This is an archive of past discussions with User:Excirial. 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.
I've been working on this first attempt Wikipedia article. If you have time to take another look I would most appreciate it. I would like to bring it into standards (as I have time) as I believe there is a global community of interest which deals with the same information. Open to your advice and don't take it personally. Mark S. Patrick (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure is, i have no objections to people copying part or all of my user page. In fact i take doing that as a compliment, as it means people like the page i made :). The only things i would like to request (Though i don't insist on that) is that the little bar at the bottom of my main page is kept intact in some form that signals its an omega purple adaption. Again not insisting, just requesting. Oh, and in case you need a little help with customization of the template, drop a line; im happy to give a few pointers if you want to add your own colors, links or something like that :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)09:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
*Nods* He asked permission some time ago. There are actually several users i know of using my template; The majority asked if it was ok which i really appreciate. There are also several users that use the template without ever asking, but as long as they don't claim they made it, its a "Dully noted" for me. If someone would claim they made it themselves, well, i would be a lot less lenient about that i think :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have 1 question. If you look at the bottom of my userpage, you should see something saying that "my userpage was originaly designed by Excirial". I would like to turn that into an entire bar. Not just a bar under my userboxes. Can you fix that?RyRy5Got something to say?22:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface21720:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Mineralientage
Hi,
I changed some words and expressions you commented before and also I added more categories. Please, let me know if you see something wrong. If you agree that all is ok you could delete advertisments?
Thank you
Joan Joan Rosell (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: New User Watch Challenge
Hey Excirial, I believe I have met your quota. You may check the link for my special contributions. There should be about 43 reports to WP:UAA since sign up, but I believe 40 were blocked. [1]. Nice idea for a challenge, lucky me that I do this all the time, hehe. Cheers mate and happy editing. Wisdom89(T / C)03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My Wonder World page
I have absolutely no idea why it was deleted, but I recreated and tried to fix it. Even though it doesn't exist in the real world, it's worth mentioning. See Ya', tfullwood 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
References Challenge
After much deliberation on the Award Center Talk Page, I have decided to scrap the References Tagging Challenge. I will award barnstars according to completion of the challenge for those who signed up earlier but who haven't completed the challenge. How far have you gotten with this challenge so far? --SharkfaceT/C21:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Stigmater
From the external links Stigmater is indeed another band entirely, and does have some claim of notability unlike the Nemesis articles I've had to chase down, delete and protect. However this is entirely irrelevant as I have deleted the article as a copyrvio of this external link. –– Lid(Talk)12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I may have inadvertently contributed to the issuance of two uw-create notices with respect to the same deleted page. Would you object if I removed your create3 warning? I don't think it's going to make much difference in the long run, but I feel a little guilty about having "over-warned" this new user. Accounting4Taste:talk20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead. Most times i don't issue an uw-create warning until the second on third creation (Depends on the article) anyway. In this case i issued one because there was already a recent warning, in which case i just warn no matter what. So if you feel it has to be removed, i have no objections to that :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your opposition to the publishing of the E-Players Card. I find it overwhelmingly authoritarian that some articles on the subject of online gambling exist with total impunity, for example GoldenPalace.com,
and some articles are immediately removed from Wikipedia. You removed my article so fast that i didn't even have time to correct any mistakes or non-neutral language. It amazes me what power you have on this site, a site that clearly in due course will become the subject of power hungry censors with the aim of dictating importance (as they see it at least) to the rest of the world. You say that my article is not content worthy of an encyclopedia yet forget that the traditional sense of encyclopedia is challenged by Wikipedia in the first place. I won't bother anymore with E-Players card nonetheless because watching you control and destroy the very ideals on which the internet is based is entertainment enough. If you've forgotten what those ideals are try thinking along the lines of free and uncensored information for all.
I think that an explanation here would be appropriate, seeing you took the time to write this entire text without turning it into a flame.
First of, you have to understand that wikipedia on its own, has a set of basic guidelines which articles, and the subjects of those articles have to meet in order to be allowed to stick around. You would be amazed how many people put themselves, their newly formed bands, and their own business on Wikipedia.
A few of the base guidelines are: WP:Notability, WP:NOT and WP:SOURCE. There three are what i would refer to as the core guidelines which govern the removal of articles. The first one is the most important; In short it says that to be on Wikipedia, an article needs to meet certain guidelines that make it notable, as in why the subject should be in an encyclopedia in the first place. One subsection of this rule is what i call "Assumed Notability", and that is exactly what allows goldenpalace.com to stay online. Assumed notability is when the subject of the article is featured in at least 3 independant, reliable and significantly large publications that have no connection to the subject to the article. Goldenpalace seems to be the subject of three publications (BBC, TheRegister and Pressportal) and is as such deemed notable.
The second rule, WP:NOT, is merely a list of what wikipedia isnt meant to be. One of the rulings subsections notes that Wikipedia isnt a manual. This was actually one of the more major problems of your article: It was written as if it was to explain the reader how it should handle or use the software in question, which almost always equals a promotional article, which it was tagged and removed for (Note: Removal is a two tier process, with me merely tagging it for admin attention. I have no article removal rights).
I know that at times it can be hard to believe, but wikipedia is what would be called: Uncensored, but not indiscriminate information. There is no censoring for the Tibet crisis, the debate on Intelligent Design and Evolution, or on articles that might be offending to religious people. Yet at the same time, not everything is allowed, not because its considered that noone should read the information, but because it simply shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
I hope this clear everything up a bit, and with kind regards,
Don't worry about the time dude. It's not about shiny awards, it's about helping the Wiki : ) I hope your feeling better man. Thanks for the star! Wisdom89(T / C)20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Repeated deleting of article "Satan's Juice"
I'm not quite sure whether or not this is the right place to post this complaint, but here goes: I recently created a wikipedia account so that I could make a wikipedia page for my band Satan's Juice, however, it has repeatedly been deleted by the "wikipedia authorities" (one of whom, I assume, you are). I do not understand this. Everything written in that article, though perhaps exaggerated in some places, can be confirmed by the band's members. On top of this, as you may have noted from the sheer length of the article that has now been deleted, much time and energy has been invested in its creation. Therefore, I would ask you consider leaving the article on your site, or, if you are not able to help me, redirect me to the right person, or, if you maintain that the "Satan's Juice" article should not be considered wikipedia-worthy material, please respond on my "talk-page" (I'm not sure where that is) and state your reasons to this effect.
