, but you cannot revert the warning that the reverter placed on the reverted editor’s talk page. — SpikeToronto22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wayne! When you reverted this edit, you templated the IP editor for vandalism (here) when in fact s/he should have been templated for spam. You’ll notice on that IP’s page, the other three Hugglers templating him/her used the template that specifies linkspam. There is a pulldown list in Huggle that provides greater specificity for most edits being reverted. When there is a more specific classification available, we are supposed to use it. I’ve seen some Hugglers raked over the coals at ANI for this. Some have even had their rollback privileges revoked. It means we won’t be as fast, but we’ll be more accurate and the editors being reverted will have a better understanding of why they were reverted. Thanks! — SpikeToronto02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Spike. Next I see an edit like that, I'll know it's spam. Thanks and your welcome! If the edit a user made is a test, should you warn them with vandalism or with a test template? Wayne Olajuwonchat02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You know what I do: if the talk is showing as red for them, then this will be their first ever warning, so I make it a test warning, unless the edit was really egregious. If the talk is blue, and I think that test might be a possiblity, then I select Advanced to see how many warnings they already have for today: if zero, then I select test; if they have already received warnings and are still vandalizing, then I select vandalism. Have fun! — SpikeToronto02:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. If an edit is really bad (i.e., rascist), then I go right to Level 4 with my warning. Then I make a null edit on the talk page so that I can insert an edit summary somthing like this: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism. — SpikeToronto02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You know how when you are in HG, the button for reverting and warning is the leftmost red button that has as its icon the overlaid image of and ? Right next to that button is a ▼ that brings up a pulldown list of revert/warn choices. At the bottom of that list is the choice Advanced. Choosing Advanced brings up a dialog box that does several things. At the bottom is a window that shows what warnings the editor has already received (be careful to note the dates). Above that is the place where you select the warning Level: Automatic, Level 1, …, Level 4. Above that is a pulldown list from which you select the type of warning. Finally, at the very top is where you can put in an optional revert summary that will appear in the article history. You can leave this blank, and the system will use HG’s default summary.
For instance, HG presented me with this diff. Now, to change the name of the 1960 President of the country without a reference, is significant. In such an instance, I select Advanced; for Level, I leave it on automatic; for type of warning, I use Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source; and in the Revert summary, I put the following:
In the end, the article history has that summary and the editor has received a warning template similar to the series that begins with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.
Going back to your actual question, if you use Advanced to select a Level 4 vandalism revert for an edit that is egregiously racist (e.g., Anti-Black, Antisemitic, etc.), then immediately after, go to the editor’s talk page, edit it by placing one blank line above the Level 4 template you just added (i.e., a null edit of sorts), then place the following in your edit summary:
Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism.
This way, when a blocking Admin sees that the editor later got reported to AIV without having received four warnings, s/he knows why. (Of course, said blocking Admin can always decline to block.) Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is best to be as specific as possible. If the revert is for unsourced content, say so. If it is for unexplained removal of content, say so. And remember, for some unsourced content, an inline template like {{Citation needed}} or {{Fact}} is preferable to a revert. But, overall, be as specific as possible. It my mean you have to take longer deliberating over each diff, but you’ll be much more error free and get little to no negative feedback. Thanks! — SpikeToronto03:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, a disambiguation page is not supposed to have article-like text. So, there would never be unsourced issues. If someone adds to a disambiguation page text about someone/something on that page, it is very possible that they are a new editor who doesn’t know that they are not supposed to. Use Advanced to determine what other warnings they have already received that session, and take a look at their talk page to see the warnings. This will help you to determine if they are vandalizing or making good faith edits, however misguided. If you feel that it is a good faith edit, but that it was simply made in the wrong place, use the Huggle button that only reverts and does not warn the editor. It looks like this: . Select Advanced and manually type in an explanation for the revert, something like:
Reverting good faith edit incorrectly made to disambiguation page. Please enter such text in appropriate wikiarticle.
Just in case the reverted editor is so new that s/he doesn’t know how to look at the page history in order to read edit summaries, a little note left on his/her talk page explaining why their edit was reverted might be in order. Plus such a note will obviate the need for them to come and complain on your talkpage.
