User talk:TheCarch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nicholas Preston, 6th Viscount Gormanston

Dear Snagstaxi, thank you for your attention to the article Nicholas Preston, 6th Viscount Gormanston. However I do not understand the reasons for your intervention. What you edited is a footquote from Cokayne (1892) "Complete Peerage". In this quote Cokayne abbreviated "succeeded" as "suc." so I commented "[succeeded]". I learned to do so from User:Buidhe at the occasion of the A-Class review of the article Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. Please explain why you changed it or, please, revert your edit. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade Done Snagstaxi (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/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. Thank you. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thx Snagstaxi (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Snagstaxi!

Thank you for reverting the reverts to my edits. Someone really doesn't like Li & Fung and wants it back to when it read like a "hit job." He is reverting my edits that make it read more like an encyclopedia entry. Must now challenge every single one of his reverts - if what he's doing isn't vandalism, I don't know what is. S/he's gone to the extent of deleting things, reasoning that they're written by someone who sounds like a journalist. Ridiculous. Clearly a disgruntled former employee or something and has no interest in making the page read neutral.

 Nick-SFBayArea (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome Snagstaxi (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Continuing-

I meant that by looking at it from the side of the B31911gibbs account there aren't any logs to connect it to the Braydon account - I mean a checkuser could probably see it, but that log for account creation only exists on the side of the BraydonG44 account.

I mean fair enough, you were right that it was an alt, it was just not the easiest thing to tell. It just might have been helpful to say that "Braydon's" logs say it created this account, or something like that, or even link the logs. – 2804:F14:80DB:4701:414B:6FE6:EBC8:E6F2 (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Would have been helpful to say that in your initial report reason, is what I meant. Anyways that's all, sorry for making your report complicated. – 2804:F14:80DB:4701:414B:6FE6:EBC8:E6F2 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok,its ok TheCarch (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Study invitation

Hi @TheCarch, thanks for reverting vandalism! I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for anti-vandalism patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandalism tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok TheCarch (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll pass TheCarch (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi TheCarch, I have unfortunately had to suppress some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Manual archival

You should leave 3 or 4 threads on talk pages, and not archive everything. This will show how active the talk page is to new people leaving comments -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. TheCarch (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, when archiving a talk page, please make sure that the {{archive box}} or suitable replace is available, and links to the archive page; as, if it isn't, all the old discussions look as though they disappeared or were deleted -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

TheCarch: I respect you are doing this in good faith, but I will be blunt: being a talk page archiver is not a job for a new-ish editor. It's not really a job for passerby to an article, either, if you're not really a contributor to the content. It is perfectly okay for there to be old comments on talk pages; I have replied to talk page threads from two+ years ago and gotten responses, and others have replied to my threads after long gaps as well. Even when new replies don't happen, they often chronicle useful information for people curious about the history of an article: things like if the article had a requested move in the past. It's especially okay for recent-ish threads to be on the talk page: archiving a talk page comment from a mere two weeks ago (as you did in Special:Diff/1165252960) is not okay except for the highest-velocity talk pages. The main reason for archiving systems are for very, very high volume talk pages: stuff like Talk:Joe Biden. And if you find a talk page that you truly believe to be "too long" - I would recommend setting up one of our archive bots instead. See the section at the top of Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time for an example of setting this up - but again, this isn't an invitation to go on a massive spree of adding this everywhere.

If there's an article you're naturally working on anyway, and you want to adjust the archive settings, go for it, just these one-click archiver edits are not really good or useful edits as something if you're just "passing through" an article. SnowFire (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire: A lot of the talk discussions are just messy and I just want to clean the article talk. I apologize for any inconvenience. TheCarch (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but if you're not participating in these articles, it's not your problem? Talk pages being "dirty" is not a problem, basically. Just... let the talk page be. What you consider "dirty" I consider "a useful record." (As noted above, if you genuinely are working on an article or replying to its talk page, then sure, you can consider setting up automatic archiving, but your only edits to an article + its talk page shouldn't be these kind of edits.)

Anyway, I hope the above doesn't come across as hostile - Wikipedia is powered by volunteers, so enthusiasm is great! I was just a little blunter this time because you'd already been warned above, and you were one-click archiving sections from a mere two weeks ago that were the only entries on a talk page. That kind of change is not helpful, so I wanted to be clear on that. But making other changes is great - there's tons of activities to do on Wikipedia that is quite helpful, so I hope you enjoy finding & performing those. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@SnowFire ok TheCarch (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI

Just a heads up, you reverted User:If I don't agree with it, then I remove it's removal of BLP vandalism. Given that user's prior history, I understand why you thought you were reverting vandalism, but that was that user's first genuine anti-vandalism contribution. The edits from the IP address and your revert are now struck from the page history. Pilaz (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry TheCarch (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

noted