Hi Hari iyer44,
First of, my compliments for the very civil reaction here. You don't want to know how many people run in here with a lot less civil text. As for your question: First, im not a wikipedia authority; Wikipedia is community run and im just a normal user like you, who happens to do maintenance work; The real article removal is handled by the admins, which are community appointed users from all around the world.
As for the removal, from empirical experience i am afraid the article has very little chance to stick around. To be on wikipedia an article needs to comply to certain guidelines, which are Notability and Verifiability. The first one, notability, can be summed up as: To be on Wikipedia, an articles subject must have a claim why its important enough to be in an encyclopedia. For example: an article about Google is notable because its the worlds biggest search engine; An article about me is not notable, simply because i have no special importance.
The second ruling, Verifiability, puts that any notability claims must be sourced by independent reliable third party sources such as newspapers, books and TV programs. A special subpart of that rule is that any subject that received attention in three of those sources is automatically notable.
What does this mean for your article? Have a look at WP:MUSIC, which contains requirements for articles about musical performers. If you can meet those requirements, make sure they are covered in the article. If you do so, the article won't be removed. Please know that sourcing from band members or pages as myspace aren't proper sourcing.
If you have any further questions, dont hesitate to contant me, and with kind regards,
Satan's Juice rules. They are the greatest band in the world. I worship them all night while doing non-catholic things (sacrificing goats in presence of your mother)!
Why are my pages getting deleted?
some jerk keeps deleting the pages i make due to "patent nonsense" and what I'm wondering is, who cares if someone puts up a weird post. if it's not in the way of anything you did or infringing apoun anyones intellectual post, then why be a jerk and delete it? i would like a reply to these questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennychild (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If im driving a car over the speed limit in an empty driveway, why do i get a ticket for speeding? Its not like im endangering anyone or causing any harm. If i would tell that to the police officer, i would get the response: "The rules are the rules". And in this case, i am responding the same, "It are the rules". If each and every article that was created would be left around no matter what, we would have 2.5 million good articles, and about 8 million articles that are junk. If deleting pure nonsense articles makes me a jerk, then so be it. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)10:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Errr ... actually, that was a new article on which I was filing an AfD, and even there it was only the extreme unnotability of it that had me doing so that fast. Speeding an article moments after creation gives the creator zero time to respond, let alone improve it or provide proper sources, and for anything other than blatant vandalism or an attack page is obnoxious. May I inquire as to the extreme haste involved? RGTraynor 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the article was speedy deleted before you even placed the AFD tag, which created a new article instead. It was that new article that i tagged for removal because the AFD template was the only content in the article. I cannot say why the article was deleted so quickly before (Most likely because it met WP:CSD guidelines) as i have never seen the first article that was speedied. Maybe the deleting admin (User:NawlinWiki) can explain, because he deleted both versions of the article.
I thing I set my auto-archiving thing up correctly but I have a question. Will the archiving bot automatically create an archive box or do I have to do that myself?(Which I don't know how to do.)Xp54321 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First of i would like to tell you that Misza only archives everyone's talk page once a day, so you don't see any direct effects of adding the code just now. I edited the code on your talk page a little bit to limit each talk archive on your account to 250kb in size (Roughly 250 discussions) to allow somewhat easier searching of past discussions (Believe me, you will need that in time :) ). When an archive is full, Misza will generate a new one for you.
As for the archive box code, i already added it to your user page. At this time the content link is still a redlink, but that's because nothing is archived yet. The only thing that has to be done manually is adding a new link to the archive box once Misza stats archiving to a new box. This can ve seen if the counter in the code is upped a number. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
And your welcome :) I edited the code before starting on the above message, but it seems i wasn't fast enough to prevent you from seeing it already. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you do that whole status bot thingie? I'm sure it'd be very useful to someone posting a comment on my talkpage.Xp54321 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course i do mind them, otherwise i would be ignoring them, wouldn't i :)? Im all seriousness (As a non native speaker of English) that line has always intrigued me. If you would not mind something, then you would not care to take any action over it (Be it answering, or being annoyed for the other side of the coin). My fascination for that line aside, of course i have no issue whatsoever with questions and answering them. Feel free to ask, and feel free to ask more in case you want to! Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ms. French!<sarcasm>:)My language arts teacher. Well ever heard the phrase opposites attract? I'm serious but not completely. And I too find the English language intriguing. It's a hard language to learn due to many rules, rule-breakers, and where-that-come-from words, and paradoxical words/phrases. Such as "look out!" when you in fact need to do the opposite and take cover. Anyways in the future I'll be a bit more <cough> careful about my choice of words. Something like I hope my questions don't annoy you.:)I should also ask another question here what do people mean by native speaker of english?Xp54321 (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
A native speaker of English is someone who has English as his or her First language In short you can say that the official language of the country the person is born in, is most times the users first language. If a person speaks another language other then the first language, its called (You guessed it) the second language. As a little sidenote: If someone speaks this second language so well he or she is at the level you could expect from someone with the language as a primary one, it sayd that the user has Dual Fluency, or the ability to comprehend both languages perfectly. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your generous offer. However I really don't understand all that fancy code yet so I'll have to pass for now.Xp54321 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This entry is no different than entries for many advocacy groups. Defining a political organization is inherently promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASBacon (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This article either qualifies as a G11 promotional article, or an A7 non notable website. The article makes no claim to Notability, has no References and contains the name of the website it promotes quadruple in just three lines. Can you still say this article should stay? Excirial (Talk,Contribs)22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I see you blocked the above user for 3 days. After reporting him, i came to the conclusion that it is almost certainly a sock of the indef blocked user User:Chickensarecool123. The accounts created the same article minutes after eachother, and both users replaced their user talk page with exactly the same text after being warned. Can this one be upped to indef for being a sock? Excirial (Talk,Contribs)12:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Excirial, I submitted a page twice called dsyawywd (stands for Don't Swing Your Arms While You Walk Day)...its just a little funny joke im trying to pass around with my friends, it is a reference to an episode of seinfeld...Im new to submitting pages to wikipedia and dont want to get blocked because Im doing somthing wrong, can you help me out?
