User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Archives/GA5

Copyright

Hello! Since you offered to help, here I am. What is the correct tag to use if I want to tag a section of an article for copyright infringement (it was copy/pasted directly from other websites)? Also, is there a page that I can refer to for warning tags, etc.? I don't have them all memorized yet... ;-) Thanks ~dee 15:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's clear that a section is a blatant copyright violation, simply remove that section and state the source in the edit summary; if you're not sure, your best bet is to use {{copyvio}} and report it to WP:Copyright problems. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace should give you an idea of many different warning templates available. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ak, I did that for Carmen Reece (her bio was a direct copy/paste). I was thinking of rewriting the bio, but I guess there's a procedure to follow to do that and I have to get admin approval of my text? BTW, I wasn't sure if I should tag the article from the top where I don't believe there is any copyright issues, or just from the bio. ~dee 07:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, if you see an obvious copyright, you or anyone else can just remove it and rewrite it to no longer be a violation; no admin approval necessary: admins on wikipedia are just users with extra tools like the ability to delete pages and block/unblock other users. As for the copyvio template, it's best to just follow the instructions and use your judgement as to which would be necessary. I've personally only used the template a couple of times; usually I just improve something which might be a borderline copyvio to make sure it's not one, and then problem solved without having to go through the copyright discussion process and confirm that it is a copyright violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the article creator removed the copyvio template I placed along with the copyrighted text so I'll just rewrite the bio and add it again. Thanks so much for the tips, they're going to help a lot in the future. You've been a tremendous help! :-) ~dee 11:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for your help over at Courcelles' and my talk page, your input is valued. Happy editing! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:01pm • 08:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks again! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:01pm • 08:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Scown

Hi again! I've cleaned this up as much as I can, added as many reliable references as I could find and made it as neutral as possible. Could I trouble you to have a look and let me know if anything else needs to be done? Thanks again and sorry for relying on you too much these couple of days. :-) ~dee 14:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; it could probably still do with some copyediting (especially to make the information 'flow' a bit better), and maybe some less pertinent information removed or stated more simply, but overall you've done a pretty good cleanup job. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying with the text to be honest; that's my next step. Thanks for taking the time to check it out for me. :-) ~dee 08:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Giftiger, may you check it out now? :-) ~dee 10:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement; the article doesn't have any blatant issues anymore. About the only thing left I could suggest is to add some more inline citations where possible, and consider sorting some of it for relevance: information on the individual's education, for example, is probably only relevant to the article where it had an impact on her career as a rower (or anything else she might be notable for), so it may be worth cutting out some of the more trivial information. This isn't really a big thing, however, and could be discussed with others in talk or left for someone else to refactor later. You've done a pretty good job bringing the article up to standard though, well done. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying it up some more (the reference list especially--I didn't know how to break it up). I'll work on the last tweaks myself and find some more resources to cite. Thanks again. :-) ~dee 12:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; feel free to ask about anything else you may need help with. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

False AIV report

Chrisrissel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He was not meant to be reported to AIV. For some reason huggle thought he had a level 4 warning and auto-reported him. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see; fair enough. You should disregard my comment on your talk page then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: AfD discussion of Goatse Security

Thanks for letting me know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

hi. Your EC post appears to have wiped my response re marknutley. Am currently on my mobile, so could you please help me restore my comments? Much appreciated, --Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, sorry about that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me restore the other two comments too! I was ging to ask you but you beat me to it. Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Since you seem active there, maybe you can answer a question about ANI: This debate was part of a swirl of activity in which the person alleging my misconduct was indefinitely banned. So my question is, does this spurious allegation get to live unchallenged on ANI for the rest of time, or does it get resolved in some way? Even though I'm an admin, I don't spend much time on ANI, so I don't know the protocol.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally if an ANI thread reaches the archive, it's because there's nothing to be done: ANI is pretty active, so no replies within 24 hours typically means either the matter has been resolved (I haven't read the thread, but the complainant being indefinitely blocked seems to be a resolution, especially as the comments mainly indicate that there wasn't a policy violation), or there's no admin action necessary. It seems in this case that no further admin was deemed necessary after User:TruckCard was indefinitely blocked, so the matter is essentially resolved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though there's no mention of the resolution on the complaint. I guess I can live with it being left unresolved.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A User is Abusing His Admin Privileges. Can You Please Help?

Hello!

I felt I was getting nowhere being reasonable with the user Kuru on his talk page, So I wanted to get a third party to help. Can you please help? Please read our discussion below and let me know your thoughts. This was a direct copy and paste from his talk page. Now look at the article in question, "Tapioca Express" look at its history, and look at the content left. Does it seem right to you? All those contributors making wikipedia a better place, spreading knowledge, and one admin with a problem taking it all down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the discussion is clearly extensive and I would prefer not to get involved. If you have a specific complaint about Kuru abusing one or more of his admin tools, WP:ANI is probably the correct venue; make sure you inform Kuru if you decide to take the matter there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for considering it and giving me advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not an abuse of admin privileges. I looked at the edits you (being User:FrosteaTheSnowman) made and they were all spammy edits, unsourced and in a "history format". If any of that should be added back, it should be added back with third-party reliable sources, can be verifiable, and is notable. Otherwise, it isn't spammy unsourced fancruft and Kuru was right to remove it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No problem. Please also take note of the comment I left on your talk page about canvassing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input homer. I apologize I am a newbie. Would you agree that an admin should try to source and help contribute to an article, rather than just deleting completely someones work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries Dude, we were all newbies one day. Normally, admins want some sources added, even if some aren't. But a large swath of unsourced information can and normally does get deleted. Work on it in userspace, work with a user and if you can get the sources, then readd the information, but only if you get the sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to apologise

