This is an archive of past discussions about User:Excirial. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Your more then welcome. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, and i will get back to you as soon as possible. I will of course keep an eye on your talk page as well, but asking questions over here might cause a somewhat slower response as my watchlist is a bit full with IP users i need to monitor, so i might overlook changes made by you. Just keep in mind there are no stupid questions, and that i am not bothered at all if i see a talk page change - in fact there is no such thing as asking to much; You will be tired of asking before i will be tired of answering :).
I have gone trough your edits to see if i noticed anything i might be able to help with, but it would seem that you are doing exceptionally well for such a new account. Am i correct when i assume that you have been contributing for a longer time(As an IP), or perhaps worked on other Wiki's then Wikipedia? If not: Congratulations, you are a natural. If you are: Keep up the good work as you are doing perfectly fine.
Perhaps there is one thing i should mention, and that is that i tend to be reactive as a mentor - This means that i will respond to questions and keep an eye on your edits to see if i can help in any way. Some mentors prefer a proactive approach and bombard their mentee with a lot of information, tips or area's to work in. On default i don't do this, but if you would like it just say so - its a matter of me not doing it, not a matter of me not being able or interested to do so.
Many thanks. Yes I am new at this, so it is surprising to see that I am doing well so far. I have contributed as an IP but not that much just started out this month actually. I will probably have many questions for you so I hope all goes well between us. Yimiju (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
John Hynady article - neutrality disputed.
Hello, as you know the history on this article , we have some problems which we can`t solve. To avoid another edit war i give up, and left the other users to do as they want, but i challenged the neutrality of the article. Now, even with that some of them have a problem. Can you please help me, and explain why is that removed since it is clear (from the talk page) that this article is not neutral at least. If i am doing something wrong, can you please explain me please what could be the problem. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You added the tag correctly, yet seeing the situation i think you should consider which template fits best. If you believe the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint the current tag should be used (To give an example: In an article about Creation–evolution controversy leaning towards either viewpoint is disputed neutrality). On the other hand, if you believe certain facts are not correct, the {{Disputed}} template should be used. (Examples for this are disputed birth dates, countries of origin et cetera). In short: The current template states that the article is giving undue attention to a certain viewpoint, while the template i mentioned warns the user that there might be factual errors in the text.
As for adding the template itself: I believe it should at least be temporally added to signal users that the article has recently been disputed. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the facts are generally all good, i don`t see any problem with them, just with the summarization some users write on the article, the way they say it change the whole meaning of the facts. Yes, i believe that the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint, so this form is correct. Since it is clear even from the Talk page that the neutrality of this article is not clear, how can i stop certain users from removing the tag? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Unless you are an administrator with locking rights, you cannot prevent other users from simply removing the tag. The only thing you can do is ask them why they did it and revert the tag, with the risk of creating yet another edit war. I know this can be frustrating at times, as it is something i regulary experience on newpage and vandalism patrol, but little can be done about it. The only option i can think of is going trough a DR procedure which can be quoted later on. Safe for that, i think this is just one of the few drawbacks of a "Free to edit for everyone" encyclopedia. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Excirial, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of FC Leopardos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a test page. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit i find the timing a rather amusing. At 23:34 this message was posted, and minutes later i see this: 23:37, 20 March 2010 Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk | contribs) deleted "FC Leopardos" (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban). i believe i tagged this article this morning - which is at least 12 hours ago for me - and suddenly two administrators review the same article within a couple of minutes of each other? There truly are no coincidences! :)
Now as for the article itself: When i tagged the FC Leopardos article, the user had first been trying to make his own article, before copy and pasting an article about an entirely different football club. I decided to add the test template as (i believe, it is some time since i tagged it) that user overwrote a couple of CSD templates already. A prod template removal might not be picked up by a fellow patrol as the article looked fine - it just wasn't describing the subject. I know that G2 didn't apply entirely, but at time it seemed the best option to keep the article in view. I hope this explains, and with kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your edit again on the basis of WP:NPOV \ WP:BIAS and factual accuracy. Let me give you a quick explanation as to the why:
First and foremost, stating "Muslim" when linking to "Turkish people" is inaccuracy. Certainly, most are Muslims, but not all.
You may ask why, if the majority was Muslim. Keep in mind that this was a conflict limited to certain geographical locations, which makes it more accurate to state two countries were at war. Religious reasons may have been a factor, but it was not an all-out war between two religious groups. For the same reason i changed "Orthodox" back into "Greek"
The term "Mussulman" is the most accurate one for that time period, regardless of meaning that are present these days. As for an example, we still refer to the roman spearman as Hastati, even though they are being called spearman in plain English. However, calling them "Hastati" is the most accurate way to describe units from this time period.
