Jump to content

User talk:Eyebeller/Archives/2020/October

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


Are you a bot managed by someone?

Also thanks for the tip I forgot to cite :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suggsman (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I even forget to cite sometimes or to use good references. I'm not a bot, I am human and all the actions I do are from me. If you want to, you can find a list of bots with the bot flag here. I do use a script called Redwarn though to assist with warning users and rollbacking. (It's what I used to revert your edit). By the way, make sure you sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. It will produce a signature like mine (but with your name and a link to your talk page instead). Feel free to ask me any more questions you have and I hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia :) Eyebeller (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Hello, I'm Asartea. I noticed that in this edit to Agent Binky: Pets of the Universe, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, as I explained in my edit summary, the user added a file which does not exist on Wikipedia. I have educated the user on uploading files (see the message on their talk page) and I have reverted your edit for the reasons above. If you disagree, please reply to me and let me know. :) Eyebeller (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Eyebeller, Fully agree, my fault Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

This was an absurd and uncalled for revert. Explain yourself please. I recognize that you are new. But then you should not be reverting other editors until you understand wikipedia better.--2604:2000:E010:1100:2922:4A18:DD0:5232 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for reaching out to me regarding the revert(s) I made to your edits. First of all, please remember to assume good faith. After looking at the revision again, I do notice some helpful changes you made, like the addition of fact templates. To plain sight, the latest revision (which I was viewing when carrying out the revert) looked like vandalism as you removed a siginificant amount of content without explanation. Please remeber to use edit summaries to explain why you are removing content. For example, this revision looks like vandalism to me considering you removed a significant amount of content (which is a good sign of vandalism), you provided an edit summary of "d nn" and the edit came from an IP, not from an account which has a good history of edits. If you had provided an edit summary and were using an account with a few constructive edits already, I would have looked at that edit differently.
I do apologise for the revert, since some of the template edits were helpful and I admit that I didn't really look at the revision history of the page. However, it would still be very useful if you provided an explanation of why you removed the content that you did. Eyebeller (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I did assume good faith. But I thought your good faith revert was absurd and uncalled for. I never said or implied it was not good faith, so it is unclear why you are raising good faith as a something I should assume - as though I had not.
Furthermore, your assertion that I had not provided an explanation for deletions is false. I did. I supplied the edit summaries that you are reminding me to provide. So again - why are you reminding me to do that which I was already doing? Each and every edit you deleted had an edit summary!
And the one revision you cite also has an edit summary. "d nn". Meaning deleted non-notables. None of those people are notable (in addition to there being no cite). They are, if linked, red links. No wikipedia article. No indication of notability.
Furthermore, you are required to presume the same level of "good faith" from an IP as from an established account. Your role is to welcome and nurture new editors - and IPs - not to hold them to a different standard. I hope you learn from this and take all this to heart - you will otherwise drive away good potential editors with uncalled for deletions on your part, as good faith as you may be. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2922:4A18:DD0:5232 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again. To me, your language and tone didn't come across as having good faith so that's why I commented on it, it is up to an individual interpretation. To me, your edit summaries were unclear. For example, I didn't know what the abbreviation "d nn" meant. I do presume the same level of good faith for IPs. I reverted the edit because I felt the removal of content wasn't clear in the edit summary and was random. That looked like vandalism to me, especially from an IP. I did presume good faith with the warning message I gave you. What I meant was if that if that edit was made by a user with a good history of edits, I wouldn't revert it immediately but ask them on their talk page for clarification. Since the edit came from an IP/new user, I still presumed the same level of good faith, I just acted differently. Eyebeller (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
What in my language or tone suggested to you that I did not believe that your edits were not only absurd and uncalled for, but also in bad faith? Or is there nothing in my language and tone - just your assumption of bad faith on my part because I pointed out that your edits were absurd and uncalled for, and you for some reason assumed that must also mean I thought you were editing in bad faith?
If you edit wikipedia more, and become experienced, you will understand better abbreviations commonly used by editors in edit summaries. That still doesn't explain why rather than saying "I did not understand your edit summary" - which would call btw not for a deletion but for a communication - you accused me above of not leaving edit summaries. Which is completely false.
Your above comments, and even your immediately above comment "especially from an IP," suggests you are indeed using a different standard in evaluating edits by IPs. Again - that is not good. You should not delete an edit by an IP, where you would not do so with a non-IP. Use the same tools you would use with the non-IP. Communicate. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2922:4A18:DD0:5232 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
"But then you should not be reverting other editors until you understand wikipedia better." does not sound like a good way to start a conversation where you ask for opinions and why someone did something, especially that I'm new, as you stated.
As I already stated, I didn't understand what the edit summary meant and I assumed it meant nothing so I asked you to leave edit summaries.
Again, as I stated before, my decision was not based on you using an IP. I would have done the same to a new non-IP user. Eyebeller (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
But I mean it sincerely - you should not revert other editors until you understand Wikipedia better. You are harming WP by reverting proper edits. You don't understand edit summary abbreviations yet. But not understanding them, you take the peculiar position of assumning "it meant nothing." That's nonsensical. Get a grounding in wp, learn what edit summairies look like, and learn not to revert edits simply because one editor has made fewer edits than another - that is not at all appropriate. And understand that if you do not understand something, you should ask the editor. And also look at the edits themselves -- these non-referenced edits, no ref, blp issues on top of it all, should have been easy for you to see as appropriate, as well as the deletion of long-tagged text. You have to be more thoughtful. Otherwise, you do damage to the project, and you inhibit the development of good new editors. Which is very bad. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B13D:6ED7:C3A0:374B (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, please assume good faith. I am not trying to harm Wikipedia. I know it looks like I'm brand new, but I spent months reading about Wikipedia without an account before joining. This included vandalism, sources, undoing/reverting and non-construct edits. I have also years of experience using MediaWiki and have even been an Administrator on one wiki. Therefore, whilst I may not be the most knowledgeable editor, I think I understand Wikipedia to a reasonable agree to be able to revert edits which I think are harmful.
"and learn not to revert edits simply because one editor has made fewer edits than another - that is not at all appropriate" - for the third time, that is not what I said. If I saw the previous revisions/edits, I would have not reverted your edit. My actions was not based on the amount of edits you made. Without context, it looked like vandalism/unexplained removal of content - that is what I reverted as.
"And understand that if you do not understand something, you should ask the editor." - without context, it looked like vandalism/unexplained removal of content to me, so that's the warning template I left on your talk page. In the warning, I left it open for you to contact me (which you did) and I have responded to you.
"And also look at the edits themselves -- these non-referenced edits, no ref, blp issues on top of it all, should have been easy for you to see as appropriate, as well as the deletion of long-tagged text." - as I said, the revert was made without context of the previous edits. I should have looked at the revision history, in which case I wouldn't have made the revert.
"You have to be more thoughtful. Otherwise, you do damage to the project, and you inhibit the development of good new editors. Which is very bad." - Ok, I agree. I will try to look at the revision history of a page in the future more often. However, I do not think that saying I "do damage to the project" assumes good faith or is respectful. I have spent a substantial amount of time patrolling recent changes and reverting non-constructive edits. I am trying to benefit the encyclopedia through the non-constructive edits I have reverted, not harm it.
Eyebeller (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 October. It will be on all wikis from 22 October (calendar).