Hi Spazoids. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there is are rather strict guidelines for creating new articles. The article what you created is called a nonsense page, which is an article that has no meaningful content in it. Such articles will be removed as soon as possible to keep wikipedia clean (More info on what isnt tolerated can be found here).
As for the practical joke, well, i always love jokes :). However Wikipedia is not exactly the correct place for practical jokes. The page created will simply keep getting removed by either me or another patrol. Of course you are more then welcome to stick around and edit but i would suggest moving the joke someplace else where it wont be removed. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)13:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Excirial...thanks, if I resubmit it I will provide the proper links to the actual joke(im making a website) and point out what it is rather then post the joke itself there.
Well... its almost certain it will still be removed. It will fit either into an A7 not notable website, an A1 nonsense page or even a G3 pure vandalism page. I would advise against readding the article, as its removal chances are near 100%. Its likely to be a waste of time to write a new article, and seeing i already handed out a last warning recreating the page a third time will most likely trigger a block report from a different editor. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)13:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see category A7. Since I'm new, is there any way I can get rid of the warnings you gave me? I didn't realize it was against policy, and I don't want to get banned if I make a different mistake. I have contributed to wikipedia in the past, but I never created a page or took the time to make an account till now.
Technically removing warnings from your own page is considered vandalism (Don't you just love all those rules at these times? :-) ). However this rule is mainly intended to keep pure vandals from blanking their user page warnings without consequence. However, i will just remove the warnings and classify the edits as Good faith edits since you are clearly not a vandal or a rogue editor. Happy editing, Excirial (Talk,Contribs)13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) (If you need any help with it, don't hesitate to ask it!)
Thanks again for your help, I totally understand the need for the rules.
Its also quite funny to see that RyRy5 incorporated part of my own coding into the new design, along with parts of his own code. I was already pleasantly surprised when people asked if they could copy my userpage, but seeing that part of my codebase is being used for future designs actually really cool as well! Excirial (Talk,Contribs)14:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I just noticed that you warned this now-blocked user with the speedy removal warning notices. Just a quick reminder to subst: all user warning templates, so instead of {{uw-speedy1}} it would become {{subst:uw-speedy1}}. I don't want to be a nag, but templates can change, and we need to know exactly what warnings a user has received. :) Keep uo the good work though! Regards, Stwalkerster [ talk ]21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me, i will do so from now one (Apologies in advance if i forget it sometimes, rusted habits are hard to replace). However i hope you don't mind that i won't do this retroactively. Somehow i don't feel like replacing a few thousand warnings :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Kind sir, this is my second entry that you have flagged today. If I didn't know better I might think that you are picking on me. Please read my profile info and carefully re-read the entries that I have submitted and tell me if you honestly think I am submitting non-objective "promotional/advertising" content. I welcome your response and I admire your commitment to this community venture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolah (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in this case. The speedy deletion tag placed on the currect version of the article was an incorrectly a G10 one which signals advertising page. Instead the article should have been tagged as an A7, Not notable page. In order for an article to be on Wikipedia there has to be some form of Notability. As the article makes no claim as to why it is notable (Why it should be discussed inside an encyclopedia) it has been tagged for removal.
in order to make it notable, please have a look at the notability guideline. Most times the easiest way to meet this guideline is to add three secondary information sources as references. Secondary information sources are third party publications of substantional size that discuss the subject of the article. Good examples of secondary sources are newspapers such as the New York Times, Major broadcasters such as CNN or websites such as Wired.com. Alternatively modifications can be made that make some kind of claim to importance such as the magazine being the largest in the UK (For example).
Also please know that i never single out and tag articles. In fact i am not aware that i tagged the article twice; Im tagging a few 100 articles each day, which means that i dont specifically remember each and everyone of them unless they stand out in some way (Most times thats a bad thing).
Thanks for taking the time to explain your personal editing policies. I mispoke - you flagged my second attempt at submitting an article on a different subject. So it was two separate incidences that led me to speculate. Orange Mike explained the process for submitting an article as a member of a corporate entity in thorough detail, so the next time I start an article I will let you know about it and we can take it from there. Cheers and happy editing/flagging/patrolling. Rolah (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Question(s)
What is the template for the userbox saying your a new page s patroller. I am one now. So this is how they mark pages for csd so fast.:)Xp54321 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats {{User wikipedia/NP Patrol}}
Also, a few words of advice and warnings regarding Newpage patrol. Lets start with the advise: if you are serious about becoming a new page patrol, you might like to add the following script to your monobook: importScript('User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js');. This is an automatically updating list of new pages created, which is way easier then refreshing the new page logs every time.
As for the words of warning: NewPage patrol is at start most likely the hardest area on Wikipedia to work in, mostly due to the fact that there are a lot of rule sets that apply to new pages. Before starting as a newpage patrol i worked several months as a vandalism patrol, which meant i knew the rules rather well. Even so, i found it quite difficult to patrol correctly the first month, as it is difficult and important work; Tag to early and you might delete valuable pages, Tag to late and junk might get trough. As a tip, don't count on the admins stopping you if you tag something that might not be ok. I received a notice from an admin a month after i started that i tagged to aggressively. I had been tagging the same kind of articles for a month, so ii ended up having removed several potentiality good articles.
