User talk:Jsharpminor/Archive 7

February 2014

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give PublishAmerica a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page, America Star Books. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what ya did there.

Sorry, for reverting that !vote. I thought you were attempting to close again. You sent so many templates I lost what your were doing there.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of rollback

Wikipedia:Rollback makes it very clear when rollback may and may not be used. Your reverts here and here, using rollback, are not permitted by the rollback guideline. Is there a reason you should continue to keep the rollback user right given you were both involved in an edit war on the page and used rollback? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not permitted to delete other editors' comments on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive editing. The extent to which I was involved in an edit war, if you wish to call it that, was to post a comment stating that an admin had declared a discussion closed, to close said discussion, then to restore comments inappropriately deleted from article talk pages. Both of the edits you mention are exactly that: restoring deleted comments in article talk. (Note that I have said absolutely nothing about the issue other than that Mark Miller's reopening of the discussion is in the wrong venue at best, and tendentious at worst. Nor was I involved with the discussion prior to reminding him of the admin's verdict.) Restoring a deleted comment on a talk page seems perfectly consistent with the spirit of rollback to me. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between revisions HBO (Asia)

Hi Jsharpminor thanks for creating the article. Feel free to override the changes but I basically replaced information that's factually incorrect (eg. ownership and programming) with information that's more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.253.2 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Cheers! Jsharpminor (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

It's my edits which are in line with the consensus at the talk page, so why am I being disruptive? I honestly have no idea why you are warning me. Bandy boy (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because edit warring is disruptive, even if you are correct and your edits are in line with consensus. Warring means reverting back and forth with other editors. Once is understandable, twice should be avoided, but three or more is what is called a 'bright line'. A quick skim of the history of the page seemed to indicate that you have reverted users' edits more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. If this is not so, then I apologize. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Seems that you have reverted this page at 15:50, 18:55, and 19:25, which is three. I'm not an administrator, but seeing as you have multiple warnings about it, I would stop before going further. As far as consensus is concerned, when you're reverting two different editors, that looks at first glance like there is clearly a lack of consensus for the changes you're making. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may look like that, but the consensus is established on the talk page and I am just reinstating the consensus version, as far as I see it. if the other users want a change, I think they should discuss it. However, I have done no more editing there now. Bandy boy (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the help with the Bit Boy!! Arcade/Bit Boy!! vandalism. I suspect it was a 4chan attack or something like that. I have semi-protected both articles and that should put a stop to it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that!! Jsharpminor (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I just handed out a block to the autoconfirmed account that was participating in the attack, so that should be the end of it now. Oh, I forgot to mention that the Cloudwalker27 account was helping revert vandalism in this case. It was a little unusual to see a new account trying to revert things, but they were indeed helping. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. I even looked at his talk page to make sure that I hadn't accidentally warned him... turns out that ClueBot is probably the only reason I didn't issue a 4im warning to Cloudwalker that I would have regretted.

When the tempest started raging and the page got about 5 reverts a minute, I kinda got a little careless in who I classified as a vandal and who I classified as a helper. Especially since he ended up using the same wording as some of the vandals in his edit summaries. Fortunately I only mentioned him on AIV incorrectly, as opposed to actually 4im-ing incorrectly. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything it all good. I left Cloudwalker27 a note regarding their help with the article. I saw your AIV report and I cleared it without action. Like I said, it was very unusual to see a new account jump in to help fend off a 4chan attack that is going fast and furious, so misclassifying them would be very easy to do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jsharpminor. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies if this is the wrong place to post. The edit to Paul Nuttall's page was entirely relevant, as I myself attended Hugh Baird College, and it is not in Bucharest, Romania as stated, but rather Bootle, Liverpool as I attempted to change it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.60.152 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	k i did a mistake in the indigo dye editing Shrutikrishnamoorhty (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

indigo dye

i agree i will delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrutikrishnamoorhty (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenfoot is a supergroup

The very first sentence of the Chickenfoot article is: "Chickenfoot is a supergroup of U.S. origin." So, it makes perfect sense to refer to it as such in the Michael Anthony article. Please put my edit back, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.143.178 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autopatrolled

Hi Jsharpminor, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paula (album)

In regards to your notification about Robin Thickle's new album Paula: If a certain album does not reach a higher score than at least half the total percentage you could consider that said album is certainly under a rather negative impression, so I dont understand why you think that it is not necessary to remark it. I now is just a little aspect of the overall understanding of what that album is and what impact has had, but is nonetheless an actual one. Thank you (Itisnotcohen (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This... is this word salad or am I supposed to get some meaning from it? Jsharpminor (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itisnotcohen has made one edit: to my userpage. I'll feel free to ignore it unless any further discussion is wished; in which case please make it here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Here, Jsharp, I'll clarify a bit. The edit 188.85.22.105/Itisnotcohen is referring to is this one. S/he is referring to the fact that s/he changed "mixed reviews" to "mixed to negative reviews". While it may not have been a perfect edit (it's contradicted in the next sentence of the article), it was obviously a good-faith edit. Rollbacking it as vandalism was probably not the best choice; Huggle has a good-faith revert button (in the Page menu, or keyboard shortcut Y, if that's what you prefer). Next time, please think before you bite and call a newbie's message "word salad". S/he simply followed the advice in the template you gave him/her, and let you know that you might have made a mistake. I did rename this section, I have no idea what it was trying to say—LucasThoms 01:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay.