Hi, my responses to you a couple of times were unfair, and I would like to apologise for those. Thankyou for your civil reponses during the time frustration with the debate was getting to me. Please accept my regards, and best wishes. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; in future the best advice is to take a break and come back to the discussion when you're cool. I hope you choose to stay and contribute constructively to the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

also

as I am sure you know, thanks for your comments and input to the thread, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem; glad it could be resolved. Unfortunately the occasional thread does get lost in ANI since it's such high-traffic, and that one was straight-forward enough that it really just needed an admin's attention to act on an obvious problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Tothill

Please can you advise what is wrong with the grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling of the article on High Tothill? I have quite a lot more to add Dormskirk (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is just that it seems to be very disjointed into simple sentences and doesn't 'flow' very well; by all means add the content and then worry about copyediting afterwards; there's no rush. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - I have tried to improve the flow. Please can you either further improve it yourself now (if you are still not comfortable with my efforts) or remove the tag? Dormskirk (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done; seems fine now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

discussion

Please, you can see this [1] and resolved him ? newpages patroller --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You've added this to ANI already, so your best bet is to wait for a response there. I'm not entirely clear on your report, however; I'm having a hard time understanding you. I've checked the website you provided against both articles, but I see no evidence of a copyright violation. Please direct further correspondence to the ANI thread, and this can be resolved there. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ok , I understand many thanks for your attention --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

:this here is "no violation" , the discussion is closed - Bye and Many thanks for all , --Alpha (^{my font is nobody...}) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for clarifying

No problem! :)) Candyo32 23:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

I was wondering how pages are automatically being added to my watchlist (!?) and if there was a way to disable this [automated] feature? ~dee^(talk?) 20:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to "my preferences", then the "watchlist" tab: you can toggle whether to add pages to your watchlist when you create, edit, move, or review them. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had already checked that out before I came to you. The only box I have ticked is "Add pages I create to my watchlist" -- I figured that'd be enough and then I could add any other pages I wanted manually, yet I find most articles I edit are being automatically listed and I can't figure out why. ~dee^(talk?) 21:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that you're using Twinkle, which overrides those settings and adds pages to your watchlist when you use twinkle on them. Is that what you're noticing? If so, you can add this to your skin's js file:

if(typeof(TwinkleConfig)=='undefined')
 TwinkleConfig={};
TwinkleConfig.watchRevertedPages=[]; //don't watch reverted articles
TwinkleConfig.watchWarnings=false; //don't watch users' talk pages

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Gah, you are a godsend. Merci mille fois! ~dee^(talk?) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

please review item (Buckhorn Middle School)!

Please review the item of Buckhorn Middle school again, it has been revised! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrik2151 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article still seems purely promotional; if you disagree, please place {{hangon}} directly below the speedy deletion tag and explain why on the article's talk page. I reverted your recent edits because you removed the speedy deletion template. The article is not an encyclopaedic coverage, and seems to do nothing other than make a promotional "announcement" about the school, giving contact details and spamming external links (see WP:SPAM, WP:EL). It will require a fundamental rewrite in order to be encyclopaedic, and should therefore be deleted according to our speedy deletion criterion G11. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Armbrust RFA comment

I don't know what's going on there, but I suspect a technical glitch. The RFA was open when I began my post; I didn't get an edit conflict message when I finished, and I didn't get the pink page indicating closure when my edit came up. I think my commen was timely posted (not that it's very important); I've seen glitches like this before, usually wiping out interim posts, although that didn't seem to happen here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I figured that was the case; it was a pretty long comment and seemed unlikely that you'd started writing it after it'd closed. It's most likely because you were editing the oppose section, and the closure of the nomination only needed tags to be added to other sections; so there was no actual edit conflict. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Because closing a discussion usually just means putting collapsible templates at the very top and bottom, there won't usually be an edit conflict when you edit a long discussion that gets archived while your edit window is open if what you're editing is one of the sections in the middle. For an RfA, all of the voting sections except Neutral are "in the middle" so it makes sense that there was no EC. I'm not sure why you didn't see the pinkness of the archive template though. —Soap— 22:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's odd that the pink archive template wasn't visible once you'd posted your edit. Could you have just not noticed it? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but I really doubt it. Perhaps the pink template didn't load quickly enough, and I navigated away once the text displayed and I could see it was OK but before the page had completely loaded. I've seen similar things happen with backgrounds elsewhere. I certainly don't know enough about the tech side to say whether it could happen here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a recent article you PRODded

More specifically, Growing Up Inc.. Your PROD was contested by the article creator but I agree with your original reason and I've listed it for deletion at AFD. You may comment on the discussion, if you choose, here. elektrikSHOOS 01:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Veronica Zemenova

Hi. I can't actually work out were to comment on this. What I wanted to point out that I'm 100% certain there have been previous deletions of same subject under different spellings. eg variations of "veronica/veronika" and "zemenova/zemanova". No idea how to find them.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find any evidence of that being the case. This search result shows all articles beginning with "Veroni" which have been taken to AfD; the only matching page is the one I just created. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I'm not loosing my marbles... Ah. Looks like it was moved at some point, seem to have been numerous previous deletion attempts. I thought it had been deleted before.. Just getting confused. My mistake.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's been prodded once and tagged for speedy deletion about three times, but surprisingly this is the first time it's gone to AfD. This will result either in its deletion or consensus supporting it being kept, so either way it should put an end to the repeated waves of speedies and prods. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I found this - http://www.ask.com/wiki/Veronika_Zemanova (wikipedia fork) suggests it was deleted before ? It looks like preventing article re-creation might be a good idea (not sure how that is requested).Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's essentially just an external copy of this revision. But as the link I gave above shows, there haven't been any previous AfD discussions about it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the summary (This article was previously deleted under the title Veronika Zemanová (note diacritics)) could be wrong - or maybe it was speedily deleted? Would that show up on the search?Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be evident unless it was taken to AfD, no. It's possible it was speedily deleted, but only articles recreated after deletion at AfD can be speedied (as G4), with other types of deletion, the page may be recreated (though it can still be redeleted with a speedy or prod if it meets the criteria for a speedy or the prod is unchallenged). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey GW, thanks for making my point on my talk page very well last night when I was offline. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

de.wiki and WP:ANI question

Hi mate - you've got a de-3 babel-box. Think you'd be up to the challenge of acting as an en.wiki/de.wiki liaison? This ANI thread deals with a sock puppeteer here, who's now causing problems there. Franamax (talk) suggesting a cross-wiki heads-up, and I kind of volunteered you. If you're available, obviously. TFOWR 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Note the logged-in/logged-out bit here and the IP unprotection requests on that page. At least I think it's unprotection requests. :) Franamax (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not too late, I'm about to take a look at the thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you -- I just posted on Franamax's page. (I can read German but speak it miserably.) Do you know if there is a tool like this one for seeking out range contributions on other language wikis? Antandrus (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not up on the wikipedia jargon in german, but hopefully the note I left will suffice. I'm not sure about the IP range tool on other wikis, I've never used it personally. Maybe you should ask X!? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm2

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

I figured it would come up for deletion one day. I created it (well, the template) just as an alternative for the first Facepalm. I will mark it with {{db-author}} if you like to speed along the process. No worries on the nom'ing. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no huge rush, but feel free to mark it as G7 if you agree with its deletion. Hopefully you'll find the original just as useful since I've explained how to produce the same effect as the second one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed your deletion template (since I couldn't mark for CSD with it there) and marked for G7. To be honest, I really didn't use it that often, so I am not sure why I made it in the first place. :) The things we do and think they are a good idea at the time. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

...and it's outta here! Just deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh don't worry about it; look at what I created... though I stand by my opinion that it may be useful ;) GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil?

Hi, I would be interested in why you feel my comment in the AfD was uncivil. I was attempting to spell out (possibly too firmly) why the text of the nomination itself appeared to be an ad-hom argument which was inappropriately non-neutral. Even assuming a shed-load of good faith, it is hard to interpret a description of an article about a suicide as a "spontaneous howl of outrage" as neutral or civil. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguments at AfD aren't required to be neutral; indeed, it's a place to express your own point of view, albeit based on policy, as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. While I did feel that addressing an article which has involved numerous editors working constructively as "a howl of outrage" mainly demonstrated that the user had rushed to judgement without properly looking at the article or considering its worth based on policy, I didn't feel that warranted quite such a bitey response, especially as as I pointed out, the fact that it was previously nominated for AfD under a previous name made it easy to miss, and assuming a bad-faith nomination from an experienced, generally constructive editor without prior discussion wasn't called for. Asking that their comments be struck because you disagreed with them was particularly concerning. I understand that the previous AfD for this article has been frustrating, but I urge you not to take every argument for deletion as a personal affront or as being homophobic prejudice, because it doesn't do you any favours, and in every case I've seen so far, it's not true. The previous AfD got quite heated and clearly we had some strong differences in opinion, but despite believing that it should have been deleted, I accept the keep close of the AfD and intend to work on improving the article since it's going to be kept, and I hope that we can work constructively together in future despite the difference of opinion here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. However I would like to make it absolutely crystal clear that I have not taken anything in relation to this article (which I originally requested a successful speedy delete and later an AfD for another version someone else created) as a personal affront and I have never, this is an important point, never made any assumption or made a single accusation of homophobic prejudice. If you can see any of my comments that can be interpreted in this way, please point them out to me and I will be happy to immediately withdraw them and clarify any mis-communication. Fæ (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I may have confused your comments with those of another user in the latter case; in any case, if that doesn't apply to you then please disregard; in any case my comments are solely for your own benefit, I have no intention of kicking up a fuss about this. Both AfDs are over and so far we appear to largely agree on the actual content on the article, so it seems there's nothing further to argue about. Thanks for the message. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my user name

Note: this conversation started or continued here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

To whom it may concerns,

My user name "Longdongdiver" has nothing related to offensive wording. It means a diver from "Long-dong bay" which is one of the famous diving site located at the northeast coast of TAIWAN. Please check google map and you will find this name marked in the northeast coast of Taiwan. "Long-Dong" is the direct translation from the pronunciation of the name of this diving site in Mandarin.

Your understanding will be highly appreciated!

Regards, Long-dong diver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longdongdiver (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I suspected there was an explanation for the name as your edits so far appear to be made in good faith and it didn't appear particularly blatant, but someone had reported your name to WP:Usernames for administrator attention so I thought it best to raise the issue with you. I'm satisfied with the explanation, and I'll point this discussion out to the user who originally reported the username. Note that you may wish to place a note on your user and/or user talk pages indicating what your name means to avoid any future confusion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting on my talk. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just doing my duty as a friendly talk page stalker ;) the user has been blocked by HJ Mitchell now, for vandalising several other user and user talk pages. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing Personal

Sorry, I am trying my best, I don't know all the cool codes to link to policies, so all I can do is provide my opinion and evidence for others to interpret. It just irritates me that my vote on an AfD has less merit than others because it's my first article and reading the comment history just sounds like my opinion doesn't matter, so that's why I was slightly testy. Everyone has to start somewhere right? Just frustrating feeling like a 3rd grader on a high school debate team. :( Gollymolly1010 (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's no problem, you'll get used to it as you go along, I was just letting you know how our AfD process works and pointing you to some of the relevant policies so that you know some of our inclusion criteria. Your opinion is worth just as much as everyone else's, but policy-based reasoning has a lot greater weight than anything else; if you can make a solid argument why an article meets our policies and should be kept, it doesn't matter if you made that argument in your first edit or your ten thousandth. If you need any further advice feel free to ask me. I'll leave a table of some links which you may find useful on your talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Gollymolly1010 (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about using a sub-page for a draft

Hello. I would like to post an article draft on a sub-page and later move it to the main pages. However, when I created the sub- page (I didn't save it yet), I noticed that the text area did not contain the various items ("New article name is ", "==External Links==", etc.) that appear automatically when I create an article for immediate live posting. Should I just post the article in my sub-page and add those items myself? Thank you.Michael Leeman (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Those items are provided by the new article wizard, and some of them shouldn't be in the article anyway; your best bet is to follow another article (preferrably a fairly well-established one which doesn't have any problem templates on it) to see what the layout should be like. Sections like ==External links== etc. should be added once you actually have external links to populate them with. You could also try looking at the manual of style for some guidelines on the stylistic features of good wikipedia articles (embolden the first use of the article title, etc.) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mandela Rhodes Scholarship

Well, you seem to be the person who is dissatisfied with the article, that's why I ask you to do the re-write or to be more specific as to what exactly makes it "excessively promotional". I have compared it to the article on "Rhodes Scholarship" and both of them have the same tone in my opinion. Would you recommend that the article becomes a subsection of the "Rhodes Scholarship"? The Mandela Rhodes Scholarship is very impressive, it is difficult to outline its attributes without appearing to be promoting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dele1234 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, it appears that you placed the conflict-of-interest tag on the article. However, I'm not clear why. Could you please explain why you think so on the article's talk page? Also, maybe there is a wikipedia policy on this, but what action could be taken to have that tag removed? Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just left a message explaining why to the talk page as you requested; basically, Dele1234's previous username was "Mrfoundation" and creating this article was their first edit, so the username was softerblocked for that reason. That indicates a fairly strong conflict of interest here. While the user continues to contribute to the article or their original content has not been thoroughly checked for non-neutrality, the tag should remain. I have no issue with its removal once the neutrality issues have been sorted out, the mainly primary sources have been replaced with secondary ones, and the user has agreed not to make significant edits to the article (obviously minor ones such as copyediting aren't an issue). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, I think it should maybe be Wikipedia policy that a conflict-of-interest tag require a note on the talk page - If not discussed on the talk page, the tag could be deleted without comment, and rule that would be noted on the tag itself. Unlike a lot of article issues, this one isn't obvious from reading the article. And I don't think it's reasonable for a second editor to have to do all the digging that the first editor who placed the tag did (not to mention it's a waste of time). I can think of some other tags that could use that as well; I've really struggled with old merge tags that never had any discussion, and I've hit the point of simply deleting when the course of action wasn't clear. However, I don't know where to suggest something like that. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy 10/10/10

Double Ten Day is, really, unrelated—but we don't appear to have a cool pic for this one

I suppose I should've timed this message at 10:10:10 too, but frankly, I can't be arsed. You know how it is.

Did you know... that tenten in Japaense writing are a little wiggly thing, a bit like a quotation-mark, which makes e.g. "ka" (か) into "ga" (が) or "fu" (ふ) into "bu" (ぶ) ?

So, take time out to have a bit of a giggle.

All the best, and 10-10 'till we do it again.  Chzz  ►  08:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

...I'd be interested in knowing how he pronounced "million", or indeed, a googolplex. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: veronica zemenova

Veronika Zemanová (click me) - as I suspected it has been deleted before. (see discussion above) - you might want to request that the page title be prevented from being re-created given the history...Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's likely to be necessary; in any case the AfD decision means it can be speedied if it's recreated, and if it persists it can then be salted. Looking at the log, it was speedied once, restored because of a concern that it passed A7, and then deleted again after closer inspection. The article was then recreated to a standard which passed A7, and deleted at AfD. There doesn't appear to have been any disruptive recreating, so salting it isn't warranted at this stage. It'll remain on my watchlist though, so I'll notice and request a speedy if it comes back. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I realized that I might have left that message on the wrong board; thanks for finding and moving it for me. Owe you one.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem; glad to help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverts considered harmful

Like it says in the title. In reverting my move of the Smartprt/SAQ section at ANI, you also removed the comment which I had added. If we ever start appointing clerks at ANI I'm sure you'll have as good a chance as anyone to get the job. Until then, even if you want to undo my refactoring, Don't be removing my comments please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate move of the thread, and fiddling around with moving it back manually while avoiding touching a comment whcih essentially just said "I've moved this thread" and was just a "bump" to prevent archival, is a bit of a waste of time, especially with the high probability of edit conflicts while doing so. Feel free to reinsert the comment if you wish (if you haven't already), but I wasn't wrong to revert your edit "bumping" the thread, and calling it a "harmful" revert is just silly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Resolved

 – thanks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

never heard of these parameters :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I just used a standard html table, putting the list of article templates in one cell and the potd template in the other, on the same row. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

can you fix the tables please, too? they were shrinked.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done If you want to adjust the width a bit more, just alter the width of each table:

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0 0 1em; width:66%" /* fiddle as desired */
| style="align:right; width:50%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #EEC900; background:#FFD700"|...|}

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

since I'm quoting you Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NP---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

hello

Resolved

 – k thank you-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 07:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

can you have a look at here pls?. it doesn't show how it should.thank you-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're using an unusual mixture of <references/> and {{reflist}} syntax there and it's rather complex, but the reason for all the red text is most likely exactly as it says: you've listed a load of inline citations inside a <references> tag without using them in the text. The syntax is designed to clean up inline citations, such that you simply list the full references at the end and can refer to them by name for use in the text, but it will cause an error like that one if it's not used in the text. If you want to also include general references which aren't used as inline citations, simply list them in the references section. {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates are useful for formatting general references as well, including putting them into multiple columns. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you for that. now i need to put the inline citations in the references down under, without using i.e. <ref name=hello>hello</ref> because they are too much and im too lazy to do that. just like here. and they should be sort by paragraphs, i.e. Albums should be separate from guest appearances. is it possible? thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 06:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're trying to separate references out into paragraphs, the result isn't going to be neat, and if and when the article enters mainspace it'll be complex for others to adjust (in fact someone will probably just come along and compound the references, it's not exactly a standard way of laying them out). As for the <ref name="name">{{cite ...}}</ref>, the ref tags are necessary for inline citations. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Judy Strangis

Hey Giftiger. :-) I was editing the above mentioned article and I was just wondering if I had to have someone else review articles before removing the copyediting tags? I'm still working on inline citations and fixing up the references, btw. ~dee^(talk?) 09:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, if you think you've cleared up any remaining need for copyediting, you can simply remove the tag. You may want to check if there's a talk page note about it (which there isn't in this case) or ask the user who placed the tag if you're uncertain as to whether or not you've addressed the issues; otherwise, go ahead and remove it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, Giftiger. Sorry if I ask too many [obvious] questions sometimes, I just like to be sure. That said, I gave up nominating articles for speedy deletion for a while; CSD doesn't seem to be a strength of mine. ;o( ~dee^(talk?) 13:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I know the feeling; I was very cautious when first editing wikipedia as well. There are plenty of areas you can contribute other than newpage patrolling / marking CSDs, I'm sure you find an area where you're particularly well suited. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Your posting to ANI

Are you sure that your edit was intended to be on the Creating a page that has been "restricted to administrators" thread? It looks more as if it might have been intended to belong at #Speedydeletion backlog? David Biddulph (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I put it in the right place; the link was referring to the thread above. I was taking a (friendly, I hope) snipe at Seb who created Keith Hamptom as a test, and then marked it as G7. Thanks for checking, though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. In passing, I did wonder why that newly-created page had been tagged for speedy, instead of leaving it there so that the editor who couldn't create it could add his intended content. David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi GW, you inadvertently removed a couple of posts here by the look of it. Easily done. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that because Sarek reverted it; I got the pesky edit conflict problem where it places the old version in the top text area instead of the new one. Thanks for pointing it out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's annoying, and I've done it many times myself. I always click on "show changes" nowadays on busy pages before I hit save, which shows if anyone has changed the text since I started writing. It slows down the posting process having to check like that, but it avoids the conflicts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something odd again. [2] You removed a post but doubled up another. Hope you don't mind me pointing these out! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That one was intentional but apparently incorrect; I was writing to a section and it appeared that Theresa had wiped it by accident, but apparently it was a duplicate section, which I hadn't noticed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's one of the hazards of posting there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good wishes

I respect you for doing what you thought was best. No hard feelings. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; no hard feelings here either. Hopefully I'm being overly cynical and it'll be used effectively after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Hey, I'm new here and came across your page.. I have a few questions I hope you can help with.. 1) Why is the Underoath page locked? 2) Where do you upload a photo from? I can't seem to find the option.. 3) Are you familiar with the band "Motionless in White"? I just created a page for their album Creatures. 4) Did I create the page correctly? If you could respond to these, it would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to [basically] just creating pages like this one from a lot of "underground-ish" bands. I used to just plain edit without a username, but I gave in. Thanks. --Johnnybravo44 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia! To answer your questions: 1) there was excessive vandalism from non-autoconfirmed users (users become autoconfirmed once they make a certain number of edits, I believe 12, and have had an account for 3 days) and IPs, so the page was semi-protected to prevent further vandalism. 2) You can upload a file at WP:UPLOAD; be sure to read the instructions carefully, and ensure that the file you upload is not restricted by copyright. 3) No, I'm not familiar with this band. 4) The page appears to exist so I assume it was created correctly; I'll have a look at the article and see if I can offer some feedback. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article seems like a good first attempt, thanks for the contribution. It could use some expansion, especially as the only information other than the track listing currently is its recent chart rating, but that can be added whenever you have time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah, it seems I have to be auto-confirmed (4 days, 10 edits) to upload a photo.. Until then I shall find some more information and references for the page. --Johnnybravo44 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the joke on the tiny willy?

Jesus there's some joke there and I respond to a joke now I'm doing wrong? WTF?

(second time I've been given an unexplained warning for it too!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk • contribs)

While the previous reverter was incorrect to warn you for "vandalism", they were correct to revert the edit. Talk pages are not for idle chit-chat or general discussion about the topic (see WP:TALK for general talkpage guidelines); they should only be used for discussion directly relevant to improving wikipedia. If you have any questions about how to contribute constructively, let me know; but given your contribution and warning history so far, I felt it necessary to make it clear that continuing to not abide by wikipedia's rules is liable to result in a block. If you would like to contribute constructively, that would be very welcome. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

moors

In June you warned User_talk:SISPCM about his vandalism of the moors article now he and his alter ego User_talk:ITSENJOYABLE are back with their same race based disruptions, false claims of dispute and vandalizng. I don't know what to do about this issue any longer. Its been going on for months now Botsystem (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Panda censorship

I'm on to you, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.141.82 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• The above, from an IP, probably hit you up because he saw your name on my talk page. I'm going to assume this just a harmless joke at this point. (There was a discussion a few days back about what Pandas eat. Obviously, earth-shattering controversy.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He has now been mostly-harmlessly blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I recently answered a panda-related ANI thread and dealt with an IP which was blocked for disruptive editing to the page and others but seemed to otherwise want to contribute; this is more likely something related to that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hello!! Sorry for the trouble but i am trying to understand why this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyro_Group) has been labelled "written like an advertisement".

Could you please help me out how to make it not seem like one ?

Sorry for any trouble..

Thanks in advance.. diana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.120.33 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I marked the article as reading like an advertisement as it describes it, focusses on the its achievements, the positive aspects of its history, etc. in a way which seems biased and reads more like an advertisement for the company than neutral encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. You may wish to have a look at WP:NPOV, which describes our neutrality policy. Let me know if you need any additional help. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD notification

Hey Wunsch, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frog in a Suit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to sign...

this. Just so you know :} Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops; fixed. Thanks for letting me know. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I hate to ask you to do this, but could you reply and watch this discussion? Here's the article we're talking about. I totally forgot to respond, and I'm about to go on vacation for a week. (I'm dashing this out at T minus 15 minutes.) I don't think I'll have internet access. Thanks, Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; right now I'm on a semi-wikibreak (since I'm busy with more important things than runescape ;)), but I should be able to take a look within a couple of days. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

intentionally deceptive

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is not a PA in your opinion? {{trout}}--Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Nope. Slight failure to WP:AGF perhaps, but calling it a personal attack is a pretty wide stretch. Note that personal attacks are against people, not against comments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is. Please see here "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." According to the above saying that I was "intentionally deceptive" is a PA. BTW why in world did you remove my beautiful trout? Aren't you open for a slap?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) It's already hit me once, I think being repeatedly slapped whenever I visit my talk page is a bit excessive for a difference in opinion over WP:NPA; my cheek's already pretty sore. On a serious note, the thing's huge and can't be easily resized. And regardless, calling "intentionally deceptive" a PA is an enormous stretch and certainly isn't worth edit-warring over. The better response is simply link them to AGF, explain why they're wrong, and move on. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Well, I do not like, when I am accused in lying. Do you see anything wrong with that, and in my culture such an accusation with no evidences whatsoever is not just a personal attack, but a very bad personal attack. Please do not revert me anymore.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I reverted only once, and have no intention of reverting further; others will and have been doing so anyway. As I said, really not worth getting into an edit war over it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC) never post to my talk page again, and never template the regulars--Mbz1 (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I will post to your talk page if and when appropriate, and the template was a formality which you being a regular you certainly shouldn't need, but apparently did. Any more reverts and it's off to WP:AN3. I'm closing this thread, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"No Connection"

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
>Of course this is, however, precisely why making loud accusations of sockpuppetry rather than simply filing the SPI was ill-advised: there was no connection to Epeefleche at all. Um... yes there was. Simply because they don't share an IP address doesn't mean there is "no connection" between the two. You're honestly saying everything I pointed out is mere coincidence and the users - despite out-right lies -- only know of each other through their 99-edit wikipedia history? Bulldog123 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Checkuser found absolutely no connection between Epeefleche and the other account. The SPI was closed as Epeefleche being uninvolved. Egg, welcome to Bulldog123's face. Are you saying that you stand by the accusations of sockpuppetry despite the utterly failed SPI? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Facepalm :) Nolelover It's football season! 00:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Although, after looking it over, were you talking about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuki, where Epeefleche was not related, or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive, where he does have socks? If the later, I retract my FP. Nolelover It's football season! 00:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The former. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I'm saying you're looking at things in black and white. Which is what many users did with past individuals of this ilk - before the shit hit the fan - shrugging off completely odd circumstantial behavior between two (by your view: totally unrelated) editors instead of duly noting it. If you want me to believe Epeefleche has 0 long-standing sockpuppets actively functioning on Wikipedia and votestacking the AfDs he zealously battles for, be my guest. I welcome both self-directed facepalms once his little hidden ring gets revealed. I'll admit: they don't share the same IP. As if that really reveals much of anything in this day and age -- his previous socks didn't either. Bulldog123 00:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I discourage you from exposing his little hidden ring, I don't think that's a sight we'd like to see. It's well recognised that Epeefleche has operated sockpuppets. He may or may not be operating them now. But making baseless accusations is not the way to discover that. I'd imagine they would have been revealed at the SPI, however, given that another user was identified as being linked to the other account you reported. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (moved from different talk page) On the contrary, continuing to make unfounded accusations in the face of a miserably-failed SPI is assuming bad faith to the point of a personal attack. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I've known Epeefleche for three years on this encyclopedia and have dealt with his antics in countless AfD/CfD discussions. I am no longer required to assume good faith on part of a user who has done nothing but pushed POV and shown a clear agenda since his time on the encyclopedia. With comments like "miserably-failed SPI," you're only adding ammunition by which to discredit any further probes into his behavior (and likely sockpuppetry) -- which is not only going to slow down the process and have misinformed-supporters throw out accusations of "personal attacks" (like you're doing) -- but is also going to make you look really silly for seeing things so black and white once the shit hits the fan. (NOTE: I hate the turn of phrase "shit hits the fan" - but it's the only appropriate visual I could think of) Bulldog123 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hangon tags

quote from edit summary: Please, please... just once... I just want to see *one* person put the hang on the place it tells you to do so in bold text immediately after telling you what hangon even is. Maybe bold in the speedy template isn't enough. Maybe we should resurrect the Netscape blink element? Or maybe an animated GIF of a hottie (gender selectable by template option), pointing at the words "directly below", and smiling suggestively at the editor? Every problem has a solution. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best solution is just replace it with "dump the hangon tag anywhere you like on the page" ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's it! Genius! Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Natural environment

sorry bout the change on natural environments i didnt know it would actually change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.251.1 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Every change you make immediately changes the encyclopaedia. If you'd like to experiment please use the sandbox, where you can make any edits you like (with the exception of personal attacks or defamation, copyright violations, or anything else illegal). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me.

Thanks for informing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 08:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Call Me Elizabeth

Hi

I noticed that you deleted the 'Dawn Annandale' section from this page. I had not completed it and yet it was taking down. I am merely in the process of working on the page. Do you think that there should be a 'Dawn Annandale section' in light of the fact that I wanted to note how the author felt about the novel and other useful information?

Thank you

(Galaxycat (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

Having a section devoted to the author seems unnecessary; better to create an article about the author, if they're notable enough to warrant one. In particular though, I removed the content of the section as the phrasing had negative connotations (saying the author "admitted" that she only wrote the book for the money), and was unreferenced; contentious statements about living persons which are not well-sourced cannot remain on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I obtained the information from an on-line interview with Dawn Annandale. The article is located at http://www.bibliofemme.com/interviews/annandale.shtml if you are interested. You are right in terms of not having a section devoted to the author. In Ms Annandale's interview, she states that she plans to write another novel. If this occurs and she becomes a bit more well known, I shall work on creating an article about the author. (Galaxycat (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

When I have a bit more time (at the moment I'm swamped with real-life work) I'll try to clean the article up a bit. In the meantime though, the plot summary is rather excessively long; instead of simply summarising the content of the book, the article should try to focus more on its reception by critics and its popularity, its intended audience, etc. You may also want to try getting help at a relevant wikiproject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

BDSM as lifestyle choice

I rolled back your change to the BDSM article calling it a "Sexual activity". My apologies.

My reasoning for that is that references have described it as a "lifestyle" for some time. Often people in the swinger community call their choices "The lifestyle" and people in BDSM and the leather community have called their choice a "BDSM lifestyle" and "a leather lifestyle".

Surprisingly, many practitioners of BDSM rarely interact in a sexual basis in public or at play parties, but more often in private. So, for most people who live this lifestyle, calling it "sexual activity" would seem like a misnomer.

Not all people involved in BDSM identify or are interested in power exchange relationships, however a large portion of them do have power exchange relationships of one type or another, and most of those are full-time relationships, not just scene oriented behavior. That is to say they are involved in a "lifestyle". Most of them live their roles every day, all of the time.

Atom (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that after referring to it as a lifestyle choice rather than a sexual practice, the article spends a disproportionate amount of time specifically referring to the sexual practice; maybe it needs to be rebalanced somewhat. If it's widely considered a "lifestyle", however, then fair enough. Note that the edit should have been undone with an edit summary, however, and not rolled back; rollback is reserved for uncontroversial changes such as vandalism reversion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a reasonably-sized section dealing with more than the sexual practice, rather the surrounding culture; never mind. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are right that an edit would have been better than a rollback. Atom (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas :)

Nolelover ^{It's football season!} presents you with a very merry Christmas tree! May it light up your talk-page and be a beacon to Santa Claus and all of his elves.

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Holidays/Christmas2}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks Nole; sorry I didn't get chance to look into your previous request, I hope you got it sorted out. I've been extremely busy lately and (I shouldn't actually be on wikipedia right now; unfortunately trying to get down to work can be difficult when work keeps dragging me back to wikipedia to check some definitions ;)) I'm looking forward to relaxing over the holidays... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I got it; thanks though. And I understand - term papers can be extremely tough to write when you're trying to wikify 11,000 word articles at the same time. :) Ahh yes, relaxing. That would be nice. If only... Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 14:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Many apologies

You were too quick. I hit the rollback button in complete error and then was trying to revert it with a message stating such. Your quick revert stopped that so again apologies to both you and HJ Mitchell. MarnetteD | Talk 20:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem; I figured as much. Perhaps I should have waited and let you revert it and avoid embarrassment, I've done that a few times myself (to AIV of all places, at one point!) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. I even managed to do the same at AN/I once and it was changing it back to a huge blanking by an anon IP to boot! Cheers of the holiday season to you and yours. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks II

If this is your definition of wikibreak I'm eager to see what you'll do when the break is over :) I'm not often looking at AN and such here, but whenever I do you seem to be around. You seem to be doing a lot of good work in a rather tedious section of Wikipedia, my thanks. Also thanks for taking the time to copyedit Donald macRonald when checking it (though I do believe that comment on the talk page was harmless and funny enough to have been kept ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement; it's a semi-wikibreak since I've had an enormous amount of work to do, so my contributions are about 1/3 of normal, though with the xmas break I've contributed a bit more this weekend. I try to make my contributions as useful as positive even if not as numerous as normal though. Thanks again :) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trouted

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.

You have been trouted for: No reason. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Gavincollmusic

Leaving a note for clarification. The user has been blocked by me as the name alludes to a website promoting the music. If Gavin had made a username that did not allude to the website, he would not have been blocked. If the user had made a name that represented only his name (say the name were Gavin or Gavin Coll), he would again have been blocked pending confirmation that he really was Gavin. Your contributions are highly appreciated, so this block should not be seen by you as a wrong interpretation by either you or me. Regards, Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I wasn't aware that there was a connection between the username and a specific website (I believe a page he created had been deleted) so it appeared to just be his name and a mention that he's a musician, not particularly promotional in itself; naturally it's a different matter if it's also a website. Thanks again for taking the time to explain your reasoning. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Changing another editor's rationale

Thanks for your helpful responses on AN. I wonder sometime if admins and very experienced users realize how intimidating it is for some of us to post messages on AN or ANI. Wikipedia can be a thicket for the unwary, and I consider myself moderately experienced. Anyway, your responses were both informative and pleasant.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Giftiger wunsch. You have new messages at 64.120.47.10's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additions by sock IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You may wish to use your comments here on the talk page for this article, as they are trying to add the content there. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking a consensus among editors

Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dougweller has removed the edit saying (please stop - you've added it right after "and include the following:" which makes no sense, but the main thing is that you are arguing about the subject and that's inappropriate here, this is just a list of conspiracy theories, not a place to argue) and (who says they add support? this is not good content and probably block evasion) User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer undid the edit saying Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner. This isn't good content.) and Block evading socks aren't allowed to edit in any manner, even if it's good content. The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=404710257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Freedom5000, you're not allowed to edit here at all. This current IP needs to be blocked for a long time as the previous block didn't help. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

BR, perhaps an SPI should be filed since you're confident that this is block evasion? I note that User:Freedom5000 already has a long list of confirmed and suspected sockpuppets. It'd be more productive to confirm that they are a sock and have them blocked rather than simply making accusations. As for the content dispute, I'm not involved and I'm not sure I want to make myself involved in this messy affair. I'll have a look at the discussion when I have a spare moment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There are old SPIs, but currently this user has been attacking using roving IPs and on multiple articles that often aren't even related to the subject, so their IPs are being blocked based on DUCK. There are a number of identifying factors but we're not discussing them "out loud" as we don't wish to help this person improve their block evasion techniques. Starting a new SPI would just take too much time and they'd get too far ahead of us. A number of editors and admins are following this matter and it's wasting too much of our time. Since you're not interested in joining our efforts, I think you're wise to stay out of the matter. Otherwise keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked.64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just this IP of yours that isn't blocked yet. Many others of your sock usernames and IPs have already been blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.