Jump to content

User talk:Excirial/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Excirial
   
  Userpage Talk Awards E-Mail Dashboard Programs Sandbox Sketchbook Blocknote  
 
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

BTC-E fraud - disappearance of money

I lost almost $5,000 from BTC-E. They do not respond to tickets. There is no telephone number or address. If the Wikipedia article is uncritical and does not mention the many complaints about similar issues, then others will also loose their money to this dishonest outfit. Please let the comment stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.73.233 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticism in Wikipedia article's is naturally allowed, but only if the criticism is backed up by reliable sources (See this page for a shorter definition of a reliable source). That said, a thread on Reddit does not qualify as being a reliable source. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Can you re-add the semi-protect here: [1] as the vandalism is ongoing, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@IRWolfie: It seems that only IP 46.7.150.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is currently causing problems on the page. Since its just a single editor a block is preferable over entirely protecting the page. If the problem persists just report the editor to WP:AIAV as usual - if another group of editors ends up causing problems all of a sudden, drop WP:RFPP a note (That is often preferable over my talk page, since there are more eyes watching that page than mine). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


ABCBuddy...

...has been mentioned at this page I wrote. You may be interested in seeing the point it's trying to convey. --Gryllida (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I can understand the point and i agree with the core message the page itself tries to convey. "Editor worth" is quite simply an ambiguous concept that can't be truly quantified using the metrics you added on that page. Since AFCBuddy (And the drive) relies on "Edit Count" to determine a users score, it is by nature not the best measure either. If we assume that all editors are fishing in the same pond we might conclude that each of them will occasionally end up with a difficult catch, and thus spends more time working on an article then average (Which will level the playing field). Naturally, an editor may also skip a difficult page in order to go after an easier prey. Once that happens, the score will be botched again, rewarding a fast editor over a thorough one.
However, i would like to pose a counter question. Why does Karma matter in day to day editing? Our end goal is improving Wikipedia. If an editor performs 125 simple backlog drive reviews to earn a barnstar would that truly be a problem? The end result is that the backlog shrank by 125 article's, effectively improving Wikipedia. If editor A spends a large share of time on vandalism patrol and editor B creates article's, should editor B be agitated because they did not receive some six-pointed image on their userpage as a "reward" for their hard work? Both of them did a good job, does that require an image as a reward? The same applies to edit counts. If people display their edit count, should it be seen as anything more then some random statistic?
Personally i am a fan of DGAF and observation 60 on this page. Karma is a nice concept on its own, but the essay seems to state that "karma is not awarded equally between activities". Par the previous two links I'd say: "Why care? Does one need a reward to do good work?". And if an award can get people fired up to do more work, more power to them. If the end result is an improvement to Wikipedia that would still be in line with what we are trying to achieve here. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Histmerge

I just wanted to thank you for clarifying how page moves are supposed to happen, and for cleaning up the issue I created with split history on the Lafarge page. I should have realized something like that might happen. Anyway, I much appreciate the feedback and help and will keep it in mind next time it comes up. Alafarge (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So this is how to use the talk page

It isn't exactly obvious. Re: the edit, no problem. After reading the puff piece I had to vent and I knew that someone would revert it before the whack job tried to sue everybody over three inches tall. I stand by the veracity of edit; she is thoroughly evil. Ask her own family all of whom she maliciously libels at every opportunity. Every one of her limited "rescues" is 100% about promoting herself and only herself. She cannot be confused with even by the most expansive and confused definition of "born again". She's narcissistic to a frighteningly pathological degree. She makes Glenn Close's character look downright inviting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.27.57.2 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

... I think i can do little else except pointing you to the neutral point of view policy and the policy on libel. What you wrote above is an opinion, and one that simply has no place on Wikipedia in this shape or form. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

um hi please respond

uhm. hi. i am making lots of creative and reasonable edits to pages but u keep deleting them and undoing them pls stop! its really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArianasBeauty (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@ArianasBeauty: No, you're definitely not editing constructively. But that much should be clear from the linked edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I accidentally edited the Tom Morello article to remove the sentence, "Tom is also a communist" in the "Persona Life" section. When I tried to change it back, you said it was not constructive. Then I tried again, and you thought it was vandalism. Rest assured that I was merely trying to correct my accidental change to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.133.65.222 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Safenet to SafeNet

Thanks for the moving to rename tip - I posted the rename request on the Safenet talk page. Timtempleton (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Powick

Your reversal of my edit was somewhat proprietorial of you. In my opinion, which is as good as yours, the changes I made were constructive, especially as I intended to link to the section from another article. On what grounds do you consider my amendment unconstuctive??? I added to the section without taking anything away. In all my years in editing Wikipedia I have never reversed any well-intentioned amendment by another contributor, even when I didn't consider it an improvement myselfPlucas58 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Plucas,
I'm walking my usual vandalism patrol round, and i don't think i ever edited the Powick article before so i have no intend to claim ownership over that article. I'm not certain as to why i reverted that particular edit though as it is clearly not vandalism, not even on first glance. My best bet is that i accidentally managed to hit the revert and warn key at the wrong moment which is turn caused your edit to be reverted instead of the one i was actually aiming for. Apologies for the mixup - i've reverted my incorrect revert as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough- apology and explanation accepted in good spiritPlucas58 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

evidently doing something wrong....