Lines such as "and Greek clergy repeatedly called for their murder" are biased unless a source is provided. The same goes for "Oddly, some", which is an WP:Opinion
I hope you will understand my points, and frankly, i see no talkpage concensus for your edits. Even IF there was editor concensus, it would go against the guidelines i stated. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly. As you can see the current version (Well, at time of posting this not anymore, as i corrected it) contains vandalism as well. Apparently some vandalism revision was not reverted this morning, and subsequent vandalism caused me to revert back to that version. I reverted a bit further back, and now the article should be A-Ok. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Author blanking of article
I noticed recently that you have more than once reverted edits where the author of an article has blanked that article, and you have placed a warning on that user's talk page, using Huggle. Certainly generally it is not accepted for the author of a page to remove a speedy deletion tag, but it is generally accepted that if the author of an article blanks the article, and no other user has added any significant content, then the blanking is taken as indicating that the author wants the page deleted, and it can then be tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-blanked}}. This commonly accepted view is mentioned at WP:CSD. Very often new users who don't know how Wikipedia works see an article they have created tagged for deletion, accept that the article should be deleted, and remove the content, thinking that is deleting it. It is much better in such a case not to bite the newcomer by giving them a warning that they have done something wrong by trying to comply with the deletion notice. You may know all this already: I know from my own experience of using Huggle that it is very easy to slip into simply clicking on the revert button and moving on without checking the edit history carefully enough, but I thought it would not harm to mention this. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, i'm not entirely sure what i can say here. Yes, i knew this, as i am quite active in new page patrol if in not on the lookout for vandalism. As you didn't list any article's specifically i can't comment on any specific case either. So perhaps i should just say: Sure, ill keep an extra eye open for this :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)
Excuse me, do you know who of Cornell South? Obviously not.
05:15, 8 September 2007 Satori Son (talk | contribs) deleted "Cornell South" (Expired PROD, concern was: "Article is incoherent and is likely a hoax.")
What about the article was incoherent, and who gave you the authority to judge it's authenticity? How is it "likely a hoax? How did you determine this conclusion?
Thanks for the heads up. Not every day that an uncontested PROD deletion I made two and a half years ago makes ANI. — Satori Son14:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
User J. Patrick Fischer (talk) is removing systematically the symbols of the city alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that he doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. You are being partial. His editions are the ones to be avoided. Emerson Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not a party in this dispute, and my only concert here is the violation of WP:3RR. However i do notice that your [1] are taking out several references at the same time, with no real explanation. Furthermore i would advice you to log in while making these edits, as using an IP instead of your account could draw WP:Sockpuppet suspicion onto you. Also, please keep cool. Editing while being angry or annoyed with someone is generally a bad idea; Instead of reverting each other over and over you should discuss the issue on the article talk page. If you cannot seem to solve it, please use Dispute resolution to come to a consensus. With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Excirial. I requested for several times for help, but nothing happend. I asked for a third oppinion, I announced the edit war and I announced the vandalism of User:Domeleixo. The discussion at the talk page is about the CoA and flag of Dili, but Domaleixo is deleting the sourced chapter about the Administration, too, although I warned him. Anyhow, Domaleixo is insulting the other users in the discussion. There are three against his sole oppinion. There is high time for an administrator to stop him. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Even so reverting each other over and over will not solve the issue as the other user can do the exact same thing. I listed the page for protection so that the edit war will at least temporally be stopped. I see the Third opinion request was added just a few hours ago. Wikipedia tends to turn rather slowly in the weekend, so give it some time. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As you can see: There are several opinions against Domaleixo and he is trying again worldwide to press his image inside. There is really the need for an administrator. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Exciral! Domaleixo changed again the article Dili against the opinion of four people, including the "third opinon". He is offending everyone and is not following the Wikiquette. It is high time for administrators to intervene. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, i remember sighing earlier this morning after i saw the page history. I would advice making an Ani or AN3 report on the situation, and see what happens. Since it is a content dispute rather then vandalism, WP:AIAV cannot be used. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Merebau and me made several reports at AN3 and there was even a "third opinion", who supported the opinion of the majority. You warned Domaleixo not to go on with the edit war, but he is still doing it as IP-socket puppet. It cost a lot of time to repair Domaleixos doings and I want to respect your request not to go on with edit war, but the only solution this way would be, to accept Domaleixo's minority one-person-opinion. I do not think, that is the right way. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The only report i see on ANI is the report made by Domaleixo, which is apparently not being actioned due to canvassing. If you didn't make a report yourself i would advice making one yourself, which describes the situation, including links to the 3th opinion and previous talk page discussions to show you have already attempted dispute resolution. As for it taking a lot of time: I hope you are aware that you can undo or revert to previous revisions? I assume you know it, but it is always better to say it is possible, then to find our someone is doing it the hard way. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you ask me NOT to re-edit all the time? ;-)
It is very difficult for an non-native-English-speaker to understand the several different report options and procedures. I gave up trying to understand the sockpuppet report procedure. I made reports at "Edit war" and "Third opinion request", but by now I really get lost in this bureaucratism. In German Wikipedia it is quite simple. If there is a problem, administrators are acting after a request quite fast. --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are not re-editing, what time is spend cleaning up then? :P
I agree that the WP:SSP page is one of the least accessible report pages due to its somewhat unusual report mechanism - i remember botching the first two reports myself. Don't worry, i will create and fill it out for you. Give me a few minutes to complete it, and then i will drop you a link to it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
April Fools jokes tend to work best when you don't play them on April first, as people are on their guards then. But seeing the word "Wikipedia lawyer" i just wanted to quote that policy, so i thought i could just as well prepare for Currentday+10. :)
And it is a pleasure to keep your talk page clean - The more talk page vandalism a you attract the better. After all, it signals your doing a great job (And it keeps the article space clean at the same time). Other then that, the "Less Work" feeling is completely mutual; More patrols is always better. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
.."keeps the article space clean..." **** good point! Tiderolls17:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC) self censored to abide by this user's "no swearing" edict :)
I just took a look at my user page on March 18th and saw that you did some protection of it. Thank you very much. - Pingveno06:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, Excirial, that wasn't vandalism. That was a mistake on my part, and I was trying to restore it, but the edit conflicts... My bad. Sorry for interrupting your work. ALInomnom14:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, mistakes can always occur. Just look at my edit history, and you will see a couple of bad reverts as well :). Besides, reverting it only took half a second. And the timing couldn't have been better, because it seems we actually have an overcapacity of patrols today. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha! That's a first. Good to see it. Well, keep up the good work- I'm off. ALI nom nom 14:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid that only [{WP:Administrator|administrators]] can lock pages, while i only have the rollback privilege. Page protections can be requested at WP:RPP, but i doubt they deem the amount of vandalism enough to warrant a lock. Generally taken it requires either longterm vandalism, or 30-40 vandalism edits in a short time span. Don't worry though, there seem to be plenty of vandalism patrols about today who will revert it in an instance if it is vandalized again. (Of course blocking the vandalism IP's / Usernames in the process). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
First of, sorry for the somewhat to fast warning regarding this edit - i have removed the warning and reinstated the article. However, you state that there is "No citation", while the text contains 4 references which your edit also removes. Mind giving me a quick explanation on that issue? :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Aah, now i see what you were trying to do. I appreciate your intention to help with removing the article, but only adminitrators can remove article's. Clearing them will make the page appear empty, but it will not actually remove them. And no, i cannot see you on Irc, but all edits to Wikipedia are logged on the recent changes list, and people such as myself evaluate the edits to see if they are not harmfull or otherwise objectionable.
By the way, Welcome to Wikipedia! It is always a good thing to see IP users who are trying to help improve wikipedia, instead of destroying it. You don't have to keep pressing F5 - Once i leave a message on your talk page you will get a message that i have done so. Wikipedia isn't exactly real-time chat, but talk pages do well enough for communicating. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, i accidentally skipped a vandalized page, and mixed up the "Go back" and "Revert and warn" button. Sorry for the useless message. I reverted both the rollback and the message on your talk page. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias. Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :) Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus? And if I crossed any rule then so have they. However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.