If they remove content without an explanation, then select Advanced, warn using Removal of content, and add an edit summary for the revert something like this:
(By the way, I keep all these special summaries in a simple little .txt file from which I cut and paste the appropriate message.) Recent changes patrol is not for the faint of heart. It’s a lot of work, takes a lot of time deliberating, and is relatively thankless. To be done right, one needs to bring to the recent changes table a certain amount of content creation/editing experience in order to understand where the editors whose edits we are reviewing might warrant reverting. (Hence why I am probably the slowest Huggler out there!) I hope all this helps! — SpikeToronto19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I added to my config the various edit summaries I use when I think that the HG default is insufficient. I have also added to my config some single-level templates that are useful on occasion. You can cut and paste the config into yours if you want. It is located at User:SpikeToronto/huggle.css — SpikeToronto06:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I use a legitimatedoppelganger account for maintenance purposes. Thus, these thousands of HG edits are kept separate from my content editing and content creation edits. Thus when one runs one of the edit analysis tools on my main account, the results won’t be skewed so badly by the so-called automated edits, even though there is very little that is automated about HG since one must deliberate and ponder over each and every diff before taking action; it’s not AWB after all. I only just started this, and I made tonnes of HG edits in October on my main account, so it will take a h*ll of a lot of content edits on my main account to tamp down the impact of those automated edits. — SpikeToronto18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The RCP stands for recent changes patrol since that is the specific use of that account. You will note at WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:DOPPELGANGER that such accounts cannot be used for editing — for which one uses one’s main account — and the user and talk pages for the doppelganger sock account are supposed to be redirected to the user and talk pages for the main account, as mine are. — SpikeToronto20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That's true and some people put a message on their alternate account's talk page saying if this account causes harm, please let the main account know. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
They’d be better off putting a redirect on the alternate account’s page to the main account, which is what policy requires. And, then they should add the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template to the top of the main account’s user page, which policy also requires. — SpikeToronto00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing, it seems. But, I’m a stickler for the rules, so I follow them. Plus, why would one not want to? Why would one want to maintain more than one userpage and more than one talkpage? By redirecting, and using the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page, you reduce your maintenance workload since you only have to worry about one userpage and one talkpage. And, the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page explains the connection. — SpikeToronto01:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
It would just be a waste of time and people would be able to find the account easily instead of taking forever to find an alternate account. WAYNEOLAJUWON01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think tag it for speedy deletion, but the article is too old for it to be speedy deleted. I still tagged it for speedy deletion anyway. WAYNEOLAJUWON21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that this page is too old for being speedy deleted too... but I'm not sure about it. Maybe a BLPPROD would be better (it has no source by the way). Regards.” TeLeS (PT@LCG) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, you tagged it for WP:CSD#G7, which does not apply. So, an Administrator reverted. Try WP:CSD#A7 instead. I do not think that it will work, because the threshold for A7 is pretty low. But, it’s worth a try. Most likely you will have to use AfD on the basis of notability (specifically, WP:BIO) and that it has been flagged as an unsourced BLP for over a year. — SpikeToronto22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What I was trying to say, and sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, was that if you wanted the article deleted, you could have set up an AfD for it. You could have used as your rationale that it (1) seems to be an autobiography; (2) that the primary editor of it seems to have a conflict of interest; and (3) that, since it has no verifiablereferences/citations, it is essentially an unsourced BLP. It would have been good experience for you to have set up and participated in an Afd. As it stands now, the article has been PRODed (see here) and seconded (see here). If the PROD fails, you could try the AfD route then. (I suspect, however, that this PROD will succeed.) — SpikeToronto20:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
It should succeed in the next week when it's deleted and Jeff then put the template {{prod2}} under the bottom of the Afd. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Message added 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I freely admit I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, but I'm mystified by what has happened to our page and why you apparently seem to now have ownership over it and have told me I'm a vandal! Bazaar!
I created the page. I am a Director of Severnvale Media CIC which wholly owns and operates GLOSS FM - which is a community radio station serving the South Gloucestershire region of the UK.
When I checked tonight I was surprised to see a wholesale editing (deletion) of our carefully input text for this page by "Mwingereza". I am confident everything I wrote was factually correct. What I now see on this page is vastly less than what we wanted to say, and some of it is now factually incorrect.
It appears there are multiple edits which cite "minutiae" etc. Surely this is a matter of opinion? Why should a random commenter be permitted to make changes, whilst I, the creator of the page is not permitted to, and branded a "vandal"? Bazarre in the extreme!
Hopefully this is a mis-understanding. If you would like to confirm my identity, please can you visit the website address quoted in the page, click the "Contact Us" link, "General Enquiries" and send a message to the Directors. This experience has severely undermined expectation of Wikipedia which I previously thought was open and unbiassed. If the originator of an article cannot comment upon and undo incorrect edits then I really start to question the whole concept of Wikipedia. It opens up huge question in my mind when/if I use this resource for other subjects and situations.
Sorry if this comes over wrong, but I took loads of time to create this page (which is not so simple for ordinary people) and was dismayed to see it vandalised like it is now. It kind of makes me regret ever submitting anything. It's so easy to criticise, but rather more difficult to be constructive and create something, which in GLOSS FM's case after all is non-profit making and helping the local community.
In summary - How do I restore any ability to correct a page that I started?
I hope I've done the mysterious == and 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) signs right!
Sorry I don't understand. My question was, how do I recover any ability to edit our Gloss FM) page without you or someone else calling it "vandalism" and undoing all my changes? The page now has factual inaccuracies which need correcting, and some interesting and useful information has been removed which needs to be restored. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.2.44 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
im really sorry!!! O: i wasnt trying to vandalize!!! i was just saying that!!! IM SUPER SUPER SORRY!!! I didnt mean to pllz dont be mad at me i didnt know that was vandalizing! omg is this vandalism too? im sorry, if it is just delete it, i didnt mean to! IM SORRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornpopz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The Avengers Book info
Can you explain what vandilism, I was merely putting in my references, with this particular one I realised I'd not used the right wepage address and website name and so put it right with the edit. Explain please.81.111.127.132 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You changed some stuff without explanation and you added something named Dead Duck and that doesn't have to do with the show. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but I gave them a welcome template on their talk page. Then I removed it because the talk page already has a welcome template. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
On 30 October you gave an L2 vandalism warning (template:uw-huggle2) to 121.52.51.50. I have inspected the edit you mentioned, and all this user did was remove a section that did not cite any references or resources. It is an English Wikipedia policy that anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed. This user was given a template:uw-delete1 for not filling in the edit summary only two minutes before this edit. I do not think he/she could have read it before making the edit you mentioned, so this user should not have been given a L2-warning at all.