Hi There

I keep trying to remove my page (Neal King) and you and others keep restoring it - and you accused me of vandalism! I confess I'm not a wiki expert and am ignorant of protocol so please allow me to ask in all humility - how do I remove my page?

kind regards. Neal KingTertel (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a few things i should remark on. First and foremost pages are not owned by anyone. It does not matter if you are the subject of the article or the person that wrote it: Any content added to Wikipedia is irrevocable licensed as both CC-BY-SA and a GFDL license and cannot simply be removed once added. Blanking a page by removing all content from it will not remove the page either - the article content will still be present in the page history.
It is possible to actually delete a page, but doing so requires administrative privileges, and (Not counting a few exceptions) most times results in a deletion discussion that determines if the page should be removed. Since any page i would be pointing you to will probably contain a large amount of text explaining how to delete a page it might be convenient to ask: Why do you believe that the page should be removed? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
it's very helpful - this page was set up by staff some years ago when I was president at Antioch Los Angeles - to be used as a part of our university PR
I have recently retired and living a quieter life without the need for PR - so thought that the page had served its purpose
does it simply, instead, live in perpetuity?
thanks again
Neal King Tertel (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Normally a page will remain in place unless someone brings it up in a deletion discussion or tag it for removal stating a valid reason as to why the page should be removed. If there is no real reason to remove a page it will indeed live on in perpetuity. There are some exceptions to this rule though - people who are relatively low profile have requested that a page on them would be removed. While it is not a bright line rule such requests have been honored in the past, even though the person in question would have passed the criteria for inclusion otherwise.
In this instance a request for removal on this grounds may be challenging since you have held a position of eminence (That might be considered an indication that the article is high profile instead). The best advice i can offer if you really wish to remove the page, is to list it on article for deletion, requesting a removal on the grounds that you would prefer not to have a page. It is not a guarantee that the page will actually be removed, but it is likely the best option around. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

new questions

greetings

so I got a notice that I now seem to be involved in an "edit war" - which I guess has some validity as the page bearing my name now seems to have become fertile ground for disgruntled former employees of my last institution to post all manner of incendiary inaccuracies, which I am attempting to at least balance - I would value your advice - thanks!

Neal King Tertel (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Neal King Wikipage

Greeting and in response to Tertel,

Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, people are able to make contributions to someones Wikipedia site living or dead and it is the discretion of Wikipedia staff to make sure those additions follow site rules. It is my understanding that the 'tone' of the article has to be as neutral as possible and facts can be contributed based on truth found in articles, pdf files, video files, etc. These are either references from third party reputable websites or from within other Wikipedia articles.

The 'Neal King' Wikipedia site has recent additions that are both of this 'negative' nature you are protesting and fleshing out more of the history behind Neal King. Continuing to try and remove the page entirely or delete massive sections is both a violation, in my understand, of 'Vandalism' and a 'Conflict of Interest' policies on this website.

I have been updating the 'Neal King' Wikipedia page and I can though assure you Tertel and Excirial I am not and never have been an employee of your former employer, Sofia University. I am however a citizen wishing to contribute the facts by way of many, many references to ensure I comply with the rules of this wonderful site.

I would absolutely not continue an 'edit war' with you if you would not mass delete my contributions to the wikipage 'Neal King'. You do not own that webpage.

I would appreciate any 'positive' contributions or additional articles that might show "your side of the story..." as it seems you believe we have sides in this "edit war".

Thank you for any moderation you can assist us with to solve this issue, Excirial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecrow (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

HTML error in your sig

Hi! I was responding to a discussion where you had previously commented, and as I am using Dot's syntax highlighter, I saw everything highlighted in a shade of gray, corresponding to an unenclosed HTML tag. This makes most of the text on the screen somewhat illegible, and seems to have been caused by oddly nested tags in your signature:

[[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> (offending tags highlighted)

Would you mind changing your signature so that the link to your userpage terminates after the font tag closes? This would change your sig to:

[[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial'''</font>]]<sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup>

Thank you very much! APerson talk! 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You Wont Win This Time

You should revoke talk page access it seems.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Guess it is true when they say "If a vandal insults you, it is a reliable indicator that you are doing something right." In other news, Boink!. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh please, he pulled this garbage last year. It seems he needs to get off in late February/early March by being a thorn in everyone's sides.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As an aside, could you semi Engine Sentai Go-onger and Go-ongers? A perennial issue is being raised and also as you saw BuickCenturyDriver/Don't Feed the Zords is going to start reverting everything I've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A bit late now, but o well. Currently i see no real need to protect either page - There is just one user around so unless that editor starts using multiple IP's a simple block should be enough to do the trick. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History Colorado may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In 2012, the agency opened the new state history museum of Colorado, the History Colorado Center]<ref>http://www.denverpost.com/ci_19067785?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com</ref><

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed (t) Josve05a (c) 19:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Josve05a: Not fast enough! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry. I thought, that I had fixed it, but I created an edit conflict. You fixed it. Sorry for "disturbing your talk page". (t) Josve05a (c) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does "disturbing" a talk page really matter? We both tried to fix an issue i created, so i should instead thank you for cleaning up after me. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Nowdays, it is no problem "disturbing" a users talk page, but it was worse before. We all know this "yellow box of death":
You have new messages (last change).

(t) Josve05a (c) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for reverting all those edits at The WikiProject, and blocking the user. Thanks, Matty.007 21:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not what you think

I'm sorry that you believed I was trying to vandalize any pages. My account was compromised by a group of hackers, and as such, they took advantage of the opportunity to abuse the access to mess with Wiki pages. My sincerest apologies.TannerNorad (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The first instance of vandalism occurred two minutes after the account was registered, and the problematic edits the day afterwards targeted the exact same page and line that you edited earlier. I assume that one of your housemates (likely a little brother?) compromised the account in that case? This equally presents us with another problem. Since you mention that the account has been compromised policy dictates that the account should now be blocked as a compromised account. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Excirial! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Protecting pages

You protected Kiss in 2011. It is now 2014. Please could you unprotect it now.182.250.240.90 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Agreed that two years should at least warrant another try at unprotection. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive awards being sent

I have begun sending barnstars to participants at the WikiProject Articles for creation/December 2013 - January 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive. I plan on sending out the rest shortly, and will post updates here as they occur.

  • Bronze, Silver, Gold and Content Review Medal awards have been sent to FoCuSandLeArN, Aggie80 and MatthewVanitas, respectively.

