Jump to content

User talk:Bento00/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Atheism

Hi, I noticed that you just reverted some edits by an IP at Atheism. I looked at those edits myself when they appeared, and was unsure whether they might actually have been good edits. I'd be reluctant to simply revert them, as they seem to add content that may have been previously misquoted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Clearly, you were more thorough about it than I was, so thank you for that. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

I've granted your request. Welcome to the hugglers! I see you have racked up a nice count with Twinkle, and no major complaints from the vandals. There will be some once they see you are using Huggle...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What Spam Links did I add? All Things L&O is not spam, it's actually very reliable, more so then IMDB or TV.com. 174.91.250.118 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually she (the blogger) does get her press releases and information (sometimes videos) from NBC. Though it's a blog and is not allowed for sources or external links. If you're using them as sources, wait until the regular sites report it (EW, THR, TVGuide, etc). —Mike Allen 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Araripe Manakin

regarding "It eats fruit,insects,and small fish and frogs." i added on the page for the Araripe Manakin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.165.120 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, could you tell me why you added that? All sites I visit about the bird indicate it eats fruits, berries and insects, not small fish and frogs. Where is your source for that info? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested

Standardizing my talk page headers has been on my "to do" list for some time. Since you expressed an interest here, I thought I'd let you know I had (in my opinion) upgraded my headers. You would be able to substitute any icon that communicated your point better and tweak the text to suit. Anyway, it's an option. See ya 'round Tiderolls 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You

Who are you and why do you keep changing people's edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittles1133 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia developed by consensus while following its policies. One policy is called Original Research, and among other things states "...Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." I and another editor felt your comments about the Shipshad dorm at the University of Portland were original research. If you feel otherwise, the best way to further your cause is to open up a topic on the article's Talk page. Perhaps other editors will agree with you. You can read more about original research at WP:OR (That's why I and the other editor who reverted your edits included this link in our reverting comments.) Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The topic(s) you're referrign to in the paragrpah above have nothing to do with me or any page I've ever edited, so you may want to checkyour notes.

As for decision by consensus, who's to say that's the correct answer as well, as that can lead to info not getting revealed at all for people to draw their own conclusions from. You can always put the warning I've seen many times saying the content of a page is disputed, so people are forewarned. Just because you don't agree with an editor doesn't give you the right to make your views seen over theirs. Then you become the censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmspeed (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

      • I'm not sure what your first sentence means. I wrote a response to Kittles1133's edit of the University of Portland page, not to one of your edits. At any rate, decision by consensus is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Other sources of information may use other methods. Just because you feel one way and add text that reflects your opinion doesn't give you the right to impose your views over others. There were times my edits were reverted or changed, sometimes with comments and sometimes without. It gives me pause to think about the edit, and sometimes I agree with the other editor, sometimes I don't. If I don't and feel strongly about it, I open a topic in the article's Talk page. Bento00 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

esq news / vandalims?!?

hey Bento00, why are my additionals to "esquire" considered as "vandalism"? I just added some considerable news about using "esq". What can I do to improve our contributes?

thanks and kind regards, Mirko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quattrowahn (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have read the Wiki guidelines on external links, and I am aware that Wiki is not, as you say, a collection of links. However, I'm not sure why a specific article on mourning practices during the Civil War would not provide relevant additional information for an article on mourning. And the article on weather during the Civil War argues that the strange weather during the time period was largely due to the Little Ice Age, making it, I think, relevant additional information to the article on the Little Ice Age. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the policy.Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • My thinking is that there must be thousands of articles about mourning (or ice ages) and adding links to any and all would indeed make Wikipedia a collection of links. Including the links was a stretch to me. The other links you added seemed to be very close to the subject. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hillsong United

The band Hillsong United hasn't changed their name, but the youth ministry which they started out of is not called 'Hillsong United' anymore, but now 'Hillsong Youth' http://www.hillsongyouth.com

About Sava Nomocanon

Please don't remove this picture of St. Sava. This is more beautiful, and more famous frescoe of St. Sava. Please keep this picture: Image: Sveti Sava Kraljeva Crkva.jpg. Thanks! :) (Пера ложач) (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your message. Yes, you added a very good image. My reverting was not because of the image, but because you added way too much wikilinking on Sava Nomocanon. In particular, we don't link common English words or terms, such as the word "religion" or "law." Also, once a word is linked, it shouldn't generally be linked in the same article later on, such as you did to "legal act" or "St. Sava." Please consider fixing the page after becoming familiar with WP:LINKS. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for advice. I didn't know that. I'll do my best to edit the article in the correct way. Wish you well. (Пера ложач) (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I think the article is much better now. Greetings! (Пера ложач) (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Greetings! :) (Пера ложач) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Victor Gollancz and the number of his daughters

You reverted a change which corrected the number of daughters (five) which Victor and Ruth Gollancz had. The original statement that they had four daughters was made by an art dealer who has a commercial interest in promoting the reputations of Ruth Gollancz and one of her daughters, Vita Gollancz. The correction was made by a descendant of Victor and Ruth Gollancz, albeit one who was born after the death of one of the daughters in 1967.