I've been seeing quite a few edits by IP editors making factually inaccurate changes of "mixed reviews" to "mixed to negative" (or, in some rare cases, "mixed to positive".) When it's within spitting distance of the 50% mark (which is the definition of mixed), and especially when it's directly contradicted, I tend to assume that it's not good faith. Since the default level-1 template is "I didn't think this edit was constructive, so I reverted it," I don't think that's a BITE that is disproportionate to the unhelpfulness of the edit in question. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that view of the original edit. By BITE, I meant your reply to his/her message on your talk page, which you eloquently described as "word salad" and opted to ignore.—LucasThoms 03:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*giggles* ... Ahem...

Yeah, that probably wasnt the most tactful way to go about it.

By the by, I do realize that everything I type on Wikipedia is public for the whole planet to see, and you have every bit as much right as the next guy to view my userpage, and actually your explanatory note was exceptionally helpful, thank you for it! - but how did you ever find it to respond to in the first place? Did you randomly start monitoring my userpage at some point, or is there some other tool that I don't know about yet? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I...uhh...I actually have absolutely no idea how I ended up here. If I had to guess: I spend a lot of time on Special:ListUsers, looking at each new user's first contribution (if it's good, they're a good person; if not, they're probably gonna be a WP:VOA). It's kinda unusual for someone's first edit to be on a user talk page, so I probably looked into it, and found you. —LucasThoms 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribs, it's also possible that I saw you in the history of Tinashe, which we both Huggle'd tonight (that just sounds wrong). Either way, here I was and there I go. Or any other wise-sounding pseudo quote. It's really up to you. —LucasThoms 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:StellaCunningham

Hello Jsharpminor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:StellaCunningham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User's first and so far only edit - creating a userpage. It's not in article-space. Please read WP:BITE. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you may have a point... If I can humorously direct you to WP:DELICIOUS? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, I did leave a message on Stella's page linking to WP:NOTWEBHOST, as the page in question looks like it's an autobiography that wishes it were in articlespace, yet is in userspace. This doesn't strike me as noobish behavior. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Attention (Redacted), you have undid some of my edits on the History of Iran. Wikipedia is not a place for biased articles, slanted information, or blatant Antisemitism. I formally request you restore my previous edits before I report you to Interpol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.192.127 (talk)

Comment:: refactored, personal attacks removed —LucasThoms 15:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally use Huggle and have been known to get a little happy with the "Revert & Warn" button. I was expecting to find that I'd both reverted a good editor and had an oversight issue on the same day. Imagine my relief when I find that the "truth" in question is this, this, and this. Jsharpminor (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Jsharpminor. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

holy brevity

Thank you, user not without irony ("As you can see, I'm very wordy."), for being short in words but generous in welcoming new users and informing others politely that you reverted something that seemed not constructive, for maintenance work such as Kentucky Mountain Bible College, for good questions and quoting "May you always forget the roots of past ills", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jsharpminor. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 08:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differio

It was created in one edit by User:Differio, now indeffed. Thanks for that, I usually start with the possible autobiography/COI page, but for some reason this one didn't show in the list, good catch, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, some indian troll try to create good laugh at my page

Hello Jsharpminor, someone try to vandalize my page by posting some hate comments. You should take a look at it. His name is Pvpoodle an indian living in NZ. He and 103.13.103.75 are the same person. They are sockpuppetry. Please take a note. He post extreme hate towards Chinese people and he thought that I am Chinese as well. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.204.38.215 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, whoever you are. A few things you might want to know:

Don't edit war.
New sections go at the bottom.
Don't attempt to out people, even when you're wrong.
Don't edit war.
There are open cases against you at AIV, SPI, and AN3.
Don't edit war.
Don't insult people.
Don't edit war.

And finally,

Don't edit war.

Thanks, I think that just about sums it up. Have a nice day. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy van Pelt

I undid your reversion because most of those details I removed are just excessive and unnecessary info. I did not put back"She is actually the sumbest character" though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzales John (talk • contribs) 03:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb

I have asked your question about previous discussion in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please check [1]. Thank you. Miracle dream (talk)