All  Done. The awarding process is now completed. NorthAmerica1000 11:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Jones (lacrosse)

I noticed when you histmerged User:Thebigshadiw/sandbox into Adam Jones (lacrosse), you grabbed a few extra revisions. Can you delete Adam Jones (lacrosse), undelete the earliest 2 revisions, move them back to User:Thebigshadiw/sandbox, then undelete the rest of the revisions? (The reason I'm concerned about this is that automated counts currently give me credit for starting the article instead of its actual author). Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: That took slightly longer then intended since i forgot about this one, but  Done nonetheless. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)

User:Hardrock4ever

Greetings! I see that you blocked Hardrock4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier today. I declined an unblock request for him. Looking a little later, I saw edits by Kj198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). While I'm assuming good faith, I can't help but think, given the interest in the same topics, the two might have some connection. Since you're the blocking admin on the first account, I wanted to bring this to your attention. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@C.Fred:  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Before the template removal spree the Oz Chiri page was not edited in the past 6 months. If we discount the automated and bot edits before that, the page actually wasn't modified since February 2012. I would say that it is statistically unlikely a completely uninvolved editor would happen create an account on the 26th at 22:05 and subsequently head to the page three minutes later. That is just to much of a coincidence if you ask me. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
And there have been two new SPAs commenting at the AfD today. I definitely think that something fishy is going on, be it socks, canvassing, or something along those lines. That's why I flagged the SPAs and added the Not a ballot template to the AfD page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of Business Process Modeling Notation tools

Hello Excirial, I have reported the issue, and requested that you and TJRC be blocked from the page. Thank you.

WP:ANI#User Excirial threatened to block me

You might want to see the above. --S.G.(GH) ping! 20:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Editor was blocked for WP:3RR. I have little to add except that i received no request to intervene and instead noticed the changes while on my regular vandalism patrol. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fabrice Etiennette

Hello Excirial,

Im actually making a page on of a golfer name fabrice etiennette and with some other collegue we are facing problem due to all link and material to construct the article and we need time to re group all of this! our article is actually on a deletion spot can you be good with us and make our article safe for some time then we can still work and make it as proper as it should for the wikipedia world and also for this golfer world as he has faced problem in this early life of pro golfer.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdemall (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems no further action is needed here. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

sub-page

The sub page to record reviews doesnt appear to be working for me Makro (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Makro: AFCBuddy only runs manually. It there are no results or if the results are out of date this is mostly due to the program not having run recently. If i am not around or if a drive starts in a weekend it can take a little while to update them. Either way, done now as intended. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Perfect Girl

The page I edited was deleted as it was not seen as constructive? I was merely adding the correct facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.224.199 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

blanking a page and adding an Opinion instead is indeed not considered constructive editing. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

gender

that was fast! sorry about the "complete utter stupid bullshit" or whatever it was that i wrote. otherwise i really think the edit should be kept ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.141.3 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there are some wikis that let you act like a total jerk, but Wikipedia is not one of them. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

related comment
Thanks for the help with the link! We are currently working on fixing all of the banners we just placed. Loving the Wikipedia love :-) DrX (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi I have been editing the TIGA page - I work for TIGA, but can also assure you all the edits were entirely accurate, is is possible to revert? I am happy to collaborate on creating a more neutral tone, if genuinely needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAField (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are an employee of the subject of TIGA, i would first point you to the Conflict of interest policy. Since the page is rather long i suppose i can summarize it as "If you have vested interest in an article that goes beyond providing encyclopedic content, it is strongly discouraged that you edit the article directly". Editors who have a conflict of interest often have difficulty writing neutral and unbiased text, and the edit you made is no example to this rule as it is clearly non neutral. I would note that the Wikipedia definition of "Neutral" tends to be several degrees of magnitude more stringent then most people would use while writing a text. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

wrong count

Hi @Excirial:, AFC Buddy is giving me undeserved extra credit. I reviewed Jay A. Levy, M.D., but forgot to check for copyvio. Realizing my mistake, I undid my review and then failed for the copyvio. Problem is AFCBuddy is counting it as two reviews, not one as it should. I'm not sure the best way to fix this, but thought I should bring it to your attention. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that AFCBuddy is currently working as intended and by design. In order to calculate the amount of reviews you made AFCBuddy scans a users contributions for summaries that are left by the AFCH script (These always have the same format). Since you reviewed the article twice AFCBuddy will detect that you made two reviews for that page, and award score as such. Reviewing a page twice by itself is not unusual; if an editor resubmitted a declined page the reviewer should receive a point for the review even if they alo checked it an hour/day/week earlier. Any mechanisms that prevent this would be a waste of processing time at best and shoddy at worst. For example: Scanning an editors edits to determine if they reverted their own edits is both shoddy and wastefull in terms of resources used. After all, what is a revert? Does it leave a default rollback summary? What if an editor just removed the template manually? To detect that we would have to parse the full text of each revision that every user made which requires substantial extra resources.
To be frank i doubt that the extra point is really an issue - i don't think anyone will complain that it is there. If you really wish to correct the score you could either opt to review a page manually (AFCBuddy cannot detect this and thus will not award you a point for it), or you could add two failed re-reviews to your own review for failing to notice the copyvio. That would cause the usual -3 points adjustment penalty on that edit, which would more then level the score. But honestly: I would say: Honest mistake, waste of time to try and correct it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Great idea! Actually, that should work out right. -3 points for failed review, but AFCBuddy will probably give 2 points as I re-review myself twice as failing. Brilliant, sir! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ambassadors Studies and Work Abroad

My page is promotional.However, every time I try and make a page that isn't promotional you delete me while I'm making the page. I'm trying to create a page about my company as a lot of my interns coming from england find it hard to understand the russian website. The page is factual not promotional. Promotional implies bias which it isn't. If you feel I written biased info tell where it is and I'll delete it. I keep having my page deleted by different "monitors" and so I'm to explain myself ever time. Could please help/ Advise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yours Ambassadors Work and Studies Abroad Unsigned comment signed for User:Independent information 07:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Retroactive?