As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus. And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen? Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it. Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News. Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV. So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV. I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified. I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)
I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Macrophage
User:Dlohcierekim has given you a Macrophage! Macrophages in the body protect against infection and gobble up debris. Macrophages on Wikipedia protect against vandals and gobble up vandalism. This Macrophage is given in recognition of your work in reversion of vandalism and warning of vandals. Thank you for your efforts to keep Wikipedia healthy. Happy editing! -- Dlohcierekim 22:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, technically it was incorrect, as you stayed within the 3RR rule quite admirably. However, in these cases it often seems to help if you give a quick warning to all parties involved as this forces the users to their talk page. Adding a template quickly also reduces the likelihood of users reverting another time, and thereby sparking the issue yet again. I hope you don't mind i sacrificed a bit of accuracy for speeds and preventions sake :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
The User has done nothing but insult, swear, and has been downright unworkable. Compare these two edits: [2] and [3] and the edits on the talk page. It's the same user and he's got 6 reverts today. Should I go straight to AN/I or just 3RR? Soxwon (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It would seem that Jonovion already made a report at ANI at this time, so i think that renders the question moot. In general i would say SSP if you believe he is abusing that IP, WP:WQA if you believe he is just outside civility guidelines, WP:AN3 if the user is edit warring, yet trying to improve the article, and WP:ANI if you believe this is both not civil nor constructive. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Midland Metro
Please read the page history, please go and see why Haskinak got banned before, please go and observe that the edit you just re-reverted was in fact one by Haskinak that removed a ton of referenced material and added all sorts of unreferenced and highly dubious claims. Alan Cox (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have accordingly put back the referenced material and removed the defamatory content. If you think this is wrong please stick a third opinion needed on the page, as it needs an independant moderator to sort out really Alan Cox (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no clue as to why i reverted this page - and frankly, i cannot even remember seeing it altogether. You are right, there is certainly nothing wrong with this edit, and normally taken i would never have reverted it. The only explanation i can give is that i missed some sort of vandalism on another page while having pressed "Next Page" already (Thus reverting the wrong page), or that i should get a cup of coffee and a break to refresh my attention and accuracy. My apologies for this miss - i see you have already reverted my edit, and ill stripe the warning on your talk page for being invalid. Your of course free to remove it altogether if you wish though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Slow down-- Huggle is so fast, it can get you into trouble. Keep up the good work, just take an extra couple of seconds to let it all register. (I recently blocked a vandalism reverter instead of the vandal. Sometimes the fingers work faster than the brain. They just go off and do things on their own.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pedro José Triest
Hi. I appreciate your efforts reverting, but, in that case, it wasn't quite appropriate. The story was,
A user submitted an article for creation in Italian. I declined it; we cannot accept foreign submissions
They blanked it. Fine - it was 'their' submission.
Of course that is all ok, it is exactly what should have been done in the first place. Most times i would have tagged as such myself, but it seems i missed it this time. Since your the second person who notifies me of an error within minutes, i think i better get a 30-60 minute break and a nice cup of coffee refill my attention span and to prevent more errors from occurring. Might be a good idea to take a break regardless, as i have been busy reverting 6 hours strait now - kinda hard to stop if you notice to little people are busy on patrol. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that Chzz - drinking coffee is always more relaxing if your not in a hurry (Though i really shouldn't be, less i want to burn out. It seems i finally handled every talk page issue i had, so it is time to step back and get a nice, LARGE cup of coffee. Good luck on patrol, and with the best wishes, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have pointed out very clearly that the information I added is NOT opinion, it is easily verifiable FACT. Yet a pair of idiots keep reverting without cause, while claiming I am vandalizing. THEY are the ones vandalizing the article.
Check the talk page for Snopes, you'll see it's fact, not fiction.
It might have been better to back away from this one and let someone else deal with him/her. When people are this excited, they tend to act in ways we all regret. Never be afraid to say to yourself, "this person's anger is not my problem." Dlohcierekim 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Hmmm, in this case i intentionally used a blank revert (Meaning no user warning) as i deemed this edit a good faith opinion. Frankly i don't really mind if a user is uncivil towards me for reverting an edit - it is understandable that no one really likes being reverted. (Though in this case i removed the message as it was just a bunch of swears.) Hence, i deem it completely understandable that a user might be rude or nonconstructive if he or she has just been warned, but if the same user decides to go to two more talk pages and repeat the same thing, i prefer having them blocked for a bit so they can cool down. I agree it could have gone better, and perhaps a 30-60 minute ban would have been sufficient in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the block at this point. Cool down blocks are not a good idea and should not be applied. However, the disruption and incivility had to be checked. The user, if you read the talk pages, came here with a chip on his shoulder. The very first talk page edit said, "now watch some idiot editor," Hopefully, he'll heed my advice. Dlohcierekim 15:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you even look at the article and what you're doing before you revert an edit? Is it a robot that does it? Please look at the article Michel's Baguette and reconsider the revert you made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.71.95 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, today really seems to be a day where i just keep goofing up on vandalism patrol for the one or other reason - and even worse, it are the kind of goof-ups that make no sense at all when i look back at them. Sorry for this, you are obviously right that this is (another) bad revert. I think ill better slow down and triple check everything from now on - and if that doesn't work out well enough, quit patrolling for the day. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you were editing, so i hope you don't mind if i ask your assistance with a BLP article and someone claiming to be the subject of the article? It seems we have an IP user claiming to be Jeffrey Caissie, and he requests that his page should be removed due to inaccuracies. Im not sure if it is true or not, but he complains about the death date, and about the name of his daughter (Incidentally the daughter would be his cat, and since he is talking he obviously never died). An IP added this information along with the mainpage of a newspaper, though i cannot seem to find the particular article, even though it should just be a year old. Seeing it is not being handled in the most "optimal" way so far, might i ask if you have some time for this? If you do, this is the talkpage with the discussion. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
How very bizarre is this? I guess when he found the vandalized article, he thought to just undermine it completely? In any event, it seems that the article is being cleaned up, and I've left him some potentially useful links. Good job figuring out where the "death" information entered; does seem to have been vandalism! --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems that the situation improved quite a bit during the time i was typing, but i is a good thing you left the user a short note. There is nothing like figuring out you are apparently being a corpse, and subsequently running in the problem that you have no clue as to how this should be undone. I have no clue if this was an attempt to delete the article, or if this was just vandalism utilizing the lack of a reliable source. Even so, the information was completely unsourced, so whatever the reason - the article is cleaned up :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing the issue with the article. The problem I saw was that the subject was requesting the deletion of the entire article on invalid grounds. Huggle gave me no way to see that the article was claiming that this person was dead, given where he wrote his comments. I have removed all user warnings from his talk page, and the dubious information as well.