Future changes

  • You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on 27 October around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [1]
  • Advanced item In the AbuseFilter extension, the rmspecials() function will be updated soon so that it does not remove the "space" character. Wikis are advised to wrap all the uses of rmspecials() with rmwhitespace() wherever necessary to keep filters' behavior unchanged. You can use the search function on Special:AbuseFilter to locate its usage. [2]
  • Some gadgets and user-scripts use the HTML div with the ID #jump-to-nav. This div will be removed soon. Maintainers should replace these uses with either #siteSub or #mw-content-text. A list of affected scripts is at the top of phab:T265373.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

CVUA

Hi Eyebeller - hopefully you received the ping, but just in case, I've started your CVUA page at User:Girth Summit/CVUA/Eyebeller. Please read what's there, and complete the first task (it's quite a simple one to begin with!). GirthSummit (blether) 11:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. Yes, I have received the ping and am working on the task now. Eyebeller (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • You will be able to read but not to edit the wikis for up to an hour on October 27 around 14:00 (UTC). It will probably be shorter than an hour. [3]
  • Last week, links to "diffs" from mobile watchlists and recentchanges were linking to page-revisions instead of diffs. This has now been fixed. [4]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes

  • Since the introduction of the interface administrators user group in 2018, administrators couldn’t view the deleted history of CSS/JS pages. Now they can. [5]
  • There was a problem with the Change Tags. The software would apply the "Reverted" tag to any page actions such as page-protection changes if they came directly after a reverted edit. This has now been fixed for new edits. [6]
  • The Reply tool will be offered as an opt-in Beta Feature on most Wikipedias in November. Another announcement will be made once the date is finalized. [7]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

I'm going to ignore the fact that you deleted a vandalism warning on your own talk page, but here's the evidence you ask about (that you gave me only 30 minutes to provide). The vandalism warning was so strict because you tout yourself as anti-vandalism. I won't make the warning so stern next time, I apologize. Next time, please give me more time to respond. I have work to do. GyozaDumpling (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am all about anti-vandalism. I did not add that text, I can swear. I think it must have been me editing something else on that page and it resulting in an edit conflict. Sorry, I should've given you more time to respond. Due to the severity of the warning, I removed it after a short time. I hope you understand that I was definitely not trying to vandalise as hopefully my edits prove. I am willing to restore the warning if you agree to cross it out as I mentioned. Are you willing to cross it out? I won't restore it if you don't agree to cross it out as I was 100 percent not trying to vandalise and that warning would ruin my reputation. Eyebeller (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I am willing to cross it out, but upon further consideration, I would like to retract the warning. I shouldn't have been so quick to assume malice. I realize the implications that such a strict warning can have on a person's reputation, and for that I apologize. You don't have to restore it if you don't want to. GyozaDumpling (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your apology. I won't restore the warning but will leave this conversation here for future reference as to why I removed a vandalism warning. Eyebeller (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Eyebeller. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! GirthSummit (blether) 11:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

I am very sorry about my disruption, a friend of mine said this was a cool site to hang out on. I didn't know the whole big world was reading what I was writing all by myself. I found out the sandbox now so I can still have fun and play. Thanks!

Officerplz (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Officerplz! Thanks for reading my warnings that I left on your talk page and for acknowledging them here. I'm glad you like Wikipedia and I hope you decide to stay. Yes - if you want to do test edits, the sandbox or your personal sandbox is the place to go. I hope you continue contributing to Wikipedia and feel free to leave me another message if you have any more questions. Eyebeller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Walter Wallace

In the Walter Wallace article, I pointed out that Biden's campaign is headquartered in Philadelphia. In the article about Biden's campaign, it does list Philadelphia as the Camapign HQ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.49.166 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for reaching out to me. Please remember to sign comments on talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks for your contributions. However, adding information to one article because it is present in another is not acceptable. The Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign page indeed states that the campaign is centred in Philadelphia, but it also provides a source for this claim. If you linked to the same source, that would have been enough. Look here for more information on reliable sources. If you have any more questions, feel free to post them here. Eyebeller (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyebeller/Archives/2020/October&oldid=987956997"