Does AFCBuddy add reviews I have done before signing up, or do I need to add those manually? Thanks, Samwalton9 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Nevermind I answered my own question! Samwalton9 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: I figured i should let AFCBuddy run so i could link the result after mentioning it can run at any time retroactively, but it seems you beat me to it! As you already noticed: Provided that the AFCH script is used for reviews ANYBuddy can retroactively generate any results at any point in the future. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Saw you busy reverting the vandals (and beating me to the reverts ), figured you might like a drink. Thank you for all your hard work. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually settled for a nice cup of coffee though. Reverting things while intoxicated i likely a bad idea . Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Aww shucks, you saw through my sneaky, evil plan! Hoped that I could actually beat you to the reverts if you had some alcohol in your system. Seriously, you beat me to them more often than Cluebot NG that day. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An antidote to vandalism of hot and dry articles for you!

The hot and dry patience award
For your calm patience with the nonsense at Sahara. Not many admins would be patient enough to warn and warn again up to however many before blocking. Please have a cold (fairly) strong dry drink on me (pictured left), to help you deal with the nonsense going on at that hot dry location (and anywhere else). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Demiurge1000: How could anyone ever lose their cool while reverting an article detailing the coldest place of the planet? Jesting aside, i just think it is counterproductive to give these vandals a special treatment because their vandalism is particularly silly. They will rope themselves in quite nicely, so i never felt a need to take a detour off the beaten path in order to deal with them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Your reversal of pawnbroker edits

Hi Excirial, curious as to why my additions were reversed and deemed inappropriate. I simply added another online pawn shop to the list that existed before the others as well as provided additional information with regard to interest rates being charged by these pawn shops. The statement of 4% to 8% per month interest is not entirely true. I've been following this industry for some time now and whats been posted with regard to internet pawns is lopsided and needs to be corrected. If you'd like me to spend more time on it I'd be glad to. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerobreach (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hiyas there Zerobreach,
Wikipedia has multiple policies at to what links should and should not be added to an article. One of these policies actually contains a practical list that summarizes what links should not be added to an article. If i were to rephrase the issue in my own words: An article detailing the concept of pawnbrokers should not link to the websites of specific pawnbrokers. This actually applies to any page - a page detailing screwdrivers should generally not link to the websites of individual fabricators. Those external links tend to be both irrelevant in regards to the article (What does Manufacturer X add to the concept of the screwdriver?), along with being promotional for a specific manufacturer.
I can't exactly blame you for that edit though. The page listed several external links to individual pawnbroker websites so it was simply inviting people to add extra links to the list. Thankfully it seems that another editor noticed the same problem i did and resolved it before i could. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Excirial, makes complete sense.

Mistakes happen

Hi Excirial I am Lotfinia there is a problem you need to be aware of I believe. I have received another post from you explaining your changes to my edits but I didn’t make those edits in the first place. The first time you notified me was 2/21/13 regarding Meridian Mississippi and now about CoverGirl- 3/5/14. I dismissed the first one because I knew it was an error. I can assure you of the very few edits done by me none were on either topic since I limit my occasional edits to either the Ancient World and royalty edit. I understand goof ups and cross wires I just want you know we have been a victims of such events. I appreciate all the work and effort you and the other really active folks do for Wikipedia and myself, thank you. Respectfully Lotfinia Lotfinia (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Lotfinia,
The situation you describe must be one of the most asked questions on my talk page in regards to vandalism, so i figured it might be an idea to create a detailed explanation alongside a diagram to explain and illustrate this issue. The subject is fairly technical and I've only just made the text and the diagram - so i am actually quite curious what you think about it. (Is it understandable / to technical / to simple / to long / to short?)

Explanation

Click to enlarge me!

If you connect to the internet your Internet Service Provider (ISP) will provide you with a so-called IP Address, an unique number that can identify your connection over the internet. This IP is both used to determine where you are, and who you are. Using the IP adress a website like Wikipedia can determine who asked it to do something - be it retrieving an article, be it editing a page or otherwise. If you are not logged into an account Wikipedia will only recognize you as an IP address. Once you are logged into an account it will recognize you as that user instead (Wikipedia will still know the IP address, but it knows it should address you as a specific user instead).

This is where the diagram to the right comes into play. Imagine we have two editors - one who is doing good work, and one who is just trying to vandalize pages. In this example both editors are not logged into an account and as of such their edits are only recognized as being made by their unique IP address. Like any other editors, IP addresses have talk pages that are used for communication towards them. If such an IP editor vandalizes, they will receive a warning that will be placed on their talk page.

This is where some technical stuff comes into play. While an IP Address is unique it only identifies a connection, and not a user. Most ISP's actually have what is called an Address pool, a large set of unique addresses that they can give to their users once they connect to the internet. In most cases an ISP will not give a subscriber the same address every time they connect to the internet. Instead it will look at its pool of addresses and determine which ones not in use yet, and give the subscriber one of these. Just compare it to a hotel: If you rent a room you will receive a random one, and the hotel will not keep your room reserved between your various stays.

Since IP addresses shift between various people it might occur that you may receive an IP address that was previously used by a vandal. If this occurs the talk page of that editor will still contain warning for previous acts of vandalism. So all of a sudden you might end up seeing a boatload of warnings for editors you never made in the first place. To emphasize this - the warnings you saw were targeted at this IP's talk page as opposed to your user accounts talk page. If you look at the contributions made by the IP address you will probably see several more editors that you never made.

There is actually quite a bit more technical stuff involved and the above explanation is a simplified version. Still i hope it explains what happened here, why the warning were there and why you see them even though you were not their target. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

why isnt she a babe?

yo, just dropping in with a q for you...

