Jump to content

User talk:Gaelan/Archives/2019/February

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


The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Gaelan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namtranhoang1992 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Restoring removed warnings

For this, read WP:BLANKING. Hick Hick (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hick Hick: Huh, didn't know about that. Thanks. Gaelan 💬✏️ 18:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
NO worries! I wasn't having a go. It was just so you didn't compromise your own good efforts. Hick Hick (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hot Stuff

Thanks much for restoring the allegations! There's a brief conversation on the IP's talkpage about that section and the BLP policy, and I've also mentioned it on the article's talkpage. Trying to cover all the bases. I'm considering reporting the IP to WP:AN/3RR, what do you think? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: I went ahead and reported to AN3. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh bless. Happy to drop by and second the report if needed. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@NekoKatsun: They did it again. IMO, leave it on the wrong version until someone else intervenes so that we're not edit warring. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks again! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Gaelan, thank you very much for your diligence with reverting vandalism and disruption, and for sending them my way at AIV. ;-) Keep up the excellent work, and please know that - while recent changes patrolling is a very thankless job - your time and effort does not go unnoticed and we appreciate it greatly. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oshwah Thanks, I'm honored! You just made my day. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Here's an actual ping, not a link to ping. (Oops!) Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Heh, no problem - I've done it before too. You're quite welcome! It's the least I could do given all the time and work you put into recent changes patrolling, and it makes me happy to read that it made your day. :-) Cheers, my friend - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That warning...

Straight to level 4? That's harsh. At least the last two false warnings I got were at a more reasonable level... 😉

I would give you a friendly trouting, but you already beat me to it. Should I give you some WP:CHIPS to go with it, instead? Thegreatluigi (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I am against Vandalism

I am against vandalism. We should join forces to stop Wikipedia vandals! Aijdjdjeki (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

nightcore

i removed that part of the nightcore wiki because that article referenced doesnt exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.169.50 (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Soft rock. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)im

@Thegreatluigi: Wow, this is somehow even worse. I did it to myself. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I guess you could make it even worse still by accidentally reporting yourself to AIV. Also, can I give you a trouting now? Thegreatluigi (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thegreatluigi: If you wish. Gaelan 💬✏️ 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I do wish.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Sorry, but it had to be done. 😉 And if this happens a third time, I may need to use something a little larger... Thegreatluigi (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Super old comment that I'm giving a header so that hopefully Cluebot'll get it

i didn't understand what made you think that the article isn't constructive.Can you eleborate?I have even cited the required references for the article.119.235.48.170 (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

WreeperPHX

Please use User:WreeperPHX/chatbox instead of User_talk:WreeperPHX if you're gonna write me something. WreeperPHX (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@WreeperPHX: Out of curiosity, why? It seems like it's the same thing (it's a page where people post messages). Is there some reason it's different? By the way, I'm not an admin—just a nerd with way too much free time who checks recent changes for vandalism and such. Gaelan 💬✏️ 08:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Do you understand the topic? If the answer is no, can you stop adding nonsensical messages to my talk page in a patronizing manner? Thanks. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No, quite frankly I do not. However, given that both sides had (seemingly well-referenced) claims to victory, removing one of the claims with no explanation seems a little suspicious. While your edit may have a good reason (and that reason may be clear to others in the field) it's unreasonable to expect to expect all wiki editors to be familiar with every topic, and it's also unreasonable to just trust that anyone who comes along is unbiased and knowledgable. (I'm not saying that you aren't—I'm just saying that we have no idea.) That's why we have policies on citing reliable sources.
Finally, you're probably right that I shouldn't have used a template in this situation. It's definitely not a clear-cut situation, and I should have left a better message. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
That article states it's Burmese Victory for years. Then, a Thai nationalist suddenly appears in many Burmese articles and removes "Burmese Victory" from all war-related pages. That's why I said "adding back." It's Burmese Victory because the it's clear from the article (referenced to both Burmese and Chinese sources) that Qing failed its objective of controlling Burma and all four invasions were pushed back with heavy losses from Qing side. It's like stating the Battle of Thermopylae "both sides claim victory" because "we want to be neutral". 71.31.30.66 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Good to know, that makes sense. I should have looked a bit further back in the page history. I put your edit back. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you beat me to it. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks Gaelan. I'm sorry if the first comment seems rude. I should have AGF. Cheers! 71.31.30.66 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

CC

CC:

The one thing I just don't get, that pretty much limits my ability to do anything. Might you be able to help me understand?(please?) I'm Unique! :) (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: CC (Creative Commons) is a set of licenses that govern how people are allowed to use the work you create. So if you publish something and say "I release it under CC BY-SA" that's short for "Anyone is allowed to use this, as long as they say who it's by and any changes they make are also released under CC BY-SA." (Actually, it's short for several pages of legalese, but you get the idea.) The text of wikipedia CC BY-SA (you agree to release your work under this license whenever you make an edit—it's under the edit summary box), but there are several other CC licenses as well:
  • All CC licenses have "BY" in the name, indicating that you must attribute the source if you reuse it.
  • If the name includes "SA", any changes you make must be released under the same license.
  • If the name includes "ND", you can't make any changes—you can only publish it unmodified.
  • If the name includes "NC", there's no commercial use.
There's also a CC-0, which just releases the work into the public domain (i.e. no restrictions whatsoever).
So, for text on wikipedia, you can add any text you wrote (obviously) as well as text that someone else released under CC 0 (or the public domain in some other way), CC BY, or CC BY-SA. (You can't include text under a license with ND or NC, because we can't turn around and allow others to edit it and/or use it commercially.) In any case, you need to state where the text came from in the edit summary or talk page to fulfill the BY part.
Likewise, images on Wikipedia Commons must also be released under CC BY or CC BY-SA (on Commons, there's slightly more leniency for licenses that aren't the exact same as the CC ones, but have similar terms). Again, if it's by someone else, you must say who on the image page.
So what about work that's not released under CC (or public domain)? In the case of text on Wikipedia, it's a hard no—we want to make sure that all of our text is available for anyone to use. For images, we sometimes make use of something in US copyright law called "fair use" that allows you to use something that you wouldn't otherwise have the right to use, as long as you're doing it for a good reason and it doesn't reduce the original author's ability to make money off of it (MASSIVE OVERSIMPLIFICATION!). We try to avoid using fair use images, but sometimes there's no choice (for instance, if we have an article about a copyrighted painting, it would be really annoying if we couldn't have a picture). Therefore, we do occasionally use images under fair use, but subject to a lot of restrictions. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thanks!(check my edit summary) I'm Unique! :) (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@I found a unique username: I should mention that I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I'm Unique! :) (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Question about your recent rollback on Rome Sweet Rome

I can understand you recent rollback of Rome Sweet Rome on this edit since I was an the process of removing the mp3 link to the previous edit (without the link to the audio). Do you have any problems with the plain statement about the project being stalled and just a link to the print transcript? I plan to roll back to that edit and further edit just for grammar. That edit should not have an problems that I can see. Thank you in advance for your opinion. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the link is fast. We get a lot of spammy edits adding links, so in that was I was a bit overzealous. Sorry about that. Gaelan 💬✏️ 02:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I understand that spam links are just popping up like mushrooms and it take a lot of time to investigate every possible link since I have deleted many myself. The link that I had made which had triggered your trigger-finger response was to an NPR radio program. I was torn about including a direct link to the actual audio file since the transcript loses a lot of the spoken nuances from that what was actually said on the aired radio production. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

JIDO

I recently updated the Wiki page regarding JIEDDO. Someone previously hacked that page and entered a false name for its Director. I corrected the name and removed information that was no longer pertinent. Can you restore what I changed? Thank you. Paulsturm1951 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Paulsturm1951: All right, I've put it back. In the future, edits which delete large amounts of text are likely to be viewed with suspicion, so it's a good idea to be clear about what you're doing in the edit summary. Sorry for the trouble! Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

About your edit request on ZH Wikipedia

Thanks for you contribution. I have created a sandbox version based on your request in order to speed up the edit request process. However, since the Chineses Wikipedia currently do not have template editor role and only a few administrators on Chinese Wikipedia have knowledge about template or module, this edit request can take weeks or even months before any administrator would like to respond, so please be patient. Also, not related to this edit request. Since you are using meta global userpage, it will be extremely helpful if you put a soft redirect template on the meta userpage so other people can find your main wikipedia user page quicker. (I am not criticizing about this, I am just giving a suggestion. I will apologize in advance if this suggestion seems too nitpicking or offense you). -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 21:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@VulpesVulpes825: Thanks for your reply and help with the sandbox. It's not urgent or anything—I just noticed that the links were inconsistent and thought it would be good to fix. I've added a link to my en user page from meta, although I do want to keep a separate user page for other wikis so I didn't make it into a soft redirect. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the late update. Your edit request is now approved and processed. Once again, sincerely thank you for your contribution. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) (Please keep the whole conversation at where it starts) 15:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gaelan

Thanks for removing the maintenance tag Gaelan

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavankum (talk • contribs) 05:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gaelen

I created the page without checking that it had User: in front of the name. Noobie mistake! Thanks for fixing that.Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaelan/Archives/2019/February&oldid=886679119"