Please remember the following things before you hand out a warning:
I have left a reaction on the talk page of the user as well. If you wish to do so, you can withdraw your warning on the user's talk page using using <s>HTML strikeout tags</s>. --Tjibbe I (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. He removed sections with explanation and that's I reverted it. Sorry for trying to bite. I don't know a lot about the warning templates. WAYNEOLAJUWON19:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
So we're reverting all uncited facts out? In that case the whole article needs to be blanked since it has no citations.Matt J User|Talk20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No, that would not work. You would just put the unreferenced template on the page. Blanking the page would be consider vandalism if you're not the creator of that page. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that would be a bad idea, but that's the logical conclusion of the policy you're implementing. Since this fact is not directly about a person, it should not have been instantly removed, and the editor adding it did not deserve to have a level 3 warning given. See WP:PRESERVE. It took me less than 5 minutes to find a citation and add it to the article. Matt J User|Talk20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I know it does, so why did you take such an overzealous approach to the user that added a minor uncited fact? And please try and indent your comments properly. Matt J User|Talk20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? And by the way, for each reply in a chain, you should increase the indentation level by one with a colon. Matt J User|Talk20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I already explain in edit summary and other user talk page. Please do not change things you are not understand. Read edit summary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.60 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I do understand. You were supposed to cite a reference before doing that edit. Please cite a verifiable reference before you redo that edit. Please see WP:References before doing that edit again. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are liar. If you are not liar then you would tell these things before, not after change. You only want discriminate Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.60 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)You do have the power. Just go to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (shortcut → WP:UTM), read the instructions there very, very carefully, and then place appropriate warnings on the pages of individuals vandalizing articles you work on. As a rule, you either start at Level 1 with a warning, or start one Level higher than the previous warning if it has been within the last 48 hours. You then escalate from there to Level 4. Vandalism after Level 4, means you go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut → WP:AIV) and file a report.
I have been reverted. I am trying to clean up Noah Hutching's biography because it is libelous, inaccurate, and disgraceful to a man who has served this country and served the Lord. For example, the 'predictions' section is false. The 'Antichrist speculations' are misinterpreted. The 'Y2K fears' section is inaccurate. Furthermore, some of the authors such as Richard Abanas, who have produced libelous statements have stopped under threat of legal action. You have been kindly informed that the biography is inaccurate, and as legal counsel, I will change it to be truthful and accurate. 70.182.77.236 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think it comes close to being a legal threat within WP:LEGAL; these have to be pretty plain to fall under that policy. Editors who complain about incorrect information about themselves, or in articles they edit about living persons, should be directed here. Rodhullandemu23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I've always understood a legal threat to be a direct attempt to get Wikipedia or its editors to take actions on pain of actual legal action. Empty threats are commonplace here, but still produce the "chilling effect" described in WP:LEGAL. However, this wording came far from being that, in my view, although it was undoubtedly a sideways attempt to strong-arm Wikipedia. A warning would have sufficed, but I don't think it came close enough to a "threat", as such. Rodhullandemu00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu: I must not have been clear enough above. Sorry about that. I did not say that it was a full-on legal threat. Hence, why I was suggesing to Wayne that he make an enquiry to seek guidance as to this possible legal threat. One has to read the line, “You have been kindly informed … as legal counsel … truthful and accurate”, in the context of that editor’s earlier line, “some of the authors such as Richard Abanas, who have produced libelous statements have stopped under threat of legal action.” [Emphasis added.] Or, at least, interpreting single lines in the context of the whole was what I was taught when I earned my law degree back in the mists of time. Nonetheless, veiled as it was, I realized that it may not have been a clear-cut legal threat under Wikipedia’s policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats (shortcut → WP:LEGAL).
To sum up: I did not tell Wayne that it was a legal threat. I suggested he seek guidance to determine if it was and how he should deal with edits to that wikiarticle from that wikieditor. Had I known that there was a sysop with whom Wayne regularly communicated, I would have, of course, directed him to you for an interpretation right away.
No worries, I just didn't want you to think you had to wait to report him if necessary. Looks like he's added a very very basic source now, not sure how verifiable it is though. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots21:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Sorry for dragging you into this, but you might be interested in it. (Note that you are not the subject of the thread, you are only marginally related to it.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick question for you. Have you got the same issue as me with Huggle, in that sometimes it refuses to revert when you press the Revert and Warn button? (Not including when someone else has already reverted)
Thanks -- methecooldudeContact18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne you warned me twice for "vandalism" of Chris Lancos' wikipedia page. I believe you took the word partner the wrong way which is why I was warned the first time. Chris and Marc are small business entrepreneurs. The second time I posted it I left out the word partner due to the ambiguity and was warned yet again. I have updated Chris' page several times over the years as I am a close friend and I know he would not take the time to update it as he is to humble to believe people are interested in what he has been up to. Please do not warn me for keeping interested parties updated.