Just wondering why you changed my comment saying that Valentina Tereshkova is not the biggest Russian babe? like do you know what she did for her country? like WTF man?! im just saying that her hair is amazing and would you look at all those medals, like jeez someones accomplished... so like im just saying cmon man that chicks hot and i feel as if you shouldnt change it cuz shes hot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F8F0:C10:FFF:200:5EFE:CE57:AA1F (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Article must be written in a neutral point of view. The added content is an opinion and therefor should not be in, nor be added to the article. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Big Momma's House

You or someone else said scratching her "ass", I didn't think that was appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.118.166 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

Hello, You undid my edit of this page. I changed the cinematographer's first name from Low to Lol. Check out the IMDB page for this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2304771/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm. It does seem to be Lol, not Low, that's why I changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldnihao (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Worldnihao: It seems that i have been staring straight past this section for the past two weeks - i only noticed earlier today that this section ended up being archived without me ever posting a response. Apologies for the delay and the revert itself.
I've had a look at the article you mentioned and it seems i can only say that you are absolutely right about this one. When i reverted the edit i figured someone was joking about by replacing the name "Low" with LOL. I've never known that Lol is actually in use as a first name as well - i suppose one can learn something amusing every day (Pun intended)! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice

A certain similarity between [2] and my username? Doubt that the editor is actually a fan. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: The content of the edits actually managed to draw my attention of the username when reverting those edits so i've not noticed this until you brought. I concur this is quite unlike to be a good faith editor but even so i am somewhat inclined to just Lay out a rope instead of being angled in in this case. The edits seems to have stopped from the account and a hammer is easy enough to swing around if that would change. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Huggle 3 bug

There is a bug while I'm using Huggle 3, when I report a user to WP:AIV with the selected diffs the older ones are instead selected. Are you experiencing this too? Eyesnore (pc) 21:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Eyesnore: I've not run into this issue but that is mostly because i use Huggle's block buttons instead of its reporting buttons when warranted. From the looks of it this would be an issue though so i'd say it would make a wonderful bug report Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Christian contemplation

Hello User:Excirial, Thank you for your help. I have noticed that in the particular page, multiple IPs have been doing the same vandalism again and again, and when prevented they leave impolite messages on the page. Do you think it'd be a good idea to add some protection to the page? Coderzombie (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Protection is mostly added when a page is under persistent attack and in a situation where a few blocks wouldn't straighten things out. The IP hopping editor (or multiple editors editing in tandem) would qualify for an "A few blocks won't solve it" but the amount of edits is quite low really. It seems that after a few edits the person or persons responsible stopped editing the page so it is likely someone had to much time on their hands or some person mentioned the page in a place that caused it to attract a few different people. Either way we are probably in safe waters for the moment as far as this article goes. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk page request

User:109.156.190.13 is abusing their talk page after being blocked, so could you revoke their talk page access? Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lugia2453:  Done, thanks for mentioning those edits. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

HG3 warnings again

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T61982
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T64646

Vandals are still getting too many chances, thanks to HG3's misreading of previous warnings. Just happened twice at User talk:71.42.80.130,for instance. Could you prompt Petrb to look into this?  —SMALLJIM  20:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User warnings are getting screwed up while using Huggle 3

In this page, when a user warning has been placed anyone else than you, the numbers in each user won't get updated, which can result in misplaced user warnings. In Huggle 2.1.22 everything looks okay and stable. Eyesnore (pc) 00:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Smalljim: @Eyesnore: To be frank i am not considering this to be as major a problem as it used to be. Before the 1042 release the warning level was consistently wrong if Huggle 3 would revert and warn an editor who wasn't warned by the patrol before (Resulting in a level 1 warning for a user who already received level 4 and so on). The warnings on 71.42.80.130 are what i expect them to be (For most part). The level 1 warning after the level 2 warning is spot on since the level 2 was placed two days prior to the level 1 warning. For a (dynamic) IP editor i would expect such behaviour since the IP can be reassigned if sufficient time has passed.
What i do notice on this page and other pages is that warnings placed by Cluebot BG are not recognized even after several minutes have passed. If it left a level 1 warning Huggle 3 will leave a level 1 warning, same for all other warning levels. I am not sure if this is reported yet, but i think Petrb might know. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
This was reported by me under T64646 but later was merged/marked as duplicate with the above bug. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Excirial: Have you downloaded the newest build yet? (t) Josve05a (c) 19:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

AFCH buddy missed a chunk..