As an aside, the article has a notability tag, but I think this person passes our notability guidelines, albeit barely. As for the offender, it is way too late to issue user warnings, especially given that the edits were anonymous. But I think we should keep the article under watch, just in case. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to have been added a long time ago, so i think the article has an equal risk of being vandalized as any other BLP page. Requesting deletion of an entire page seems to be a common response people give when they see inaccurate information, and seeing the sourcing i figured i might as well try and look it up. On the first glance it looked like vandalism though, and the only reason why i presumed this might not be a vandal was his persistence on your talk page. Thanks for removing the content though - that saves me a few minutes of doing so. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that was a case of pressing the wrong button. I pretty much went like this: "Lets see.. that diff looks okay. Next pa... O wait, it adds "gay-hard", so it is probably vandalism, better check again.. o, Wait again! It is an article related to the "Bruno" movie so that information is likely correct *Hand still hovering over revert*. Now, just to tap the button for the next page and continue *Hits reverts instead*. Dang. wrong button, better undo this quickly.".
Silly as that was written, it is quite accurate. I thought it was vandalism for a second, and when i realized it wasn't i hit the wrong key. I reverted both edits within a minute, but i forgot that you would get an orange message box even if i reverted. In retrospect, i should have added a quick message on your talk page it was an error :). 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, see what you mean. Thanks for explaining and sorry for messing up your talk page formatting (thanks for correcting it). Best wishes.Qwerta369 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
A question.
Hello, sorry to bother you , again :), but since you were provide a clear explanation about the previous matter, i would like to ask you another question. EX: We have a location, city Novi Sad, now that city have other language names that are present on that city page. Now we have that Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina, and on the article about Vojvodina, we don`t mention other language name of Novi Sad, only the state language which in this example is Serbian language. Is that correct? Thank you again. iadrian (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those questions that has a level of detail which goes beyond normal editing questions, and therefor i cannot give you an answer that is based upon the policies or agreements on naming such items. I can, however, say the following: Normally each article has a specific topic, and man should try not to add detailed information which isn't about that specific topic. For example the Comparison of revision control software article should not add long descriptions on each piece of software - that should be added on individual article's instead.
The question for you would be: are the alternate names for the city necessarily to understand the Vojvodina topic? Would users fail to understand the article if the alternate name would not be mentioned? Many countries and cities have alternate names in another language, but generally taken they should be mentioned only if required. Hence, that is why we add the native names of the city on the english wiki, but not the name a random other country uses. There is no sense adding the French name to the New York article for example.
Note that i am just quoting a basic policy now, and applying that to the current situation. It is possible that some other policy or wikiproject overrides this though, so if you want to be sure you may want to ask at Wikiproject cities. Hope this helps, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the users understand perfectly the article without other language names. I know that other language names can be present on the city`s article in standard form Ex: Novi Sad (in Romanian xxxx, in Hungarian xxx , etc), but not when ever that particular city is mentioned in other places, like "Novi Sad/(other language name) is a city in Vojvodina". Ok. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
With regards to my talkpage, meh, I kinda like it, reflects my oh so organized personality :). I'll slap a bot on there some day... Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
There we go, i added my comment. Quite interesting that the 138. IP seems to be related to the university of San Fransisco - The "Dude" in front of that line made me doubt the comment but seeing that it might very well be true - or perhaps he is a student. Who knows?
I can see the student a bit, but honestly, I cannot think of a professor telling another person to quote "Blow Me." Just can't really. Soxwon (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement about the A.C. Moore page. But I will accept it anyway due to it's accurate nature. I was wondering, how do administrators find pages to scrutinize and pick out details, so quickly after changes have been made? If you could respond rapidly that would be enjoyed thoroughly.