Wayne. Hi. I just want to say thanks for your good work around here and specifically for the vandalism reverting on my talk/user pages. I appreciate your effort even though it feels like we're not making much headway in keeping this encyclopedia presentable. I'm sure your talent would be better put to use in actually creating content, but here we are, just chasing our tails. Dawnseeker2000 02:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey when you get a minute can you look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article. I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure, and I seen you where the last to revert the page. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
After a user has been blocked I don't need to request protection of those pages and other pages that get vandalized after a user is blocked. WAYNEOLAJUWON19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right - but I mean that requesting page protection isn't really appropriate when the vandalism is a single IP or a vandalism-only account. These are cases where reporting to WP:AIV might be better. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Derild4921 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
I see that you were adding a lot of informtion to atomic orbital that was simply mathematized versions of what is already discussed in the main article. I've moved it to an old version of spin-orbital, see here. But the math probably isn't appropriate here, but in the Schroedinger equation wiki. So don't be disheartened. Use the talk page.
To other editors-- this editor was obviously adding material in good faith, but has been bitten and treated a bit shabbily, unless I've missed something. What he was doing certain wasn't vandalism.
Vrenator has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Why did I get a warning for vandalism for editing Pejorative? I dont think this was appropriate. I was undoing the work of a bot that got my edit wrong as an act of vandalism. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I put a reference in the page history section. On a further note, I dont think I should I have to go through the effort of logging a false positive with the bot? I undid the edit twice and it just keeps on reverting it. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well imho maybe the owner needs to fix up its code.. just makes normal users give up on fixing or adding the occasional bit of (hopfully) useful information while reading pages. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! What was their problem anyways? There was someone else making edits with him, are you going to report him as well? 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry I dont understand how this constitutes vandalism?I have asked twice the intervention of TWO administrators for dispute and content resolution.I have DONE EXCATLY as you asked by providing an edit summary and have provided 3 references in total one of which clearly refers to the AM response that this temperature is not official in Italy.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I MUST REPEAT that I have provided explanations of my references and edit summary from the time I was warned onwards.Much earlier I have asked the intervention of TWO administrators for content and dispute resolution!Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, you shouldn't be sending someone to the False positives page if they haven't triggered the edit filter. This is a content dispute, plain and simple, and moving it to the False positives page just had the effect of making the situation more confusing for all of us. —Soap—09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A few minutes? Nobody is online 24/7 and some people don't have time to login more than a few times per week. And like I said the False positives page is not a good place to talk about content disputes. —Soap—09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion for the future: When issuing a warning to a user who is engaged in vandalism, edit warring, or the like, please look at the user talk page to see if there are previous warning messages, check the block log for previous blocks, and provide a message that fits both their history and their recent actions. It seems incongruous that you issued a level 1 warning at User talk:Editermaster12345 just 25 minutes after my "final warning" (which was not templated, and was in the "November 2010" section instead of the new section that Sinebot had created). For what it's worth, I have blocked the user. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Huggle isn't awfully smart sometimes. It failed to notice all the warnings the user had received in the past week. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, but Huggle doesn't warn users -- it's just a tool that users employ to warn other users. The human (that's you or me) is responsible for teh content of the warning. --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You mean about your age. You can't just take a break because of your age. You're in eighth grade and you shouldn't feel too bad. Don't worry because you're going to harassed. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Wow, nice one
You must be getting your time-to-revert-fact scores down pretty low. How about reading, oh, two paragraphs of an article before reverting factual changes? 111.69.232.213 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this does constitute editing. Other forms of editing include the removal of words, the addition of words, and the addition/removal of wiki markup. I may have missed something. 111.69.232.213 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed an incidence of vandalism on this page. I reverted the change, upon which ClueBot autoflagged my revision as vandalism, restored the original version, and placed a generated warning on my walk page. I reported this on the ClueBot talk page, removed the warning from my talk page, and restored my edit as ClueBot's message instructed me to do so.
You promply re-reverted my change and placed a warning on my talk page. If you had looked closer at my revision, you would have seen that I corrected an instance of vandalism, and you in fact restored the vandalized copy of the page. --24.72.122.184 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, slow down, seriously. That an edit is unreferenced is not a good reason to restore vandalism like this. Besides, he was just fixing vandalism, not writing the translation himself, so someone on Huggle could just as easily have made the same edit, the only difference being that it would have HG in the summary. Please try to think everything through before you do it, even if it means you get beaten to the punch by someone else most of the time. You didn't use to be like this. If you're ever planning to run for adminship, little mistakes like this will cause people to oppose. —Soap—22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors, formerly the League of Copy Editors, are a WikiProject dedicating to copy editing articles. We hold backlog elimination drives every other month to help reduce the size of our backlog, which is currently over 5,000 articles long.
What is copy editing?
Copy editing includes, but is not limited to, the following: fixing grammar, fixing spelling mistakes, and fixing formatting errors. Copy editing improves the quality of an article, often in preparation for a GAN or FAC.
What are backlog elimination drives?
Backlog elimination drives are efforts by the Guild to reduce the backlog of articles needing copy edit. The backlog is currently over 5,000 articles long, and will require several more drives to completely wipe it out.