Hey there Excirial, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive/Technical 13 has been edited twice by the script since this chunk of reviews and isn't showing them in the log. I'll note that Template:AFC statistics wasn't updating during that time (which caused me to quit reviewing because I couldn't get a fresh list) due to server issues for Earwigbot. Not sure how those issues affected your script, if at all. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 23:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The short answer would be "The reviews were not done using the AFCH script and therefore are not be detected". The long answer is that AFCBuddy scans a users contributions for edit summaries left bij the AFCH script. These always have a fixed format for both accepts and declines, and due to this it is easy to determine if a user made a review using the script, and if the review was an accepted or declined page.
The review script you use refers to "WP:AFCHRW" and uses a text including a version number instead of a reference to "Wikipedia:AFCH" and the text "AFCH Beta". I can see if i can update the regex to include this variety as well, but i am not to keen on adding multiple version of the script to the detection routine. Adding multiple formats only increases the change something is missed or errors out due to some cross-script-version inconsistency in summaries that were never accounted for when building AFCBuddy's regular expressions. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Excirial, that makes sense. I'm not sure of what the workflow for the script I'm using is exactly, although I'm inclined to believe that it is intended and will likely be the replacement for the existing script. Theopolisme, what is the chance of moving the re-write script into the actual developer slot for the reviewer script and adjusting the edit summary so that reviews using it will be counted by AFCBuddy? Excirial, if I was to log those reviews on my page manually, and include the diff (using the same syntax that AFCBuddy uses), would AFCBuddy remove them or leave them (I'm assuming it creates a whole new page every time that runs? I don't feel I'm being clear about what I'm asking, but I'm not sure how else to word it, so please bear with me and ask whatever questions to make it clear. Thanks guys. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I catch your drift, but it wouldn't work. AFCBuddy is entirely dependent on edit summaries for virtually all of its functions (Counting edits, determining leaderboard score) and so on. Manually adding reviews to a page won't cause it to count those - hence, since the page is regenerated each time AFCBuddy runs it would just remove the reviews you added over and over. That said i did just add some support for reviews done using the rewritten script. Obviously i have not tested this extensively but it seems declined reviews are now correctly picked up. I cannot say if it will work for accepted reviews or score adjustment for G12 deletions though as i did not have examples to test with.
@Theopolisme: I can update AFCBuddy once required to support new summaries, but could i make two requests for that?
  • Could the script always mention Wikipedia:AFCHRW or Wikipedia:AFCH in an edit summary? That makes it extremely likely an edit was made by the script (Thus being a good filter).
  • Could it always mention what it was doing in an edit? For example "Declining submission", "Accepting submission" and similar? Same applies for the score adjustment - mentioning a page was declined as a copyvio / G12 is really helpful for the "One extra point for a CSD deletion".
And naturally, a stable summary that doesn't change every other day would be fantastic as well as far as AFCBuddy and myself are concerned. I doubt you would suddenly be struck by creative writing urges and it was definitely never a problem in the current AFCH script but i figured i might just as well mention it. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Excirial :) Yeah, the rewrite script just currently has a special summary because it is very different from the original script and should be treated with caution -- all the code has been redone from the ground up, and it's, quite simply, no longer "AFCH". Summaries still include action information (if you spot something wonky, please let me know -- source code is on github if you'd like to look, linked at WP:AFCHRW). To your question, though, *yes*, edits will always mention either AFCHRW or AFCH (linked).
No worries with regards to a stable summary -- this rewrite business should be a one-time thing, but reviewers will hopefully be benefiting from it greatly soon! :) Theopolisme (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Theopolisme: Sounds great to me - i should really give the new script a whirl sometime soon. Could you do me a favor though and give me a quick nudge once the rewritten script is scheduled to go live as the new mainline AFCH script? Somehow i keep getting sidetracked by vandalism patrol and i just know i am going to end up completely oblivious if the new version were to be released sometime soon.
Once its ready for production i want to go trough AFCBuddy entirely to make sure that it actually counts reviews as intended. AFCBuddy's regular expressions are quite strict and for most part thats great, but i want to make sure no one mentions that it misses half the re-reviews during the next drive or something silly. (Yesterday's issue with the reviews was that it expected a colon after "Declined"). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Excirial, some examples of accepted drafts are:

which afcbuddy isn't picking up on yet. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The new summary for accepts is actually "Publishing accepted [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] submission" -- this is more general and correctly handles cases in which reviewers are accepting templates and the like. This should hopefully be the last change! :) Theopolisme (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tony Anthony Evangelist

Hi there, I would like you to consider removing the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Anthony_(evangelist) As new substantial evidence has come to light via these websites www.forthesakeofthegospel.co.uk and www.framingthetiger.com This new evidence proves the allegations made against him in the wiki page are unfounded, misleading and libellous. I believe there may be forthcoming legal lawsuits against those involved in making this page public. Please review the above websites and I am sure you will conclude that the page needs to be deleted.

John (favourofGod) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FavourofGod (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker), since the Wikipedia article is based on reliable secondary sources you need to get the authors of those pieces to withdraw their stories before we can act. Please also see our policy on legal threats WP:NLT - your comment above contravenes that policy and is not acceptable here. Frankly, you are unlikely to get any relief on this unless the sources withdraw their articles. If you wish to contact the online response team volunteers WP:OTRS to give further information offline you can email info-en@wikimedia.com Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh dear, here's the very first bit of the "substantial evidence" I looked at:
      Q: Was “Tony Anthony” really a 3-Time Kung Fu World Champion?
      A: I can confirm I have seen old photographs of Tony using complex Kung Fu stances [...] ..there has been no alternative name given to disprove Tony’s title claim.
I don't think there's much to worry about. Thrub (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi John / FavourofGod - I'm the editor who added a lot of the content to this page. It's important to note that the page itself does not make allegations against Tony Anthony - it simply summarises what has been reported about Tony Anthony by other reliable sources. If you have concerns about the article, you can also raise them on Talk:Tony_Anthony_(evangelist). SmilingFace (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: My changes to Alphie

Hello sir, on the 19th of March, 2014 I edited and contributed to the "Alphie" page on Wikipedia.

Despite these changes being correct, and beneficial, you deleted them. I ask of you to reinstate that article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF9B:9AB0:2083:46AC:F45A:EBEE (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The edits you made to the Alphie changed the subject of the entire page to something else, which is a no-go in terms of editing. If a specific word has more then one meaning a disambiguation page or another title should be used instead. That said, the page you added detailing a specific person quite clearly fails the notability criteria that any article subject must meet for inclusion. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sergio Aragones change reverted

Hello. Recently you reverted my edit on the Sergio Aragones page, in the Appearances in popular culture section. I changed "hosting the only "Actual Comic Book Booth" at Comic Con 2010" to "hosting the "Last Actual Comic Book Booth" at Comic Con 3010." While a minor edit, I do believe Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. Please view these two pictures for evidence to support my change. The first change (only to "Last"): Picture 1. The second change (2010 to 3010): Picture 2. Both of these picture can be found at this Web page. Thank you. JDCAce (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Shame on me for not making this connection the second i read it since I've actually seen that particular episode. Once i saw the diff though it appeared that someone edited a Biography of a living person to mention that he "appeared as his own preserved head" in the year "3010". In virtually every case that would be straight vandalism so i reverted it as such, missing the part where it said Futurama (Where severed heads in the year 3010 actually make sense). I've reverted my edit, apologies for the hassle. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC Help

Hi Excirial, Please could you help me out here? Thank you! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Huon has answered this question. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

1776 (company)