Make sure you know can almost literally cite WP:CSD, and that you have read WP:Notable (Including its subsections for certain topics), WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Apart from that make sure what template is used for what situation. When in doubt just tag it for PROD, or drop a note here. I will be glad to help check a page (I do that all day anyway :P).
And at the very last: Make sure you can keep your cool when people start running in on your talk page, hurling insults and screams. I has countless idiots fellow editors asking why their page was deleted, some being quite impolite. In those cases just explain why you removed/tagged the page, and if they keep insulting or vandalize your user page, just warn them with a NPA (No personal attack) template. If things get really hot, just report them at WP:AIAV, but that should be a last resort.
Just downloaded everything necessary for awb. But I don't see where to start the program. (No desktop icon,start menu has nothing) Does it start automatically? I would hate to download something and found I couldn't use it a second time.It's currently on because I activated its exe file right from where I extracted it to.Help!I am approved.Xp54321 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow
Wow you're amazing I was about to report that abdullah guy using tw but found you had already done it. Nice job!.
This is the version you would have seen when speedy deleting that. Please note that the under construction tag requests that you do not tag for deletion while the tag is in place, as I am literally writing it as we speak. That is the function of the under construction tag. I appreciate you didn't intend any harm, and as per regulations I have not removed the speedy tag, merely added the hang on. Kind regards, SGGHspeak!09:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and thanks for following that procedure, even after the mistake i made. I should have issued a PROD on this article instead. Actually im merely doing so since often people start articles without ever finishing them. In general underconstruction tags never get checked as far as i know (I had one several months old one time), so im just making sure that i both have the article on my contributions to check at a later date, and to prevent incomplete articles slip trough.
My excuses for the arnoob article. It was full of injokes between me and my brother (arno) and I was about to delete in in a couple of hours anyways. Same for the Brechzor article. Guess I underestimated the wiki admins :)
Have a nice dayAnni666 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Bug 13 of Twinkle
Hi, it seems you recently ran into a known bug (#13) with Twinkle. This is the problem diff. In the interest of further tracking this issue, could you report what browser (version) you are using ? (Also, do you remember seeing an error, or having "slow/unstable" internetconnection that day?) Hopefully that will help is in finding the cause. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Im using Firefox 3 beta 5 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5) Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5) / JRE 1.6.0, including the Adblock and NoScript addons (NoScript is disabled for Wikipedia). I have had some slow internet today, but that was before the bug snuck in. Perhaps it is unrelated, but i found that i tagged an incorrect article and closed the twinkle window while the tag was still in progress, causing a short display of Error 0. This error occurs more often, almost always when you try to click twinkle away when it seems to stall/ fail to tag. 9.9 out of 10 times this does not create any complication other then not tagging a page. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, detailed information like this will hopefully help us solve this problem that has been quite elusive so far. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Strange, i cannot remember tagging this article; My best guess is that i mistagged this one instead of a different article. Apart from that you are certainly right that this one does in no way warrant a speedy deletion tag. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
On Personja, you tagged db-WP:NOT dictionary, but the first non-criterion on the CSD page is this (that it is not a CSD). While I agree with the tag, just bringing this to your attention. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are right on this one, and in fact i knew that criteria when i tagged it with a custom DB. The reason why i still tagged is to prevent a long administrative traject either trough PROD (Untagging is legal, and takes 5 days), or trough AFD (Zero chance the article would survive, AFD often gets backlogged). In short, if i am absolutely certain that an article is going to get deleted, i apply the snowball clause (Related to WP:IAR) to the article and tag it for fast removal par CSD. While it is not 100% procedure, i believe that in this case i can legally ignore the "Dont tag for WP:NOT" rule. Thanks for watching the rules so closely though, its always better to drop a note then simply letting it be on cases like this :). Kind regards, Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds logical as long you use your discretion. I hope my comment was not 'condescending in tone'. If it was, totally unintentional. Cheers.Prashanthns (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, those custom DB tags are rather rare (1/150 tags i estimate) and as i said, i only use them if i am certain i won't create a mess. As for the 'condescending in tone' i didnt think it was, after i looked up the meaning of the word condescending that is. :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Adoption offer
Thank you for your offer, Excirial, I accept. Basically I just want to know how everything works on Wiki, how you make things and whatnot. Reading stuff doesn't exactly help me because I won't get it, I pretty much learn from experience. I'm learning how to upload files onto Wiki and customize my userpage currently. I'll let you know if I have any questions. Thanks again!--Panic!outU've Been Discoed!21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My talk page
Hey I've noticed that you've reverted my edits on my own talk page without any sort of conversation or edit summery. Don't ever do anything like this again. Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I spotted a blanked page, and unfortunately my Lupin script seemed to have a hiccup at that time, causing me to have to manually rollback the suspected vandalism; Hence the empty description. Apart from that, keep WP:CIV in mind while editing. Mot likely it was not your intention, but the line "Don't ever do anything like this again" didnt really strike me as being friendly. Thanks in advance for that :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken whatsoever :). And thanks for the apologies; People who dare to make them always fall under good faith in my eyes :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
I just lost rollback. Put in RfA. Some admin noticed bad reversions, removed it. Two admins really. Any advise? User review going on for me now. Link on top of my userpage.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is best if i respond on the user review, and not on a talk page on this one :). Response left there (Well, in a couple of minutes, in case you are fast) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)08:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No notability is asserted, and at this time this is mainly an advertisement. I see no confirmation that the real jimbo wales is an admin there, as each and every wiki will allow a user of that name without questioning. And frankly, i think that jimbo being an admin there is as notable as making an article about his favorite tea cup (Knowing notable doesn't make notable) :). In short, i will not remove the tag until the article is WP:N, and isnt an advert. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)19:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
All wiki foundation sites have the name Jimbo Wales reserved for obvious reasons. So that you cant just simply make up that your Jimbo otherwise this could cause a major problem if a vandal was to use it on a wiki. Dancerman2008 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dude..