Further instructions and information can be found on:
You misspelled a word by changing it from narratives to aarratives which is why I reverted it. Every other edit you previously made was not vandalism expect one until the last one and that's why I reverted it. You also changed some information without explanation. WAYNEOLAJUWON18:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
L Kensington
I think you're overreacting. I'm tired of him beating me too (I now know when to use Huggle), but it's not a big deal. That, and wishing for him to retire is immature on your part (no offense). --Dylan620(t • c)00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
All those messages I sent to him are good faith edits and no offense to those messages because it was all good faith and he's using Huggle like a bot, fast. I hope he doesn't take it as offensive. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It might be good faith to you, but what appears as good faith to you may appear as a personal attack to others. I'm not saying you were attacking L Kensington, I'm simply suggesting how one could misinterpret your messages. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I still learning how to deal with those circumstances because I'm not used to it. You can be beaten to vandalism once in a while but not like a bot, such as ClueBot and ClueBot NG. I need some help and tips in that category. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine if a user continually beats somebody to reverting vandalism. Although I'm sure L Kensington is aware of other Hugglers, I don't think he's trying to beat them to "steal the show" so to speak. He's simply trying to clean up the encyclopedia, just like all the other vandal fighters. So he beats you to a couple reverts; it's not the end of the world. There will come a time when it is your moment to shine here on Wikipedia, Wayne. You just have to wait for it and be willing to find it. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs00:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I will get it, Utahraptor. Probably there's a lot vandalism mostly at night. Which other Huggler has edited from morning to night every non-school day and from afternoon to night on school days? I can only sleep up to a certain hour and yes there will a day when it's my moment to shine. Most of those edits he's beaten me to have come on Saturday and Sunday. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You're on Huggle every waking moment when you're not in school. I find that rather disturbing, Wayne... you made 11,000 edits last month, and have already made over 8,000 edits this month. Frankly I don't know where you manage to find the concentration to use Huggle for that long... you should take a break, obsessing over Huggle like this is not healthy. Even when I've been using it, it may have been every day, but usually I take the afternoons off because everybody else has things covered. Try doing it in the mornings, perhaps, or during your lunch... more often than not, during that time, the only person you would have to contend with is, well, me. (And I usually do it for a few minutes, then do something else (like actual schoolwork), then use Huggle for a few minutes, then something else, so you would actually have a fair chance of getting some edits in during those periods.) Then take the rest of the day off, do something else, like doing some recreation, or if you can't pull yourself away from Wikipedia, do some newpages patrolling and stuff. The ThingT/C19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Using the computer all day is not good either, The Thing. My mom even told me don't use the computer all day. I will take a break, The Thing. When I'm not on the computer, I play video games or relax. I did not do this on Wikipedia when I was an anon user. I'll try not to use the computer too much especially since I have to help my dad and I may not make a bunch of edits every day that I normally do because it's bad for your eyesight. I have those huge edit counts each month because I've edited too many hours every day. I'm doing this to help my edit count go up, The Thing but I will take breaks like I said. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The main goal of Wikipedia's users should not be to get their edit count up, Wayne. It should be to improve the encyclopedia, whether it's through anti-vandalism efforts, copy editing efforts, dispute resolution efforts, article creation efforts, etc. If you notice, I only revert vandalism on Huggle for fifteen minutes at a time, twenty at most. This is because there are other aspects of Wikipedia that I can contribute to besides anti-vandalism efforts. Perhaps there's something else you would like to do, Wayne? Perhaps you could work for a WikiProject? Or perhaps you could gather sources and create an article? For example, I am a co-coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, and I created and run WikiProject American Old West. Have a look at Wikipedia:Job center to get a better outlook at what things other than anti-vandalism you can do to benefit Wikipedia. Happy editing! The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I do edit other stuff on Wikipedia other than reverting vandalism which is edit articles. What is the WikiProject that you, Diannaa, NerdyScienceDude and another user are working one? WAYNEOLAJUWON22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Have a look at how to copy edit articles, then when you feel like you know how to copy edit articles, choose any article from the backlog and copy edit it. Don't forget to add your finished copy edits to the appropriate section on the Drive page. If you want a brief tutorial from me, just let me know. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs22:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You're both outstanding with managing vandalism, but it's not a competition. I hope you keep going with that, but like I mentioned the other day, your skills can be used in other areas of Wikipedia also. The copy-editing thing is a great idea. Many of us get consumed with scooping the poop that we just don't get around to actually reading the articles to make sure they're coherent. Dawnseeker2000 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The drives aren't meant to be competitions, Dawn. A competition would be several people competing against each other for one large prize and a couple smaller ones. Rather, the drives are for users to collaborate with each other for the purpose of reducing the size of the copy edit backlog. And sure, the top copy editors do receive prizes, but so does almost everybody else that participates in the drive. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
L Kensington even said that he was busy on weekdays and when I got on Huggle today, he was already Huggling. I think he needs to do something other than Huggling on Wikipedia. He's not a bot to be that fast and I'm not saying that he can't use Huggle is that he should do something else on Wikipedia. This user thinks he's a bot and he's not. He's supposed to be busy and he's not on Huggle because he said that's he's busy. When's he going to stop doing that because he's not a bot? He could use Huggle is that he's not a bot. He may need to know that, Lol. He shouldn't be cleaning up Wikipedia like he's the only user on Wikipedia. At least, other people need to do to it do, not just him. I think he only uses Huggle just to get his edit count up. I do know it's not a competition like you said Dawn. I do not use Huggle to get my edit count. I don't only revert vandalism on Wikipedia. I just need to try to get over this situation and then not feel worried anymore that he or others users have been beating me to vandalism. I can't let that worry me anymore and keep making complaints about him. This user just Huggles to get his edit count up. Why is he like this? He also is getting every revert other there. What type of user does that like he's ClueBot? I will learn my lesson about what happened between me and him and it'll all be settled in a positive way. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Cerruti 1881
Cerruti 1881 is the diffusion line of the Parisian fashion house Cerruti, not the firm itself.