You left a comment on my talk page about an edit I recently made on the 1776 (company) page about explaining my deletion. I am currently in the process of writing the explanation (I've been having this particular section repeatedly inserted against consensus) and want to make it a thorough explanation. Thanks for reviewing KAIdc (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems entirely fine to me. It is always convenient to add an edit summary to explain an edit though, since it usually prevents any misunderstanding over content removal. Vandalism patrol pretty much consists of looking at diffs for changes that are harmful. The change you made looks like this - a large section of sourced content is removed without a comment explaining why this is done. Sections containing criticism are somewhat prone to removal by random editors so without any explanation those tend to be reverted. (The "See talk page" you left afterwards is perfect to counter that by the way) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Larry Bird

Hello, Excirial. Do you think that we should perhaps protect this page for a while? It is constantly hit with vandalism.Hoops gza (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Already done by HJ Mitchell, who got around to this first. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


Wi11337 User Page Edit

Hey Excirial, just wanted you to know wi11337 is a friend of mine and he asked me to make an edit on his page, anything, and that there's no need to revert it. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.185.0 (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Excirial, my edits keep getting removed, would like this to stop happening thanks, just trying something out with a friend. Let me know if there is a problem with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.185.0 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Unless you can prove that, which I doubt, we can't trust that your edits are not vandalism. If he wants his page edited, I suggest you leave it to him. BethNaught (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you doubt I can prove this? Hold on, getting him now
(edit conflict) On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Or to put it differently: On the internet anyone can claim that they are famous person X or related to other user Y. It is not possible to determine if these edits are made by the users request, or if they are vandalism (And they appear to be clear vandalism). Since everyone could effectively vandalize under the guise that these edits were requested they default to being vandalism. I suppose that, if Wi11337 himself put up a note that those edits are fine, they would pass. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm Wi11337 and he is my friend. I've only recently started using my account and sent my userpage to him. It's cool.Wi11337 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wi11337 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Wi11337: Fine by me in that case - do mind this policy regarding userpages though. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey Excirial, over the few edits I made on Wi11337's page, I received a number of ban warnings which as it now turns out are wrongly given - could I possibly have these removed? Thanks for your time.

AJS Wikipedia Page Update

Hello,

I am an intern for the Association for a more Just Society, and updated the Wikipedia page per my supervisor's request. For all of the information, I merely copied and pasted from our website. If I did not cite the website as a source appropriately, could you help me with this? Otherwise, I don't understand the problem. All of the information was with regards to the mission of the organization or the specific activities that they engage in. Your reply to my update stated that the page did not take a neutral stance. Were the Christian references too explicit? Would it still work to talk about the Christian mission of the organization? Thanks for your help,

Sincerely,

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idkennedy74 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

These are quite a few problems related to this edit and the situation in general. In order of severity:
  • Copyright violation: The content you added was copied straight from an external website that is clearly marked as being copyrighted - which on its own is a Copyright violation. For legal reasons Wikipedia can only accept content licensed as CC-BY-SA or GDFL (Or a compatible license). Note that it does not matter that the organization described in the article owns the copyright - Wikipedia cannot use it.
  • Promotional tone: Ignoring the copyright situation for a second the second issue would be that the content is non neutral. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of information and not a vessel for promotion. Since you copied the content straight from the organizations website this is to be expected (Website such as those are virtually never written with encyclopedic content in mind).
  • Conflict of interest: If you're an intern for the organization rewriting the article by request of your superviser you have a very clear conflict of interest in this case. Editing while having a conflict of interest is very strongly discouraged since writing (neutral) encyclopedic content is often nigh impossible while having multiple interests in mind.
Summarized i would suggest not editing the page yourself. Both because this tends to result in poor quality pages, and because edits that look promotional tend to be reverted on sight (Potentially wasting a lot of invested time). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

For Today (band)

In some ways I love the new multiple changes feature in the watch list and in other ways I dislike. There was a recent series of three edits to For Today (band). Two "different" anons: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Today_%28band%29&diff=603039122&oldid=602383522 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Today_%28band%29&diff=603039494&oldid=603039122. You reverted the second: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Today_(band)&diff=603039514&oldid=603039494 but left the first, which is all that showed when I looked at the diff. I reverted rather than selecting undo. That reverts only the edits of the most recent editor: you. It also left the article with both unconstructive edits in-place. I have fixed it all and wish I could revert my revert of your material because it was clearly correct. Sorry for any confusion this caused. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Had you not mentioned it i might not even have noticed it. Also, these things happen so no problem whatsoever. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Save Manston Airport

Would you mind letting me know why you stopped my User - Save Manston Airport?

IT is a cause very dear to my heart and we put a lot of effort into it.

Best regards, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.205.150 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I can give you a more detailed response if you wish (Or if something is unclear), but have you already read the messages regarding this page that were left on the user talk page? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Falles

Hello! You left a note on my page to say you undid my edits to the Fallas page. Little unclear why because I just added a paragraph stating that the main falla is burned separately from all the others, and where it is located and a few other bits of info. The article says it needed improvement so I thought I had improved it by adding some extra detail. I love the fallas and the page as it stands does not do them justice. I thought adding a little further information would be beneficial. I live in Spain so the info is authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boojoo1 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hiyas there Boojoo1,
Sorry it took me a little while longer then i expected to get back to you on this one. When i originally notified of this new talk page section i was somewhat busy and ended up postponing writing a response to it. As you might have guessed that ended up being somewhat longer then originally intended. But lets get on to the stuff that really matters - your edit.
For a change i can actually remember this particular edit quite well, since i was grinning at the "If you are lucky to be close enough the fire brigade might turn their hoses on you - lots of fun!" phrase i saw in it. While i personally agreed that sounded like an interesting location to stand during the festivities the comment itself was still an opinion that should normally not be in an article. Long story short i reverted the edit pretty much the same way edits stating "Hi there!" and "Person X is a great soccer player!" are reverted. Catch here is that i should have just removed the phrase itself manually since my revert inadvertently removed the photographs you added earlier, and the informative piece of text you added to the "La Cremà" section as well.
That said i reverted the revert and left the "lots of fun!" phrase in - i suppose someone will likely revert it in the future but to be honest removing it really isn't worth the hassle (And i suppose someone else might also find it amusing in the meantime). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: changes to Twilight (1998 film)