Dude, Please do not delete Objective articles, that is not what this is about. People have donated money and don't want to be defrauded by you taking away non defamatory objective articles. Please ask for a third review before you delete a page when there is a dispute. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonDon101 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a set of guidelines that need to be followed in order for an article to excist on this site. If an article does not meet certain criteria, it will be removed, simple as that. As for the third review: Article are always judged by at least two persons. In this case i was the user placing the tag for removal attention, and an administrator, Accounting4Taste confirmed the tag was correct and removed the article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont think they are, mainly because they are complaining about two different articles. The first one is complaining about a scribblewiki article, the other seems to be complaining about an article about a medical company. Rather unique to have two at the same time though. Oh, and thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I can always turn off my modem and turn it on again with a brand new IP. I just wanna ruin someone else's pretentious editing. Ever checked out the portuguese wikipédia? It sucks, and people would probably ask you if this NPOV thing is edible. You are supposed to thank me for keeping brazilians away from the english one, by blocking whatever IPs are assigned to me. But since you do not like Stone Cold Steve Austin, and is also a robot, I think I cannot expect this from you. At least thank me for being cannon fodder for you, Mr. Editor. If you ever join the admins and lift slimvirgin with your finger, remember me, who crossed your path and was slain by you in a gentlemanly fashion.
I AM SORRY BUT YOUR DEFINITION OF THREAT IS A LITTLE OFF. If I ever find you, I would invite you for a friendly talk and buy you a drink or whatever. But not anymore. We are no longer friends and I will politely look away should our paths ever cross again, maybe quietly saluting you but without no love and friendship, and very less respect. I only ask you, if you have a shred of decency, and I know you have, to ban this ip as well, and if possible, pull a Qatar and ban my entire country already.
I guess i can't get away with a 1 line responce this time :). Now, for the longer version: For a subject to be on wikipedia, certain guidelines have to be met. The first one is WP:N, or notability. This rule states that an article must be important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The article you created, does not seem to be about a notable subject as there is no sourcing.
Second, the article fails WP:NEO. The sentence "Youtube Pooper" is a new sentence that has only recently appeared. The first problems with neologisms is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary made to explain the meaning of a certain sentence. The second problem is that this neologism is not widely spread (IE: used by a lot of people, or at least the article doesn't indicate this) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, borderline delete, borderline keep. The version i tagged contained no external source at all, and the wording was promotional, but i agree, even then it was borderline. Seeing the AFD was a G12 it does not really matter now, as it seems the article was rewritten. Personally i believe it needs some external sources and a little less promotional wording, but i think it is good for now. I have seen worse, and i have also seen what over agressive tagging can cause to potentially good articles. Seeing the improvement, i fully support your decline decision now :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Female Interior Designers
There is almost no information about women in interior design of note on the Wikipedia website (despite the fact that fictitious character Grace Adler gets a pretty lengthy entry). I teach the history of interior design at a university and am trying to rectify this situation by having my students contribute research they have done on notable women in the profession. The page on Vivian Woofter keeps getting deleted but she is a figure of importance to interior designers just as Norman Foster or Louis Sullivan is to architects. I realize that you may not have heard of her and there are not a great number of books or articles written on her but that is because women have been ignored or marginalized and study of the history of interiors is relatively new. I understand how it could be misconstrued as simply a biography of any individual but I assure you that she is a person of note. She worked as the head of Interior Design for the State Department for 20 years and was responsible for the interior design of embassies and American Field offices all over the world. She has had a prolific career and is a figure who the women who study interior design should be able to find information on. Denying her a place in Wikipedia would be both unfortunate and send the wrong message to a generation of female students who can easily find relatively minor (male) architects discussed at great length. I love Wikipedia and encourage my students to interact with it as often as possible and I appreciate the time and effort you and others put into this wonderfully democratizing knowledge process. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Best wishes, Hannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster213 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that there are people who would, by common sense, deserve an article on wikipedia, and also that there are articles which are deemed notable yet would be better of if they were scrapped. The main issue is that Wikipedia is a large encyclopedia where general guidelines have to apply which govern what is allowed, and what not. For example, there are masses of home-brew bands that try to create an article, and i am not even starting to discuss each and every person that adds him or herself to Wikipedia. That, among with other nonsensical pages have created the need for guidelines.
I cannot remember this specific article, which is mainly caused since i tag about 150-200 articles a day for removal, and read about a fivefold to see if they should be allowed. This means that i cannot give specific advice on this article itsself, but i think i can start of with some basic general information.
The first one, Neutral Point of View, rules that an article has to be witting from a neutral stance, as if someone is just plain describing the person without any form of bias. When writing an article, don't just highlight the good things of the person, and try to avoid any "Peacock" words and sentences such as "An excellent designer" and "Of Exceptional quality". Those lines are most times indications that an article is in the area of advertising, which often causes deletion. Full details can be found at WP:NPOV.
The second one, Notability, rules that to be on Wikipedia, the articles subject needs to have some kind of importance which warrants an encyclopedia article. For example an article about Bill Gates is notable because he is the founder of microsoft. An article of the butcher on the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. For Persons, notability is governed by two different guidelines. Full guidelines on that can be found Here and Here
And the last one, verifiability, rules that any claims made in the article must be sources with articles from external, independent third party sources. More or less speaks for itsself; Whenever you make a claim to the notability there has to be some form of backing that proves the claim. Full details can be found at WP:VERIFY.
As a last warning, please take care to follow the guidelines. Writing a biography about a person is about the most dreaded task that can be done, mainly due to the sky high standards that apply. Trough WP:BLP Wikipedia maintains very high standards on articles about living persons, mainly as a safeguard to prevent people from adding wrong information, or even worse, libel.