My edit was reverted, I suspect it was becuase I removed extraneous content and used a simple but short link? Please check. Thanks, Kim
Hi I was editing the 2011 Oliver E. Buckley Prize Page, Peter Johnson. The links there were for the wrong Peter Johnson. This is a correct link below. Thanks, Kim
Sorry about that. I didn't know that it was your alternate account until now. I undid the warning I gave you on your alternate account's talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's okay, but use {{Db-g7}} when you do that, please. I was letting you know on your talk page but I didn't save it in time before you told me here. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what you should when he's the creator of the page but if this situation happens on an article he or she created years ago, you should PROD it. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand the policy, but I simply can't tell what pages are blanked by their creator from Huggle. Opening the page history in a new window takes too long... Guoguo12--Talk--20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Dylan620 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
You're not supposed to edit other people's comments without a good reason why in the edit summary. If you don't explain why, then the edit is vandalism. WAYNEOLAJUWON23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wayne. I've a question re this edit you made to Huggle.
Please could you point me to the discussion(s) that initiated the change? I ask because I have a concern the edit may in a way be counter-productive, but I don't want to speak out of turn, so would like to bring myself up to speed on prior discussions.
Many thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Gurch and Iridescent didn't want it there so I removed it and before that I asked Jeff on his talk page and he said it shouldn't be there per Gurch and Iridescent. You may ask him about this if you want. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.. Actually, I see somebody's reverted it back now, so my quest is now over! I think it's better as it now stands - i.e. WITH the (talk) parameter - as now when one looks at a user's edits, one can see if the reverted users still may need to be warned/welcomed.
Thanks anyway. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I use Huggle and I have made over 1,000 reports to AIV, A.B. I don't have a 10,000 page watchlist and some people may believe that. Your welcome and thanks for the compliment! WAYNEOLAJUWON21:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You responded to my recent edit as vandalism and reverted to old copy. I know which facts are true and not true - which are libelous or false because I am related to David. We would ask that this information be removed - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpapaleo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored and it will not be deleted by an administrator unless if the page is vandalism or an attack page which is neither. You can't want it deleted just because of this. Wikipedia knows what is libelous and what's not. WAYNEOLAJUWON23:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been informed that my recent edit has come under vandalism lol.
Well in all seriousness I don't see what was offensive about my post. If ITV don't like it why are they hiding the truth? I have my article saved on my work doc would you mind me posting it here so you can read my article and the links and give me feedback? I understand that you are busy but if you are going to remove someone's article that took hours of research I would hope you would at least have the decency to read it to see if it really is valid or not for yourself.
I don't understand if a "source" from the media lies in it's articles you can post it here because it was put in black and white, yet my information was 100% accurate and I can't because ITV have removed all evidence from the verifiable site. Doesn't that tell you more about them than me? Although this link proves what I wrote is not lies as it has quoted some of the transcript.
</ www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/65728.aspx</
I'm not trying to make you sound foolish Sir, I just don't understand the logic. It's as if your saying the media are entitled to lie to it's audience which is something I don't agree with. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I appreciate feedback, however it is late here so goodnight Mr Olajuwon
I'm new at this Sir so I'm not insulting your intelligents, so I try and understand, you saying I can write it but I can't inform people on their ITV or This Morning history or whatever catorgories they have presenters you know all those segments, why? They don't like their dirty laundry out in open on their page? Don't there audience deserve to know all their history not just the bits they want? If I put it on a talk page no one will see it and it won't be informative as I want people to see them for the snakes they are.
And thats being polite do you even know what was said Sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audience awareness (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
@Rod Hull or the Mr Olajuwan can you explain to someone who is new to this what is wrong with what I've done? I'm really not trying to be smart. I'm new at Wiki as my account would prove. I wasn't aware society thought it was acceptable to question 3 minor children's right to live? So, I did an article to inform them of the situation to see if they agree. Why is it wrong? I have no interest in promoting myself just wanted to post one article thats all.