I have added a citation from a biography of Victor Gollancz published by a reputable publisher (Victor Gollancz Ltd) which gives the number of daughters. That complies with Wikipedia guidelines as an acceptable source. I could instead have cited the Dictionary of National Biography or a contemporary Who's Who.

What concerns me, and the reason for raising the matter in a talk section, is that Wikipedia seems to give the benefit of the doubt to the first author to make a statement. It also appears to demand tertiary sources (such as those which have made it into print) rather than secondary sources (such as the knowledge of the surviving daughters as to how many siblings they had). In some instances, published information may be wrong. The people directly involved know better.

I also draw to your attention that people may add articles to Wikipedia which at one and the same time add to available knowledge and advance their commercial interests.

I might add by way of explanation that I am a grandson of Victor and Ruth Gollancz and that I have bought some works from the art dealer who is Metadadaist.

RobertSimons (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC) RobertSimons

Hello. I appreciate your concern and will try to address it based on my own interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. I think it's true that earlier statements may be given more credibility in at least one situation. When a new article is written, Wikipedians will allow for less verifiability to allow a new subject to be presented in the encyclopedia, with the hope that editors will correct unsourced statements or add a citation tag to alert the author and other editors that the statements have not been verified. Later unsourced additions are treated more strictly. In the case of the edits you mentioned, it is unfortunate, but often happens, that an earlier edit was not called on for verifiability.

Whether you are related or not to the subject is not a consideration. I am not attempting to denigrate your contribution when I say that anyone can (and many do) change statements in an article based on non-verifiable sources, and one saying they know it is true is not good enough. Many "editors" also get pleasure out of vandalizing articles, sometimes blatantly and sometimes surreptitiously.

At any rate, thank you for sourcing the change you made to Victor Gollancz. If you would like to propose changes to Wikipedia's policies, a good place to do it is at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. Thank you. Bento00 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still troubled, because this isn't the first time that I have corrected something written by that author: in the article on Vita Gollancz it was stated that Vita met many artists at her parents' home in Eaton Square, London. When Vita was growing up the family lived at 42, Ladbroke Grove, London. They also had a country house at Brimpton near Newbury in Berkshire where weekend house parties were held. It was only in the mid-1950s, after all the children had left home, that 42, Ladbroke Grove was sold and Victor and Ruth Gollancz moved to an apartment in Eaton Place (not Eaton Square), London. All of this can be verified, e.g. by consulting old copies of Who's Who, telephone directories (available on-line through Ancestry.co.uk) or Ruth Dudley Edwards' biography of Victor Gollancz.

While this was indeed a minor error, it was a wholly unnecessary pseudo-fact. What concerns me is that Wikipedia seems to have no mechanism for learning from mistakes. It seems to me that contributors to Wikipedia should be scored according to the extent to which material which they submit prevails over the long term. A contributor's score would in effect be a measure of the trustworthiness of submissions. Then a change made by someone whose trust score was higher would be accepted rather than being rejected because the original author had said something different. A trust management system would also encourage contributors to take more care because mistakes would harm their rating.

RobertSimons (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Robert Simons

Reverted edit

I was merely reverting vandalism that was there for a long time. Check the history before accusing me of unconstructive editing. This is why so many people withdraw from collaborating. --189.27.234.203 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I know how tiresome and stressful it can be to try to keep Wikipedia from irresponsible editing. That's why I quit trying. Best, --189.27.234.203 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy bebop

one of your reverts claimed it as my own, i dont know why, but i wasn't anywhere near violating NPOV in cowboy bebopBread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi BN, I think you might be mistaken. The action I took at this page was reverting edits by 86.157.40.248 back to the last edit by you. Your edit is still part of the article, it was the next set of edits that I believe violated WP:NPOV and which I reverted. Please check the history of Cowboy Bebop, and let me know if you still see a problem. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
oh ok nevermind i see it now, it just looks slightly different because the suer's IP didn't show up and only my name did. sorry for the inconvinience.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken revert on question

You inadvertently reverted a vandalism fix at question; see this diff. Try to be more careful in the future. Graham87 04:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for rectifying the situation, Graham. I think I and Favonian were reverting at about the same time, and either I erred and reverted the wrong edit, or Twinkle did. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

constructive

that was creating links between people of Pluvigner and Caherciveen mate...I think its incredibly constructive...the towns would not be twinned otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angealt (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In the article Pluvigner, your quoting "Katie" and describing her demeanor was unconstructive. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Hi, I noticed that you just reverted some edits by an IP at Atheism. I looked at those edits myself when they appeared, and was unsure whether they might actually have been good edits. I'd be reluctant to simply revert them, as they seem to add content that may have been previously misquoted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Clearly, you were more thorough about it than I was, so thank you for that. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback

I've granted your request. Welcome to the hugglers! I see you have racked up a nice count with Twinkle, and no major complaints from the vandals. There will be some once they see you are using Huggle...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What Spam Links did I add? All Things L&O is not spam, it's actually very reliable, more so then IMDB or TV.com. 174.91.250.118 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually she (the blogger) does get her press releases and information (sometimes videos) from NBC. Though it's a blog and is not allowed for sources or external links. If you're using them as sources, wait until the regular sites report it (EW, THR, TVGuide, etc). —Mike Allen 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Araripe Manakin

regarding "It eats fruit,insects,and small fish and frogs." i added on the page for the Araripe Manakin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.165.120 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Yes, could you tell me why you added that? All sites I visit about the bird indicate it eats fruits, berries and insects, not small fish and frogs. Where is your source for that info? Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you're interested

Standardizing my talk page headers has been on my "to do" list for some time. Since you expressed an interest here, I thought I'd let you know I had (in my opinion) upgraded my headers. You would be able to substitute any icon that communicated your point better and tweak the text to suit. Anyway, it's an option. See ya 'round Tiderolls 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You

Who are you and why do you keep changing people's edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittles1133 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia developed by consensus while following its policies. One policy is called Original Research, and among other things states "...Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." I and another editor felt your comments about the Shipshad dorm at the University of Portland were original research. If you feel otherwise, the best way to further your cause is to open up a topic on the article's Talk page. Perhaps other editors will agree with you. You can read more about original research at WP:OR (That's why I and the other editor who reverted your edits included this link in our reverting comments.) Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The topic(s) you're referrign to in the paragrpah above have nothing to do with me or any page I've ever edited, so you may want to checkyour notes.

As for decision by consensus, who's to say that's the correct answer as well, as that can lead to info not getting revealed at all for people to draw their own conclusions from. You can always put the warning I've seen many times saying the content of a page is disputed, so people are forewarned. Just because you don't agree with an editor doesn't give you the right to make your views seen over theirs. Then you become the censor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmspeed (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

      • I'm not sure what your first sentence means. I wrote a response to Kittles1133's edit of the University of Portland page, not to one of your edits. At any rate, decision by consensus is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Other sources of information may use other methods. Just because you feel one way and add text that reflects your opinion doesn't give you the right to impose your views over others. There were times my edits were reverted or changed, sometimes with comments and sometimes without. It gives me pause to think about the edit, and sometimes I agree with the other editor, sometimes I don't. If I don't and feel strongly about it, I open a topic in the article's Talk page. Bento00 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

esq news / vandalims?!?

hey Bento00, why are my additionals to "esquire" considered as "vandalism"? I just added some considerable news about using "esq". What can I do to improve our contributes?

thanks and kind regards, Mirko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quattrowahn (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have read the Wiki guidelines on external links, and I am aware that Wiki is not, as you say, a collection of links. However, I'm not sure why a specific article on mourning practices during the Civil War would not provide relevant additional information for an article on mourning. And the article on weather during the Civil War argues that the strange weather during the time period was largely due to the Little Ice Age, making it, I think, relevant additional information to the article on the Little Ice Age. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the policy.Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • My thinking is that there must be thousands of articles about mourning (or ice ages) and adding links to any and all would indeed make Wikipedia a collection of links. Including the links was a stretch to me. The other links you added seemed to be very close to the subject. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hillsong United

The band Hillsong United hasn't changed their name, but the youth ministry which they started out of is not called 'Hillsong United' anymore, but now 'Hillsong Youth' http://www.hillsongyouth.com

About Sava Nomocanon

Please don't remove this picture of St. Sava. This is more beautiful, and more famous frescoe of St. Sava. Please keep this picture: Image: Sveti Sava Kraljeva Crkva.jpg. Thanks! :) (Пера ложач) (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your message. Yes, you added a very good image. My reverting was not because of the image, but because you added way too much wikilinking on Sava Nomocanon. In particular, we don't link common English words or terms, such as the word "religion" or "law." Also, once a word is linked, it shouldn't generally be linked in the same article later on, such as you did to "legal act" or "St. Sava." Please consider fixing the page after becoming familiar with WP:LINKS. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for advice. I didn't know that. I'll do my best to edit the article in the correct way. Wish you well. (Пера ложач) (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I think the article is much better now. Greetings! (Пера ложач) (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Greetings! :) (Пера ложач) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Victor Gollancz and the number of his daughters

You reverted a change which corrected the number of daughters (five) which Victor and Ruth Gollancz had. The original statement that they had four daughters was made by an art dealer who has a commercial interest in promoting the reputations of Ruth Gollancz and one of her daughters, Vita Gollancz. The correction was made by a descendant of Victor and Ruth Gollancz, albeit one who was born after the death of one of the daughters in 1967.