Feel free to contact me in case you need any assistance with the article. Be advised however, that i Cannot help if the subject does not have its notability asserted, and no verifiable sources are available. Also, if you are not sure the article is ok, post it in a user subpage such as User:Monster213/Sandbox. These subpages are outside the article space and will only be removed in very specific occasions. As of such, they are often used as sandboxes to improve articles until they are ready.
Thank you! My first one :) Got bored of doing my James Cagney rewrites so thought i'd have a go at the new pages, i seem to rather like doing it! Ged UK (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i will let this one pass next time. Apart from that, you might want to consider Creating an account. Large scale content removals from IP's are generally always reverted, as you have seen 3 times already :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)17:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I'M NOT GOING ABOUT THIS PROPERLY: i've never edited wiki before. i just made a change/correction to the inaccurate information in the potable water page, which said that heating water to 100 degrees celsius will kill all pathogens. this is dangerous misinformation, as many pathogens (and espcially their spores) must be heated to at least 118 degrees to be elimiated, which is why in canning procedures, pressure cookers and other methods of heating water higher than boiling point without evaporation are used. THANK YOU, AND AGAIN, I'M SORRY FOR JUST THROWING THIS RANDOMLY IN HERE, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO.:) Writting by User_Talk:99.227.246.129
Aaah, this is actually an error on my side, an not on yours!. I reverted this edit because it was written in full CAPS, which is most of the time a signal that the edit is a rogue (Intentionally wrong/vandalistic) one. I have removed the warning from your user page, as it is obviously incorrect and uncalled for.
Other then that, if you want to add a new section to a user page, you can press "New Section", which is right besides "Edit This Page". This will allow you to create a header and add text under it. Also, before you post something on a user page, add four tildes (~~~~) after the post to sign it. This will put your username behind the message, which makes it easy to track who posted it. Just minor things though, nothinh serious.
And last, if you plan to keep contributing, you should consider creating a user account as it is a little easier to edit that way then editing from IP level. Of course this is by no means required, but it is just a friendly tip :). Oh, and if you would happen to have any question on wikipedia, editing, policies or whatever else related, don't hesitate to ask them, ill be glad to assist! Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Weather Rock
My edit was constructive, and I did provide a rationale in the edit summary. I'm not about to get into an edit war with you, but if you believe the item on the Phoenix mission is indeed a "weather rock", please provide appropriate references. The references given never mention "weather rock" (I know, I checked), except for the Slashdot article, where the reference to "weather rock" is obviously a joke. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually noticed the mistake two seconds after the revert, and rolled back my own changes. However, something seems to have gone amiss rolling back the changes to the article. While the user warning issued was reverted within a minute, the change revert on the page was apparently not. Apologies for that, i should have double checked that it was actually reverted, and of course another apology for the incorrect revert.
The section that I removed is considered controversial and I have moved it to talk page for further discussion. This was clearly stated in my edit summary. So I don' think it is a unconstructive edit. Please provide more information other than just a template next time you tried to push the button. (Cowboybebop98 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
Reversion of vandalism is in this case indeed simply pushing a button, which also issues a standard template. I agree that in thise case somewhat clearer information is a good idea.
The edit the user made might be controversial, but i disagree that it should be removed from the article simply because it is controversial. As far as i can conclude the edit is more then properly sourced, which means that it should be allowed to remain around. In case you do disagree, i would suggest tagging the section with a {{SectDisputed}} tag and raise an issue on the talk page as opposed to simply removing or moving the section. This way more people will be able to join the debate, as there is a clear signal something is amiss, as opposed to randomly moving to the talk page.
Hello, Excirial, I accept your adoption offer. Basically all I want to know is how things on Wikipedia work, especially uploading files; I learn best by experiencing so direct links are helpful. Thank you very much!--Panic!outU've Been Discoed!20:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Then hello what else can i say then "Hello, Hi, and Thanks for letting me adopt you!". Welcome, Welcome, Welcome. And lets get started :).
Files that can be uploaded on Wikipedia are mainly images that accompany the articles. There are two different ways to upload images. The first way is to use the upload wizard, which can be found at WP:Upload. The wizard allows you to easily add an image by pre-adding the appropriate template to the image itself based upon what kind of image is being uploaded. Once the correct type had been selected, you will be directed to the upload form.
In this form, the first thing to do is press Browse and select the file you want to upload from your local PC.
Then, type a Destination Filename. This is the name where the file can be accessed at.
Following that, fill in the summary as far as you can. If you cannot fill in a certain field either remove it or leave or blank
Last, select the License Type. Note that adding a correct license is important! If the file remains without license, or the image doesn't comply to Wikipedia:Image use policy it is likely to be removed.
Once done, press Upload File
Presto, you are done. You can now add the image to a page by adding two brackets with the image between it, like this: [[Image:Choco_chip_cookie.jpg]]. Note that in this case i added two nowiki tags, which prevent wikipedia from converting the code to an image (Rather hard to see what i typed otherwise, don't you think? :))
Can you explain what ThisThisThis and This edit are all about? I was one inch away from adding a content removal warning for the first edit. Apart from that i have issued NPA and Vandalism warnings for edits similar to the latter in the past. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)09:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wannabe Wiki(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Why did you just take off all my references that I was adding to the page...? I am slowly trying to clean it up and you just deleted it all? Lady Raven.10:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
My fault. The edit which was last made consisted of a rather vandalistic line of text (Something about using someone belly as a dart board). In general small additions of text that contain this kind of weirdness is a sign that the article is being vandalized. In this case, however, i can see that this is not that case due to reading the article in whole.
In each and every case: I removed the clearly unjust warning from your talk page, and reverted the article back to its state before i rolled the entire thing back. Apologies for the inconvenience caused, and of course: Good luck with the cleanup :)
"Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Etiquette of Indian dining has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"
Thanks for the welcome. But, am not very new to Wikipedia. As the case is, I have indeed provided an edit summary: "→Right hand: added the "{{fact}}" template and a hidden comment". You can verify this at [3].