--Garlikguy (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made no statement whatsoever on the A.C. Moore page. If you think it's inaccurate, find some reliable sources and change the info accordingly. I only reverted your revision because the addition looked dubious. Also, duct tape was misspelled "Duck Tape". Regards, Airplanemantalk22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. Wikipedians are just Psychics who read the minds of everyone on the planet, filtering for people who edit Wikipedia. I just read yours as well, so i thought i would drop in for the "Spooky" effect. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC) And hi Airplaneman! Hope you don't mind me dropping in like this - seeing the edit i just couldn't resist making this silly comment
Ah, I was going to say that... but decided not to :). Hey Garlikguy, the above is almost true; Wikipedians (and a bot) tend to sift through revisions at the speed of light! When I'm vandal patrolling, nearly a third of my reverts are aborted, as somebody (or somebotty) else has beat me to it. Airplanemantalk22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
"Disruption only account"
I noticed you accused me of being a "disruption-only account" at WP:ANI. Aside from being a failure to assume good faith, you are simply wrong. In fact, I created the following articles in the last few weeks from scratch alone.
I have been busy with vandalism patrol the last few days. To sum it up, i reverted around 4.200 counts of vandalism in the last 8 days. Around is loosely, as vandalism most times takes two edits (Removal + warning), but sometimes i don't see the need to warn the user if it seems to be an error instead of a mistake. Naturally i have also been making ANI and AIAV edits so the amount goes down a bit, but 4.200 is a good estimate i presume. Feel free to check it yourself though.
Aside from this, your user page is (was) WAY out of line. Seeing you actually blanked it right before coming here shows that you are quite aware of that. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No, i am not maintaining that assessment as you made positive contributions as well, so disruption only is overly harsh. However, i maintain the assessment that you are way out of Civ and NPA policy. Not just because they are policies, but because Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where many editors with many different opinions reside. You are bound to run into people disagreeing with you, and such disagreements should be discussed politely. Name-calling and other personal attacks has in the past only led to bans or editors growing disgusted with the project and eachother. You have my apologies for being too harsh, but i urge you to rethink your approach towards other editors. I guarantee you that not doing means constantly smacking into the WP:ANI wall with due consequences, which is neither productive, nor enjoyable for anyone. I very much prefer seeing bans being handed to vandals, then to regular users. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate "final warning". What if no one sees a string of vandalism after the "final warning"? Then they feel like they got away with something, and just keep going. <rant /> <grin /> Thanks. I've been dying to say that for years. Dlohcierekim 14:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
For a second i thought this edit messed up my talkpage somehow, as i became plagued with "Section does not exist" problems on each and every section - Oh. thanks for archiving my talkpage Miszabot!
As for the template, the current version is a LOT better then the previous warning (example). You don't want to know - or perhaps you already do - how many times AIAV was backlogged, and articles became plagued with text saying "Oh, banned on the next vandalism? Whats this? And this? and again?" Its one of the reasons i like Huggle so much, as it automatically sorts the edits based upon risk assessment. Previously warned users are inserted right on top, which means the reaction time is almost instant, and escape is impossible (IF they vandalize that is). Oh, and glad to take care of that vandal. Nothing like the smell of a coffee n' a block in the morning. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)14:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, if he just blanked it a bit earlier his intentions would have been a little more clear, as it looked like content removal now. With some luck the G7 template will stay on it so it will be removed. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to say great work on the RCP today :), and would you like me to protect your user page from those vandals? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Im glad Wikipedia is accessible again, i hate to think how much vandalism slipped trough during the downtime(Well, its technically still down, but at least im back). As for the protection, thanks for the offer, but i have a neat small line in my talk page comment dealing with that: "PS: If you are a Vandal who intends to vandalize any of my pages: Please go right ahead! I frankly don't give a damn about it, and it demonstrates that im doing my work well.". Vandalism on my talk page means no vandalism in the article space, and talk page vandalism is really obvious. ^^ Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This IP is one of a school, so warning of a ban due to vandalism or non-constructive edits will not be noticed by the majority of students. I recommend that this IP is blocked from editing due to any cautioning or discipline will not reach students and the unlikelihood that students will cease their vandalism. 209.68.66.150 (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, i have marked the IP as belonging to a school. IP's are never blocked permanently due to the risk of IP reallocation, but long term vandalism from a school IP will most times be met with blocks ranging from 6 months to a year (And those will be reinstated after that period if the vandalism pattern continues). With kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand the point of your reverting my edit to Bullet. The section I corrected was poorly written, grammatically incorrect, and extremely unprofessional. I corrected it to have proper sentence structure and better writing without changing the meaning of it. This is not "unconstructive". 75.66.80.108 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Aaah, now it does make sense. The Diff showed it was the bullet article, but it didn't show there was a section called "Figurative uses" in there. Frankly i thought someone was trying to explain the term "Blank rounds" (The version related to firearms) in the middle of the article while comparing it to male sterility - which didn't make that much sense. Naturally i reverted my mistake to your version already :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Quit It
