User talk:The Fat Rat of Chepstow/Archive 2

My userpage

Hi, thanks for the revert of my talk page, the section is question is a section i invite others to update when they revert vandalism on my user or talk page so the edit was welcome. I hadn't had chance to check what they reverted but as they dont appear to have removed any vandalism it was still a good revert. If your interested in countering vandalism on Wikipedia I would suggest a trip over to the Counter vandalism academy for tips advice and guidance form some experienced counter vandals. Amortias (T)(C) 18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. --!BSGT! (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed

Please don't continue a discussion that has been closed. Regarding your content concerns, please use the article talk page to explain your past or proposed edits. Edit summaries aren't for discussion; they are just a means to summarize what you have done. If something needs explaining, use the article talk page (or editor talk page) to explain yourself fully and allow room for replies. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is something you don't know. I never meant to continue the closed discussion, I typed my retort very quickly and discovered the edit conflict loop, so I cut and pasted before realising. I have never known something closed so quickly on such scanty reasoning when you know very well had I performed those same edits five minutes after achieving rollback, I would be without it - possibly blocked from editing too. --!BSGT! (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered the software not warning me that the page has changed since I clicked edit, I have even had my edits clobber someone else's. The software does have bugs in it that allow this sort of innocent mistake to happen so I think it is reasonable to take Boy's explaination at face value.

Regarding the underlying issue please consider going to Talk:Love Will Tear Us Apart and making the content arguments you made at the admin noticeboard. Explain your reasoning, provide sources if able and then if nobody responds make the edit again and in the edit summary link to the talk page. If people do respond then try to come to a consensus and respect that consensus regardless of its outcome.

This is our standard procedure for content disputes, our noticeboards would be overloaded if people did not work these things out for themselves. Chillum 19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you can read WP:ROLLBACK and make a statement that demonstrates your understanding and acceptance of its acceptable use I will gladly give you the rollback right. Also if you did misuse the rollback we would probably not block you for that(unless it was edit warring), we would just take it away. Chillum 19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well with the subject closed I cannot add anything to it now. I don't fear Boomerang (as mentioned on David Gerard's talk page) because I believe I had edited in good faith since my arrival, but yes I made mistakes. Those have all been rectified with me frequently having desisted, even if reverting once or twice. I first read Rollback before my first application, I have just been reading it again so to summarise: one click does all, one can always roll himself back with no fear of breach, the action is irreversible therefore if it was correct to revert but not to use rollback (e.g in this case if I used it), then a dummy/minor edit should follow ASAP explaining revert and apologising for accidental click. The kind of edit where it is due is here. If there is a mish-mash of constructive and nonconstructive edits by one successive account, then it must not be used here as any vandalism must be adjusted manually. Although I could revert edits in my own user space, I still would not do this if I assumed good faith. If wrong, I would just undo+explain. Obviously there is a lot to say about it so I won't recite the entire page but I hope you are convinced that I am able to use it properly. --!BSGT! (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, I have given you the rollback tool. You described the expected usage well, the key is that it should only be used when communication is not needed and to follow up with communication if it is used when communication is needed. This tool is given easily and it is removed easily. Have a nice day. Chillum 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much obliged, I don't feel such a "rejected" user now! :) The key is, "if in doubt, don't!". Nobody is charged with not using it if they had the right to! :) Enjoy the rest of your day. --!BSGT! (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another good rule of thumb which if followed will keep you out of 99 percent of trouble on Wikipedia: don't repeat a disputed action. If you do something and somebody objects, stop and discuss it until the path forward is clear. good luck and happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean, I'll take that into consideration with future contributions. --!BSGT! (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan O'Carroll

The lede is everything before the contents, not just the first para. You don't simply copy and paste a large chunk of the article into the lede. People don't need to read the same big chunk of text twice. Harry Let us have speaks 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see what is being "pasted". All I see is a set of conflicting summaries, one claiming the info is unsourced[1], then one saying "too much information for lede"[2], then one saying that the [previously unsourced] is "pasted" [3]. I am finished with that article as I am not qualified to comment. --!BSGT! (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First the info that Shookenlover pasted from the main article is unsourced in the lede. If it is going to be in the lede, the refs should be there, in the lede.

And yes, all Shookenlover did was paste verbatim a big chunk from the article (the career section) into the lede. As I said, people don't need to read the same big chunk of text twice in a relatively short article.

Shookelover's actions were unhelpful (as have been all of his edits so far) and that is why they are being reverted. Harry Let us have speaks 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not apply to vandalism

Shookenlover has been told why his edits are inappropriate. He persists and so it amounts to vandalism. 3RR does not apply to fixing vandalism.

I'd also be interested in your comments about what, if any, relationship you have to Shookenlover. Thank you. Harry Let us have speaks 20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same as it is to you. You two have been at each other's throats for some time now. Either you both stop edit-warring or I will report the pair of you, then see if there is a relationship between me and anyone. In the meantime, there is no vandalism, all I see is content dispute and no I have not read any sources. That is for you to discuss with each other. --!BSGT! (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was warned about his edits last night. We agreed on a compromise. He has now gone back on that agreement by replacing the inappropriate text (his was the last edit last night). How are you supposed to discuss something with someone who then disregards something that had been agreed by discussion? This user also seems to know a lot about how Wikipedia works for someone so recently joined. Do you not suspect sockpuppetry on that basis? Harry Let us have speaks

20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very possibly he is not as "new" as he makes out. I'll check the Coffee 1 history to see if anyone else has tried in the past to make similar edits to his. --!BSGT! (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boy Seek Girl Tonight,

Thanks for the warm welcome! Do you know if anyone has looked at my article yet?

Thanks, TWB 1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy

You declined the speedy deletion nomination of Solidarity Ireland saying "it's a political party, not a corporation". If you had read the template that was affixed, you'd have noted it read "an article about a company, corporation or organization" (emphasis added). Yes, political parties are eligible for db-a7 deletion if it is a party that was just formed this month and for which "spokespersons or officials for the party are [yet] unknown". The party has not yet even collected the necessary signatures to appear on any ballot. This is a classic case of a non-notable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solidarity Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elections in Ireland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello, your username may give the impression that you're using Wikipedia as a dating website, which obviously would be inappropriate. Just imagine how a new female editor might feel if they're welcomed to Wikipedia by "Boy Seeks Girl Tonight" - that sound as if you had a little more than collaborative editing in mind. To avoid any such issues it may be a good precaution to choose a less suggestive username via WP:Changing username/Simple. Huon (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, it is the next thing I will get onto after I have completed an edit. So in the next few hours hopefully. --!BSGT! (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Here. !BSGT! (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. Huon (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used blogs to give to support the content, but the book itself should count as reliable if I link it across. --!BSGT! (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect use of Rollback

Psst... you used rollback to revert something in a content dispute. [4] For some bizarre reason you're not allowed to do that.Bosstopher (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the alert. I've annulled my own action by way of recompence. In all honesty, I am not party to either of the revisions and I have no knowledge in that area of Middle Eastern affairs (I'm not that much into politics anyhow) but I followed the edits, realised Garden Mixer's edit was in good faith when he had it first reverted by yourself, then after modifying it, another editor "undid" him with no explanation. So there I was thinking this is a nonconstructive editor. On that note, I have to say that as things stand, an explanation is required somewhere by the editor who reverted without using summary. Obviously misuse of rollback will result in its removal, this cannot be done on someone who doesn't have rollback but the offence of undoing without summary is just as bad. I hope you know where I'm coming from now. --FAT RAT (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]