Moreover, in the hidden comment I have provided the complete reasoning for my action that is adding the hidden comment. Regarding the {{fact}} template it is pretty evident (at least, so do I feel) that such a statement requires to be backed by a reference. Being an Indian I've never really heard of such an explanation. It's not just the food, but even in many other aspects like social ceremonies, the right hand is considered the "auspicious" hand.
Likewise, I have also discussed some issues in the talk page of the article.
So, I'd be glad if I'd be told more precisely how my actions have been deemed "unconstructive".
Thanks for being watchful even of a relatively neglected article.
Hmmm, this is exactly the reason why i decided to stop patrolling for vandalism for the moment. I began to notice that my current state of tiredness is affecting the quality of the patrol i am currently doing. Apart from being just in time to correct myself 3 times in 10 minutes (Which is bad enough!) i also reverted two edits which were ok. Just like the above editor this has been a case of bad judgement; In her case i missed the fact that the article in itsself was about a fairly questionable activity, which means that information added would also qualify as being rather weird.
In your case, i completely missed the HTML comment tags which prevent the text from appearing in the article. Due to missing them, my assumption was that a user was adding a personal comment in the article, which is of course not exactly constructive. Of course, my apologies for the extra work caused :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)11:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's alright. As I mentioned in my previous reply, also good to know that a relatively obscure article, too was getting attention from some one. I was going to suggest that may be you should go slow on your patrolling as I'd seen a few more complaints on your talk page. But, refrained thinking that should not be seen as something hostile. So, what do you suggest, that you "unrevert" or that I revert your revert?
Regards, again. By the way, I had once been complimented by one of the administrators for "leaving edit summaries on virtually all pages" ;)
Well, you get my compliments for that to. There are SO many people forgetting to add edit summaries that it can get annoying to find out what they actually changed and why they did that. Apart from that, don't worry about my mistake ratio; I have been told to take it slow before due to the high amount of mistakes that were on my talk page.
However, this is simply a matter of the Law of large numbers. If i have a mistake ratio of 1% (or 1 in 100) and everyone comments on it, it means that if i make 100 reverts 1 person will complain. However, if i make 1000 reverts, i will have 10 complainers, which will seem like a lot. With 4 complainers at my page as of current, and 2300 reverts this month, i don't think it is that bad :). But in this case i had 5 errors within 100 reverts, which is, in all ways, way to much. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're pretty right about your mistake ratio. Don't worry, every one makes mistakes. So, since you haven't made a mention of that, I'm reverting your undo. Thanks for info on law of large numbers. Happy editing and happy patrolling. Bye. Take care. —KetanPanchaltaLK13:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gurch, what is this [4] revert all about. I guess this was a little huggly miss? :). Apart from that, if it is an unintentional miss, could there be something wrong with the user whitelist? I am pretty sure i am on that list, and as far as i know, it should ignore/prevent reversions from trusted users. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
After making some changes to Huggle, I was testing they worked correctly... and evidently they didn't. I intended to revert myself immediately afterwards but someone who was still trying to revert the original vandalism using "undo" did it for me -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I already expected something along that line, as you are one of the last i expect to vandalize. Well, good luck with solving this problem then, and if you ever need another test target for something, feel free to aim at me :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)19:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well you weren't intentionally a test target. I'd only intended to change the message that came up when trying to revert a whitelisted user... somehow I screwed it up so it didn't check at all -- Gurchzilla (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I was adding more info for St. George's School (Vancouver). I live in Vancouver and I know what people think...how was that vandalism!?!?
Unsourced WP:NPOV edit. Articles should be neutral in language, meaning that any claim such as "The Best school", "The coolest kid" and "The best business' should not be on Wikipedia. Also, the claim that it is the second best high school in canada is Unsourced, which, along with the rest of the line, makes it a potentiality promotional edit. 24.82.152.201 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Now, how to add the claim anyway? Leave out the first line, and make sure you can add a reference for the second line (IE: Website that supports the claim). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Just in case you were wondering what this was, it was definite vandalism (and almost undoubtedly racially motivated). The message that replaced the article's content reads (in Romanian): "Death to the crows," with "crows" being a metaphor for the Romani people. --Kuaichik (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your trying to stop advertising, as is the rules, but i was in no way trynig to advertise the pirate captain. I am simply a fan of the Pirates! in an Adventure with... series and, after 4 books, felt the Pirate Captain deserved a page. Also, I had only just started it and was certain to reword it anyway. I had only done one edit. And I was soon to sort it out properly. I'm really not anything to do with the books' publication and the sentence I'd written can't have suggested that. If there was also a problem with the content, I can only say that other characters from fiction have a page (i.e Arthur Dent, of 5 books and a tv series, first person that came to mind) and the Pirate Captain is now a willing candidate. I also had back up sources to show his truths. If this was advertising I'm sure that every character/film/dvd page is also advertising. Was there any other reasons for its deletion?