Why do you keep removing my edits at Derby High School. I was giving a first person point of veiw on the school. You need to leave it as they are facts agreed on by the student body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAnarchist8239 (talkcontribs) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
True enough that his edits weren't really vandalism as opposed to a cry for help - that is why i reverted the first edit without warning and started typing a message to ask if he needed help. However when i saw this edit and a right after that another one i decided that warning the user was the quickest way to get him to his talk page, to prevent him from making more changes that might cause warnings from other patrols. At the very least it gave me a minute to figure out the problem and to see if i could fix it :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
True, I should not have used the word vandalize. Pretty ironic that I did (laughs). from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 20:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I go around wikipeidia, and tell good administrators, like you, how they make wikipedia a great place to find information. You are funny and understanding, but still get rid of vandilisim. I think that you will continue to go on doing what you do, and that you will help as many people as you can. So put that n your cap and wear it like the fether that it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garlikguy (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much for the compliment! I'm glad to hear that from a (new) user, as it was a tad different two years ago - back then my "Customer service" and "Understanding" (As i like to call them) was comparable to a steamroller in a garden. I flattened loads of rocks (vandalism), but unfortunately half the flowers (New users who just didn't understand wikipedia yet) in the garden were flattened afterwards as well. I still wonder how many people quit Wikipedia as a result of my overzealousness warnings them...
However, one small thing you state is incorrect. The little icon on top of my page is a bit similar to an admin icon, but it actually signals i have the rollback permission. Both Airplaneman and i are just regular users happily playing Pacman with vandalism (Though we are cheating a bit since we permanently have the power pellet bonus and therefor cannot be killed). Technically i don't even need admin privileges for my work, as only the final step of booting them requires it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it has been a while since i saw such a quick-switching spammer. It seems that XLinkBot also recognizes the link now, so that should be sufficient to hold them off. And if not, there is always the Spam blacklistExcirial (Contact me,Contribs)13:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It is an absolute pleasure to do so - lots of vandalism on a userpage means that you ticked off a vandal some way, which in turn means that you are doing a good job patrolling for vandalism. And to be more precise: (Good is an understatement) I must say that you are doing an excellent job on vandalism patrol yourself! I have been seeing your name pop up several times already during patrol, most of the times at article's i wanted to revert myself. You are doing exceptionally well for such a new account.
On a slightly different topic: I see you are using WP:Twinkle to revert vandalism. This is of course a personal opinion, but if your on the Windows \ Mac osX operating system you might want to give huggle a whirl. Personally i find it more convenient (Auto warning level selection, automatic reporting) and several times faster then twinkle (2 clicks to navigate to a page and revert + warn the vandal). I have no clue if you ever tried it or heard from it, but it may be worth to try it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again form reverting my userpage vandalism. On the subject of huggle, I now have rollback rights, so I am using Twinkle less for actual reverting, but I still use Twinkle for warning and reporting vandals. Although I have considered using Huggle, I have never seen the option of getting huggle on my preferences, and as a result have assumed it was only available to administrators. However, I suppose that was an incorrect assumption. How do you get huggle? Immunize (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Huggle is available to every user, as long as he or she has rollback rights (Which is quite understandable, as it allows for near-bot speed of operation). Huggle is a stand-alone tool which has to be downloaded and run locally - Unlike the other vandalism patrol tools such as Twinkle which are added to your monobook / skin.js. Dow't worry about downloading it though, as it is completely safe and open source (So you can actually check if you wish)
To start using Huggle, you need to download it first. This can be done at Wikipedia:Huggle/Download. Make sure you also do a quick check if you meet the other requirements. Normally this should not be a problem, but it is better to check just in case.
After you download it, you execute the .exe file, which will start Huggle. Fill in your username and password for wikipedia, and huggle will log in for you. After that, it will connect to the IRC recent changes feed, which may take a minute. After that Huggle will start showing edits of the left side in real-time. The interface may take a while to get used to, but it is pretty intuitive. <Spacebar> or clicking the blue arrow will show the next edit. or the big button on the top left will revert with a default warning summary - the button gives several other options as well. <R> or the big round button allows for reverts without a warning. There are plenty of options to play with. I would advice two things: Go to System => Options => And check "Enable preloading of Diffs" with a value of 5. Huggle will then pre-load up to 5 diffs which means you have no wait time while navigating to the next edit in the queue. The second option is under System => Reporting => Either check "Prompt for Report" or "Issue report automatically". This will either prompt you if a user has been warned past level 4 with the option to report them, or it will report them completely automatically if they reach this level. As said before huggle will automatically select a warning level, but this can also be overridden by using the advanced options.
I know i have been spewing quite a lot of information at once, but luckily Huggle has a Manual. Reading trough it pretty much explains everything. Other then this i can only say that Huggle requires a bit of acclimatisation before it works its wonders, but it is well worth the effort it in my eyes. Just be cautious - Huggle allows for VERY fast vandalism reversal and has little to no warnings or safety nets which means it can effectively be quite harmful as well if not used properly. Don't be afraid to use it, but be careful when you just started using it - it is very tempting to start working at top speed just to check everything which means you are quite likely to make errors. Believe me - i speak out of personal experience on that point :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and a little sidenote: "My Preferences" isn't the only way to use scripts, and i would as far as saying that it isn't even the main method. Scripts are most times added to the Special:MyPage/skin.js page (Clicking the link will give the correct wiki skin and username). For example, have a look at my own (User:Excirial/monobook.js). There are several tools including twinkle which are loaded from there. "My preferences => Gadgets" only lists a small section of the most used tools for convenience sake. A large selection of tools can only be used by manually adding the scripts to the user page. It is very simple to do so though, as it only requires copying and pasting a few lines of text in there and refreshing your browser cache. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem at all, and no need to feel sorry for his jump. I love userspace vandals - Easy to identify, easy to revert and satisfying to see blocked. Besides, vandalizing my pages means he leaves the more important mainspace alone. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Editing
If the desire of wiki is to be unbiased and truthful, seeing how my posts pointing this out keep getting erased. Then the facts of the page that i am editing need to be checked and used in a informative way. I am not being rude just asking you to use the wiki as it is ment. if i post on a page and say it is slander and based on opinion and it is, why would i be threatened to be blocked, not the author of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.97.237 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that an article is biased or wrong in some other way, you are free to change the article yourself (See WP:SOFIXIT). Keep in mind that there are policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OPINION and WP:CITE which have to be met as well. Even so, you should not add comments regarding the article in the article itself - that is what Talk pages are for. The reason i'm reverting you with a warning, rather then using a blank (warning less) revert is this edit, which doesn't seem to be constructive (Instead, it seems to be destructive). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the AIV reports - just letting you know that ultimately I decided there was little point blocking any of the individual IPs because the vandal in question was clearly switching straight away; and I just semi-protected the page. If you run into these types of vandals it may save you some time on multiple reports if you either (a) report one of them to AIV noting that it's obviously switching IPs, or (b) just request page protection at WP:RFPP. Once he's switched off an IP address blocking it doesn't actually help... Cheers for your vigilance, anyway ~ mazcatalk17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to evade RFPP in these cases (At least initially), as the IP's may swarm to other pages if they are unable to edit a articular page. I decided to report them all at once, as one IP seemed to claim this was a school class vandalizing during a college. I figured that if that was true, they would have no permission to change their IP (Or computer) due to insufficient permissions and classroom restrictions. Besides, with a subnet mask of 255.255.???.xxx it might have been difficult to range-block them all. :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)18:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am not certain I like it. Although speed is good, it seems very difficult to use, but perhaps that is just because I am new to it. Immunize (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, tell me about it. I used lupins tool before i tried Huggle, and it took quite some time to be accustomed to the different usage methods. There days i can operate it with just one hand - Q to revert and warn, R to revert, and Space to move to the next revision (And a mouse click to report a vandal). It has a LOT of buttons, bar, status screens, informations screens and counters, but these 4 operations are the most used ones. Over time operating it will actually become like a reflex, and with some practice the speed it offers is quite manageable (Though initially it may seem WAY to fast)
However, that is of course entirely my opinion. Personally i would advice trying it for a day or two without switching back and forth between other tools to grow accustomed to it, and accept that you may initially goof up at times - i certainly did. You may conclude that you simply don't like it though. There is a reason there are so many vandalism patrol tools out there :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All of them appear to be just fine. Technically taken Huggle is just a different interface, rather then a different method of execution. Virtually every tool relies upon diffs, so if you can read those correctly all that matters is pressing the correct button. That is, in fact, the only risk with huggle - wanting to be to fast and not evaluating every diff properly. User which are blocked from editing trough Huggle (Trough removal of rollback) generally demonstrate the disability to differentiate between vandalism and valuable edits, rather then disability with the tool itself. This happens with every tool - there are plenty of users who are blocked from using other automated tools (Twinkle included) as well due to their inability to make correct decisions. In your case, i would say that is not an issue whatsoever. If anything it boils down to the question if you like this particular interface to revert vandalism, and not to abusing it :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