I have added a citation from a biography of Victor Gollancz published by a reputable publisher (Victor Gollancz Ltd) which gives the number of daughters. That complies with Wikipedia guidelines as an acceptable source. I could instead have cited the Dictionary of National Biography or a contemporary Who's Who.

What concerns me, and the reason for raising the matter in a talk section, is that Wikipedia seems to give the benefit of the doubt to the first author to make a statement. It also appears to demand tertiary sources (such as those which have made it into print) rather than secondary sources (such as the knowledge of the surviving daughters as to how many siblings they had). In some instances, published information may be wrong. The people directly involved know better.

I also draw to your attention that people may add articles to Wikipedia which at one and the same time add to available knowledge and advance their commercial interests.

I might add by way of explanation that I am a grandson of Victor and Ruth Gollancz and that I have bought some works from the art dealer who is Metadadaist.

RobertSimons (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC) RobertSimons

Hello. I appreciate your concern and will try to address it based on my own interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. I think it's true that earlier statements may be given more credibility in at least one situation. When a new article is written, Wikipedians will allow for less verifiability to allow a new subject to be presented in the encyclopedia, with the hope that editors will correct unsourced statements or add a citation tag to alert the author and other editors that the statements have not been verified. Later unsourced additions are treated more strictly. In the case of the edits you mentioned, it is unfortunate, but often happens, that an earlier edit was not called on for verifiability.

Whether you are related or not to the subject is not a consideration. I am not attempting to denigrate your contribution when I say that anyone can (and many do) change statements in an article based on non-verifiable sources, and one saying they know it is true is not good enough. Many "editors" also get pleasure out of vandalizing articles, sometimes blatantly and sometimes surreptitiously.

At any rate, thank you for sourcing the change you made to Victor Gollancz. If you would like to propose changes to Wikipedia's policies, a good place to do it is at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. Thank you. Bento00 (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm still troubled, because this isn't the first time that I have corrected something written by that author: in the article on Vita Gollancz it was stated that Vita met many artists at her parents' home in Eaton Square, London. When Vita was growing up the family lived at 42, Ladbroke Grove, London. They also had a country house at Brimpton near Newbury in Berkshire where weekend house parties were held. It was only in the mid-1950s, after all the children had left home, that 42, Ladbroke Grove was sold and Victor and Ruth Gollancz moved to an apartment in Eaton Place (not Eaton Square), London. All of this can be verified, e.g. by consulting old copies of Who's Who, telephone directories (available on-line through Ancestry.co.uk) or Ruth Dudley Edwards' biography of Victor Gollancz.

While this was indeed a minor error, it was a wholly unnecessary pseudo-fact. What concerns me is that Wikipedia seems to have no mechanism for learning from mistakes. It seems to me that contributors to Wikipedia should be scored according to the extent to which material which they submit prevails over the long term. A contributor's score would in effect be a measure of the trustworthiness of submissions. Then a change made by someone whose trust score was higher would be accepted rather than being rejected because the original author had said something different. A trust management system would also encourage contributors to take more care because mistakes would harm their rating.

RobertSimons (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Robert Simons

Reverted edit

I was merely reverting vandalism that was there for a long time. Check the history before accusing me of unconstructive editing. This is why so many people withdraw from collaborating. --189.27.234.203 (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I know how tiresome and stressful it can be to try to keep Wikipedia from irresponsible editing. That's why I quit trying. Best, --189.27.234.203 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cowboy bebop

one of your reverts claimed it as my own, i dont know why, but i wasn't anywhere near violating NPOV in cowboy bebopBread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi BN, I think you might be mistaken. The action I took at this page was reverting edits by 86.157.40.248 back to the last edit by you. Your edit is still part of the article, it was the next set of edits that I believe violated WP:NPOV and which I reverted. Please check the history of Cowboy Bebop, and let me know if you still see a problem. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
oh ok nevermind i see it now, it just looks slightly different because the suer's IP didn't show up and only my name did. sorry for the inconvinience.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken revert on question

You inadvertently reverted a vandalism fix at question; see this diff. Try to be more careful in the future. Graham87 04:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and for rectifying the situation, Graham. I think I and Favonian were reverting at about the same time, and either I erred and reverted the wrong edit, or Twinkle did. Thanks. Bento00 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bento00/Archive_2&oldid=1088831780"