Let's not dilute this discussion unnecessarily, thereby potentially sowing the seeds of confusions and doubt. Audience Awareness, you have a reply on my talk page, to which I am about to add. Wayne, I'd dip out of this, if you like. Cheers. Rodhullandemu01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You do not need to put your opinion on that page, but you could have put the citation needed template and explain why on the talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I recently introduced an expansion of the article 263 (number) listing an example of the number's unique quantity by providing readers with a visual interpretation using the Wikipedia logo. I'm curious as to why you reverted this and considered it vandalism? Thanks. 71.33.33.47 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well 263 is quite a notable number, with hundreds of millions of Google results (see here), so it seems reasonable to expand the article. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused Wikipedia's readers. Thank you for your explanation. 71.33.33.47 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt they'd be able to do much; the guy's using multinational socks. The current one is from Toronto, the one before was from Croatia. HalfShadow18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits today, reverting edits to my talkpage, and for your reversions on the article for Dwell (retailer), both with regards anon 81.100.64.222. I have started a discussion on WP:COIN with regards Dwell, which you can follow on that projects page. Once again, thank you, and if ever you think that I could help you, please - just ask! With Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this was an accurate edit, so I removed your warning. I was undoing it anyway, since it was covered under "worst fears", but the warning was unnecessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you please read my note at User talk:70.26.181.136 and actually read the text of the edit you reverted. This user was falsely warned as a vandal and I believe you should strike the warning. Not all IPs are vandals. This one actually improved the article and did so in good faith. I have restored their version. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The Michigan Museum Doesn't Exist... It is now the National Museum of Surveying. Check the Links.
I have no idea how this works, but the Michigan Museum of Surveying doesn't exist anymore. The museum is now the National Museum of Surveying. The new website is http://surveyingmuseum.org. The museum is now in Springfield, Illinois. I was just trying to update the page to show that there is no longer a museum there. The webpage linked is dead. The museum is no longer in Lansing. I was just going to create a new page, but this page needs removed, so I thought I would just use this page. Plus, this page showed me a template. Now to be mean, perhaps you could have checked the links before throwing vandalism around, as you forced me to lose a lot of information and time. Once again, the Michigan Museum of Surveying hasn't existed in over three years. It is now in SPringfield, Illinois.
Attempted to revert vandalism on your talk page and I think I accidentally reverted it to a revision that was already vandalised. Genuinely didn't realise - sorry! Came on to resolve it without Huggle but I see that you've already managed to revert it :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not vandalism. You may remove any comment from your talk page as you please, but that edit did not deserve a warning on the user's talk page. Assume good faith, and look into an IP's edits before you revert and warn. The "Big Dumb Book of Stupid Lists" is in fact a component to Cram, and the user was just trying to help. Eagles24/7(C)02:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not know that it was true until he told me. Many users have told me that I was bitey to the newcomers. If I don't know that this true, I could tell that it was vandalism because I didn't know that until he told me. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the edit could be questionable to a vandal-fighter like yourself who goes through hundreds of edits a day, but my point is that you reverted his/her message on your talk page like it was vandalism and subsequently warned him for it. I suggest you strike out your warning on his/her talk page and offer 76.125.242.77 an apology/welcome. Eagles24/7(C)02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This page was semi-protected by Tide rolls the last time it was semi-protected. I can't request it now because I have school tomorrow but I will request semi-protection of this page when I have a chance. Creating an alternate talk page means I have to go back and forth to both pages so I would just want to have one talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have to make an alternate talk page right now because the vandalism on my talk page isn't like the vandalism on an article. WAYNEOLAJUWON20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Ebe Gilkes
22 Nov 2010
Dear Mr Olajuwon,
This was my first submission to Wikipedia and maybe I missed a procedure or two for which I must
apologize. I regularly view Wikipedia and recently discovered the erroneous information about Mr Ebe
Gilkes whom I have seen perform many times before I left Barbados in the early 80's. As a record
collector of many years and Jazz enthusiasts I recently acquired Mr Gilkes' first cd from a friend
in Barbados along with a program from a free concert he gave to launch that cd. Prior to making the
edit I instructed that friend to have a look at the information and we both had a laugh.
Maybe I made a procedural error but I can assure you my information is correct and would appreciate
any pointers with a view to having it reinstated.
It is also my intention to read Mr Warren R Pinckney Jr.article/book on the subject since Ican add a
bit to music/jazz in Barbados.
While on the subject I also intended to edit some other erroneous music related information on
Barbados music, bands etc. However I will now postpone that until I am sure of all procedures.
I am sure that the intention of this site is to publish correct information and that was all I set
out to do, correct the incorrect.
Wayne, do you sometimes look at the revisions or do you just revert every IP edit without an edit summary? There is no rule that everyone has to expain their edits in the summary (at least I don't know of any). I know that everyone makes mistakes, especially those who fight vandalsim, because they want to be fast and do a lot of reverts per day – however, reverting vandalism is not supposed to be done for raising one's reputation, but to perserve the status quo of Wikipedia. Whenever you feel you don't have enough time to read added or deleted text, you should certainly slow down and take the time! (this is not ment to discourage you, just a note on how to avoid making too many mistakes :)) --95.223.206.151 (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings GOCEBacklog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages.
Images
Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month.
It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE.
Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway) is a two-mile (3 km), low-banked, D-shaped oval superspeedway in Fontana, California which has hosted NASCAR racing annually since 1997. The track was also used for open wheel racing events until 2005. The racetrack is located near the former locations of Ontario Motor Speedway and Riverside International Raceway. The track is currently owned and operated by International Speedway Corporation and is the only track owned by ISC to have naming rights sold. The speedway is served by the nearby Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 freeways as well as a Metrolink station located behind the backstretch.Construction of the track, on the site of the former Kaiser Steel Mill, began in 1995 and was completed in late 1996. The speedway has a grandstand capacity of 91,200 and 28 skyboxes. In 2006, a fanzone was added behind the main grandstand. Lights were added to the speedway in 2004 with the addition of a second annual NASCAR weekend. In 2011 the track will host only one NASCAR weekend.
Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Wayne. With this edit and this edit, you tried to revert vandalism to the Uncle Murda wikiarticle. However, you didn’t get it all. I got the rest with this edit.
For future reference, it is sometimes better to deal with vandalism by checking the article’s page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version (in this case, from the 16th of November). If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal(s) is lost. You cannot always rely on Huggle. Thanks! — SpikeToronto23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Your right, Spike, and your welcome. Huggle can't do everything for you such as this. The clean version may be from a few days ago. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
You're welcome, (not sure if I'm quite ready for the hugging part but the cookie definitely brightened up my day) ;-)
Pol430 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello!!, I saw you had undid the revision on Bachal page. User:Mkrestin has found a novel way of vandalism, he just redirected the page to another similar page without mearging the contents or giving such notice. I have re created the page to it's original version, as per your last edit. Can you please keep a watch & help
fighting this vandalism. Please see [11] history of page. I have mentioned this also on talk page of article. Thank you.R P Jethwa (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, he does seem to have edited before, but for now I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks. I'll check with a CU though. Eagles24/7(C)23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
And edits like this too. Tomas Gilbfarb, Tebsongay, Cracked acorns, 94.192.52.28, and 90.199.44.78 are all suspects in my mind (thuough I doubt that all five of them are the same person since the IP's at least trace to different parts of England).—Soap—23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Cracked acorns has only made good edits from what I can see and would not really need to be checked in an SPI since they would come up in a CU if they're him and if not they're not there's no need to bother them. The only reason I even mention it is because sadly I've seen cases where vandals create a fake "good" account just to help draw attention to the one that is actually vandalizing by putting him on ANI, etc. —Soap—23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case I am looking for confirmation that Tebsongay and Tomas Gilbfarb are the same person, as well as looking for other sockpuppets since it appears Gilbfarb has edited before. Eagles24/7(C)20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I am new and also got a vandal warning and all I did was edit some text that needed some caps at the start of the sentence. Maybe someone should check before accusing someone of vandalism just because they arent signed on...didnt even realize I wasn't until I got the warning.98.108.162.182 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may interject, I think what happened here is that you might have accidentally deleted others' comments, which is normally considered disruptive. However, I don't think you intentionally did that, and I recommend that you disregard that last warning. –MuZemike01:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I remove the {{User}} so it would be easier when I request to send it to you all at MessageDeliveryBot. (I have aready done it though for this months.) Nascar1996 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, since you edit massively with Huggle, please watch the Hendrick Motorsports articles, such as drivers and crewchiefs to make sure all of that unnessary stuff about the team swap will not be on the articles, except for the Hendrick Motorsports article. Nascar1996 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
He's edited on Wikipedia longer than that IP, so I don't think he's a sockpuppet, either. Telling him on his talk page is telling him what he shouldn't have ever done on those articles. WAYNEOLAJUWON21:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to semi protect you talk page? I am watching and those IPs are warning you and all kinds of crap! I am really surprised that you haven;t done it yet. Oh well, another suggestion, :) Nascar1996 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Wayne, you were right to revert the very recent undiscussed redirect from Pluto (mythology) to Hades. Roman Pluto is not the same as Greek Hades; he became so. He has an independent, though probably related Roman origin. I'm not sure why you undid your reversion. The editor who made the change has recently made several similarly drastic edits without discussion. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you do it again? Just don't keep redirecting it to Hades without explaining why again on the talk page because you may be blocked for 3rr if you keep redirecting it. WAYNEOLAJUWON00:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sophie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone asked me that am I related to Hakeem Olajuwon and I said no. They probably asked if I'm related because they looked at my username and it said Olajuwon in it. It was pretty unnecessary. Someone asked me if I'm related. In my revert summary on Huggle, I answered there with no. Why would someone make fun of your username by asking if you're related to Lil Wayne or Hakeem Olajuwon? Wayne is a common name such as Wayne Gretzky and Reggie Wayne, for example. My username isn't my real name. I didn't want to have a weird username like I had. WAYNESLAM00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
My best wishes on the new user name. I never had a problem with the old one, but I wish you continued success, whatever the name you use! Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Really? cool :) and yea...my old username (which i cant remember) changed because it was sooo hard to rememeber so when trying to log in, i would have to look at an edit i had made on a queit page to get it :) - Sophie(Talk)09:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Alan! I'm still the same user no matter what user name I have. But one thing is for sure that I will never change my username ever again. Alansohn, why don't you borrow my edit notice? WAYNESLAM22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Shaun Ryder
I am not sure you should have reverted Shaun Ryder. The info is overly detailed about the kids, and the first item in the "controversy" section was a 13-year-old incident where he swore. I have removed both these things from the bio. The edits may have been performed by the subject of the article trying to get this overly detailed set of facts about his children removed from the internet. Oh by the way is that basketball player you in the photo? I had no idea you were so tall. :) --Diannaa(Talk)23:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
. Select Advanced and manually type in an explanation for the revert, something like:
