User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins/Archive8

Re: Quick question

Hi, Knight of the Wind. Unfortunately, I had to decline your request. However, I'd be happy to grant you rollback once you have a bit more experience. I appreciate the work you've done so far; keep it up! Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Inferno, Lord of Penguins, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks. Knight of the Wind (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a fan

User talk:Knight of the Wind is a peedophile. It happens to all of us productive editors, whether someone tries to impersonate us, attack us, or the like, so don't be offended. This usually means you have a productive impact. Cheers! —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 21:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Looks like my friend can't spell. Knight of the Wind (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, in the UK where I am, it is paedophile! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Knight of the Wind (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still suck at spelling, either way. Knight of the Wind (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi again, Knight of the Wind! Quick question: have you edited previously on Wikipedia using a different username or IP? It's just that I don't usually see someone start using things like Twinkle so quickly and so adeptly. Just curious... Great work, in any case, of course! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but not for a long while. I decided that I had been away for so long that it would probably best for me to start again so...here I am (That and I forgot my old username, LOL). Knight of the Wind (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletal Muscle - Fiber Type and Ethnicity

The ideas presented do not seem bogus. I think there are several sources of verifiable research that show correlation of muscle fiber type and ethnicity. See here. Instead of reverting the whole paragraph it would be in the interest of Wikipedia to dig into it and rephrase the whole concept with better copywrite.--Gciriani (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary. Knight of the Wind (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph, when posted, did not have any sources. Since it would seem you have sources, feel free to put it back up. Knight of the Wind 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knight of the Wind: I did see your edit summary, but I would expect more from you. I didn't know anything on the subject, until I read that entry. Then I googled the subject and the references, of which I gave you the link, came up immediately. So deleting the whole thing is as bad as writing on a subject without referencing it: since it came up in a very cursory 30-second search, I'm sure the research is legitimate and you can find much more. I encourage you to do some homework, or at least edit the previous entry grammatically and syntactically in a neutral way, and perhaps entering a bunch of citation needed warnings where needed :-) --Gciriani (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:208.65.188.23

Please do not revert a user/IP when they remove a warning or a message on their talk page. The guidelines and current practice is that they are allowed to do so. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My only concern is that they would continue, and the person reverting would not know what level warning to issue. Knight of the Wind 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so at first too (and advocated for that), but I now understand the reason for this rule and I always check a person's contributions before warning them. If they edited their talk I check whether they removed a warning or not. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great, too, if there was a fully ratified and consistently implemented policy covering exactly what one should include in the edit summaries given when warnings are issued. There are suggestions, of course, noted in WP:WARN but no consistent policy. If a user is not using an automated tool, they can type whatever they want in the edit summary really. If there were a clear policy, a user, bot, or automated tool could simply scan the edit summaries and see what warnings had been given, regardless if the user had deleted them or not. Huggle already tries to do this (and I think Twinlke does and the old VP did too) but it looks for its own edit summaries, and would not recognize something such as "rvv - warning with v3" or the like. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's a difficult problem. I would be extreme and suggest a whole new function to the mediawiki software (So trusted users could "add warnings" to a user that would be attached to their account/IP to go along with a text warning on their talk page, and which could only be removed by another trusted user, or expire after a set time), but that's not going to happen. I'll just make sure to review the history of their talk page. Knight of the Wind 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly make a change to the rollback/undo functions, so that (provided you are autoconfirmed in order to prevent abuse), instead of just seeing (undo) or (undo|rollback) or [[[WP:ROLL|rollback]]] (If you have that recent changes function installed in preferences), you would see (undo|warn), (undo|rollback|warn) or [[[WP:ROLL|rollback]]|warn] depending on the situation. Clicking the "warn" button would be the same as the undo button, (or rollback if you have those rights and the edit is a top edit), except that once the edit(s) are reverted, it leaves a chronological warning on the user's talk page with a special summary that would be recognized by said button, Twinkle and Huggle. In order to prevent mishaps, the software would null the edit summary if you reverted your own edit. It would also be possible as a javascript, but then it wouldn't be available to everybody (which defeats the purpose), plus it would take a long while for me to write. Knight of the Wind 22:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, interesting ideas and all of which could be added as an extension, I would guess. However, I think more efforts are being put into the flagged revisions idea than anything else at the moment. BTW - have you used Huggle, yet? I've used most of the vandal fighting tools the WP community has come up with, and I think Huggle is the most efficient, personally. Just curious to know if you have and what you think of it. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, flagged revs are going to take up a lot of time, especially because the community is split on it. I have used Huggle, and it is by far the most efficient (0.9.0 lite) way to revert vandalism out there (you can pretty much check every edit made if you're fast enough). I brought those up because there are a large amount of people fighting vandalism the old school way. Knight of the Wind 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, 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 can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Kanonkas : Talk 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AN/I

Thank you very much for the link. I replied at the noticeboard. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]