Hello,

You reverted my changes to this article and explained that they "did not appear constructive". I am entirely baffled as to why you would make this statement or change my edits; the additions I made not only added detail to the article, but removed incorrect information and improved the grammar. In addition, your revert was done within moments of my edits being saved, leading me to wonder how carefully they were reviewed. Though you seem to be genuinely attempting to improve Wikipedia, this is the kind of capricious behavior that leads people to avoid contributing. The article is better with my edits, and I prevail upon you to revert them and stop this nonsense.206.174.34.147 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Capricious" might be somewhat of a strong term seeing the situation don't you think? "Incorrect" or "Inaccurate" would have worked quite well in this context and would be accurate - under normal circumstances the phrase "Harry's penis had been shot off" is effectively a near-certainty that an edit is vandalism which led me to (in retrospect) mis classify it as such.
Since you mentioned the "wonder how carefully they were reviewed" part i suppose some context might be helpful. Every minute there are about 100-120 edits to the English Wikipedia and 8-10 or so of those are reverted as vandalism. Of course it is humanly impossible to review 120 edits a minute, but thankfully a large share is filtered out in advance (Edits by bots, whitelisted users and so on). Even so this still leaves one edit every couple of seconds or so that needs to be checked and usually that is done in near-real-time (as you noticed). These edits are checked quickly for signs of vandalism such as addition of swear words, text such as "X was here!", information that is clearly incorrect ("The second word war started in 1739". If it seems something fishy is going on in an edit that doesn't appear to be vandalism right of the bat it tends to be checked in more detail which takes longer. For most part though it is fairly fast work.
As with any human work errors can be made - quite some time ago i tallied that the mistake ratio for myself ended up being somewhere near 0.4% if i disregard mistakes that are immediately self-corrected. In other words every 1000 edits there are a handful of mistakes such as the one you mentioned here. There is little that can be done about this - mistakes are always made. If you happen to run into one of these the best thing to do is exactly what you just did - just give the editor a nudge on his talk page and point to the mistake. Chances are quite high the mistake will be reverted in no time at all (As i just did by reverting my revert). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Columbus Free Press

Hello.

I'm not somebody who edits wikipedia. It was brought to my attention that the wikipedia entry of my publication had been defaced. After looking at the content created, I'm quite sure I know who it is.

When I went to discuss this, I was given a "last warning" to stop defacing pages. This ip address is shared by an entire office essentially. I would like the wikipedia community, whom both I and my publication respect the work of, that no edit or statement coming from this ip address is sanctioned by the people who pay the bills for it. Constructive edits may have also happened, I wouldnt know.

We are investigating and somebody will be no longer touching computers in this building.

We appologize for the trouble caused and the clean up work.

Gerry Bello. Online Managing Editor Columbus Free Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.92.202 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, I think, with all respect, your removal of the hermione2015.com external link is not fair. I say this only as there is an external link to the French group in wikipedia. It is hermione.com.

So I feel this is a double standard.

I look forward to your reply.

Pls appreciate I do not pretend to be a wiki expert, I simply wanted to update this entry with the fact the frigate is returning to the US in 2015 and there's a group and website that supports this effort, and it is NOT commercial (or a commercial). It is a non-profit 501 c 3 registered, etc.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafayette1780 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia itself is freely editable by anyone, so in effect anyone can add a link to any page that will remain unless someone decides to remove the link. The mere fact that a something exists somewhere on Wikipedia is not an argument that the link itself should exist. Nor is it an argument that any more links of the same type should be added. Or to use a metaphor: If i throw my laundry on the floor next to the laundry basket, should that be an argument for everyone to ditch their laundry there?
That all said i'd say that the creation of the replica itself is definitely worthy of being included in the article itself - the same happened at the article detailing the Batavia, which was also replicated. However being an encyclopedia the purpose of that section cannot be the promotion of the charity or the website itself - instead it has to be neutral in tone. Just compare the text on that article to the one that was added to the Hermione article: It adds a three liner about the society who build it along with the text "to learn more, please visit: (Our website)" which is pretty much as promotional as it gets. The fact that the website belong to a charity is not directly relevant as far as promotion is concerned - anything can be promoted.
One more note that i would add is that the replica has its own article which is located here: French frigate Hermione (2012). Since there is a specific page for the replica the page detailing the 1779 Frigate should only a fairly brief regarding the new ship along with a link to that page. A long treatise detailing the replica would nudge the 1779 article off-subject (Which is the historical copy) while at the same time causing duplicate information (Both the 1779 and the 2012 page would talk about the same subject which would be redundant). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle

Hello,

I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

SUPERGIRLISHERE

Hello, thanks for warning this user. I was just in position to report it at WP:AIV because oh his/her rapid vandalism in Tango. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 18:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war on "Threads" page

I'm not sure if this is the correct method of going about this but I would like help with arbitration over an edit war on the Threads page and talk page on the subject of the condition of a character's baby, the script for which is below:

139. Interior. Hospital. Night.
The baby is delivered in the hospital. JANE is in a bed and crying out when the pain is bad. Other patients take no notice of her. The body is being wrapped in the bloody cloth which it has just been wiped with. There is silence. The baby is given to JANE, who stares down at the bundle in her arms. Her face turns to horror and disgust. She pushes the baby away from her and open her mouth to scream.
Freeze frame.
Roll end credits.

Whereas the baby is visibly deformed on-screen, explicit reference is neither made to stillbirth or deformity; both however are implied: the baby is "silent", which suggests that the infant is dead, and Jane looks away with "horror and disgust" which suggests that there is something to be disgusted about, it will be more clear for having watched the final 5-10 minutes of the film which can be found on YouTube. It should also be noted that it is set after a nuclear war. I have made my case on the talk page (mine at the bottom, a second was made last year by another user). Hayek79 (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Sources that support my case can be found on the page itself (unless they have since been removed by User:Nick Cooper). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayek79 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Excirial/Archive_28&oldid=1252158638"