User talk:Semmendinger/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Semmendinger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nomination of Yamaha P-115 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yamaha P-115 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha P-115 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America1000 17:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
November 2016
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to History of Indian law: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Please leave another warning notice on User talk:2605:E000:ABA4:EA00:8558:790B:3994:901B at your earliest convenience. Thanks! - lollerwaffle (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have made a healthy amount of User talk pages for this exact purpose, just as I've warned many people using the vandalism and disruption templates and reported another half dozen to the adminstrators. Usually in a case like you mentioned, since the user is an IP address, unless it happens again I just revert the edit. Otherwise I would spend all day making user talk pages to warn an IP user who usually only makes 1 edit and leaves. Semmendinger (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are you not using addons? I'm finding that creating talk pages seems to be relatively easy/mostly automated using things like Twinkle or Huggle. Thanks for clarifying as well, I'll be lightening up on the IP vandals now - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I use Twinkle, are you required to make talk pages for every single person you revert an edit on? Semmendinger (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- No idea, I only started using my old account yesterday really. - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- In general, I only do it when there is repetitive vandalism or disruption of an article. Most edits I rollback with a history don't have a page, so my feeling is that if others have reverted vandalism without making a talk page, it's not a necessity. Though, if I see someone with a history of vandalism and no warning I'll make their page and warn them. Semmendinger (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was under the impression you needed to leave one each time, just in case they come back later, then each next guy builds on top of of it from there. I'm going to ask at the teahouse now, thanks again! - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hey let me know once you find out! I just enjoy patrolling the recent changes page and fixing problems when I see them :) Semmendinger (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was under the impression you needed to leave one each time, just in case they come back later, then each next guy builds on top of of it from there. I'm going to ask at the teahouse now, thanks again! - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- In general, I only do it when there is repetitive vandalism or disruption of an article. Most edits I rollback with a history don't have a page, so my feeling is that if others have reverted vandalism without making a talk page, it's not a necessity. Though, if I see someone with a history of vandalism and no warning I'll make their page and warn them. Semmendinger (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- No idea, I only started using my old account yesterday really. - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- I use Twinkle, are you required to make talk pages for every single person you revert an edit on? Semmendinger (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are you not using addons? I'm finding that creating talk pages seems to be relatively easy/mostly automated using things like Twinkle or Huggle. Thanks for clarifying as well, I'll be lightening up on the IP vandals now - lollerwaffle (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Picture
The fallen astronaut picture is rubbish, instead of sanctimoniously reverting my post - how about you get a better picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.8 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's not my job to get new pictures, but editing articles as you did to complain about a picture is not appropriate. There is a talk page for requesting new pictures, please do not start a conversation in the middle of an article. Wikipedia only uses copyright free pictures, so you'll have to either fly to the moon to take a picture of it yourself or get permission to use an image of it from another source. Semmendinger (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Removing warnings
Hello. You reverted an editor for "removing warnings" from their talk page, but per WP:OWNTALK, removing warnings is actually fine. If anything it's useful for signifying that the user has seen them. --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ok! I removed them as I saw he was reported to the Admin vandalism page and wanted to make sure they knew we was adequately warned. I suppose on second thought they have other ways of seeing that though! Semmendinger (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Jurymast Knot & "
I'm unamused by your nastygram and revert of my contribution to knots information --to wit, you write: "Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Jury mast knot. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing." Well, accurate information was what I was delivering, not mere humor --it was NOT a "joke edit". (Sadly, much of what comes to us in knots books is more deserving of the assertion "joke".) Elsewhere, I was rather happy --bit amused, bit bothered-- to see my words echoed in some knotty entries by someone else's doing --finding my many posts on the IGKT forum, and some rockclimbing forums, I guess. Now, go revert your revert --to give that "accurate information" we both are keen for (and one of us is delivering). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.34.108 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I removed the information because not only was the grammar and English used poor (double hypenations throughout, when that is not seen anywhere in English punctuation in the way you were using it) and because you didn't cite your source. Quite honestly, I thought from the broken English and poor punctuation you were making an effort at a joke, which is why I left a message on your talk page as such. Now, I see you meant it as fact. Problem is, you made claims based off of no information. Like you, I want a Wikipedia rooted in accurate information. I'd like to assume your information was accurate, but cannot do so until you help out by providing sources. Once you fix the wording and provide sources I'll be happy to allow the edit to stand. Semmendinger (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)