Well, it is actually hard to say why the page was deleted. jusding from your talk page i tagged it for removal at the 23th of May, meaning it was removed over a week ago. In all due honesty i have no idea what the contents were, or what it was about, as i have tagged numerous other pages in the meantime. If you have a copy, i would be glad to tell you what was wrong with it though Excirial (Talk,Contribs)19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To save you wondering, the following was the full text of the article:
((www.piratecaptain.co.uk))
((http://www.gideondefoe.com))
{{Infobox character | name = Pirate Captain'''
| first appearance = ''[[the Pirates! in an Adventure with Scientists]]''
| other appearances = ''[[the Pirates! in an Adventure with Whailing]]''''[[the Pirates! in an Adventure with Communists]]''''[[the Pirates! in an Adventure with Napoleon]]|
If you are refering to the red template i used in the paste, its not a standard template anymore. I copied it over from an old users talk page, and used it for a while since then. The origional template was removed due to concerns regarding warning users which would not get banned. [5]. People have insisted on not using this particular template anymore, so im also not using it anymore :) Excirial (Talk,Contribs)05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You have helped me once before in the past, so I decided once again to ask for your help. I was wondering whether you could guide me in how to put images on wikipedia pages, this very basic action is one I just can't seem to figure out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari iyer44 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there
I ran into you a couple times while patrolling the recent changes, and on the Lawn mower article. I have just started being active in fighting vandalism and I wanted to ask you something. What is the next step after you issue several warnings and the user continues to vandalize? Do you report them all on ANI or is there a quicker way. I ran into this several times today, and sometimes it took hours for them to be blocked from editing. So my really what I'm asking is, is there something else I should do after issuing warnings that will speed the process? Thanks and have a great day, Landon1980 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Landon, and welcome to WP:CVU and vandalism patrol! :)
First of, ANI is mainly around to report long time disruption and wikipedia wide issues; Its not the place to report the normal "All day" vandalism. As you already noticed is that WP:ANI is rather slow, mostly due to most of the reports on there requiring manual attention, and cant be resolved with semi-automated tools. Instead of reporting there you should relay all reports to WP:AIAV, which is the area every day vandalism is handled.
To report to AIAV simply make sure that the user has at least 3 recent warnings including a level 4 last warning. When the user qualifies edit the page (Instuctions on what has to be done are hidden as comments in the page itsself, editing the page will show then). You will like AIAV as it is MUCH faster then ANI. In general it should never take longer then 30 minutes to get someone to take action on a report, with the average time being 15 or so minutes.
Your revert is inappropriate, that's why I'm going to revert it on my own. THe article is about the County of Tyrol, just a short note about the VV battle is necessary. I was going to write it. If you don't agree, list your reason in the talk page. Thank. Regards.--78.13.167.236 (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the messages I receieved automatically sent or did I really do something wrong? I still can't see anything wrong or bad with the internal links I added. --Ozculer (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I double checked this, and it is indeed a valid revert and a valid warning. According to both the history of the page and the diff, you removed about 12k characters from the article with your edit. Have a look at your own revision, under the section "Legal System" the text suddenly ends with the line One of the complicating features of the EU's legal system is The about 12k characters after that are removed in your edit.
Done. It was not a mistake made by me but by my our of whack mouse... Such things happen. Thanks for warning. This time I must have done is faultlessly. Good day! --Ozculer (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Great, looks perfect now. Ill remove the two warnings i added as well, as this is by no means vandalism... just a mouse with its own will :). Excirial (Talk,Contribs)11:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence page
Could you take a look at the recent edits back and forth and propose a compromise. I have been trying to summarize the organization's goals in a sterile way, but Yaf keeps injecting his political opinion about each of the goals into the page. He has been blocked before on firearms related pages for unfairly editing others content, which is what he has done here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I spend the last 15 minutes researching a little bit on the subject, as my gun knowledge can pretty much be summed up as "Load, Aim and pull the trigger"; Know that as of such, any proposed compromise from my part is mainly based on intuition and some similar case experience, rather then on subject knowledge.
From what i can verify, the edits made by Yaf can more or less be sourced by the sources he added. For example, the first change in the mission is partially a different wording from the source provided. I cant find anything on a sister organization and a amicus curiae though.
As for the opinion matter, i cant seem to qualify this as a WP:NPOV violation. All information seems to be presented in a factual matter, and the first part seems to sum up the organizations goals more or less accurately(At least in a good faith manner), which makes it exempt of an opinion; Its the vision of an articles subject on a certain matter.
What would i advise? Probably the best thing to do is have a little discussion with Yaf on the matter, either on a personal talk page or on the articles talk page. In case there is no way to settle this, you might consider calling in WP:DR to allow a specialized mediator handle this (Im just a vandalism patrol :-) ). In case there is no responce, you can at least say you tried, and it does give a stronger position during any admin action. Either way, the page seems to have been blocked 2 day on request to make sure that we dont get a revision count of 1000's by tomorrow. Gives plenty of time to discuss this.
Hi. I noticed that you reverted the caption on Brent's photo in Twink as vandalism. That is a content dispute, not vandalism, as vandalism is ... a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Arguing about the phrasing of a caption just isn't vandalism, it's a disagreement. Overusing the term robs it of it's usefulness, I think, and we would be better off using it against uncontroversial vandals. — Becksguy (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The revert i made was not based upon capitalization, but rather on a suspicious edit summary wikipedia is not shensured benjy boy, and the removal of a line of text. Normally i would probably not revert even if both of those reasons were present, but in this case i warned the IP before. In those cases i tend to assume bad faith when seeing edits with suspicious characteristics. Is it vandalism? Not really. But reverting with a warning automatically adds the vandalism line, instead of simply "Reverted" Excirial (Talk,Contribs)08:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't template the regulars
It pisses them off - using a template that says "here is a basic guide to editing" is rather insulting, plus can you explain WHY you have stuck that ugly template on my page - when I'm engaged in normal editorial activity. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
First of DTTR is just an essay, and is not a guideline. As much as the DTTR essay exists, there is also a TTR essay, which propagates the exact opposite of DTTR. Personally i believe in equal treatment, thus if i would template a non regular for something, then i will also template the regular for it. :)
Second, i have no idea where that revert and warning came from, as i logged into Wikipedia about 5 minutes ago. I booted my PC in advance though, and seeing its a public (work) PC i assume that one of my colleagues has tried pressing a button in Huggle, which i opened after boot time. I apologize for the inconvenience, which was caused unintentionally by leaving my workstation with huggle open.
Apart from that, remember to remain civil when creating an edit summary. As much as you are not charmed from receiving a template, im not charmed to see reverting stupid use of huggle tool by someone who should examine edits not just hit buttons in a lazy fashion as an edit summary. If you point that regulars should receive a special treatment due to the fact they have been around longer, you should also remember that this is not exactly my first day on vandalism patrol. At least you should have assumed Good FaithExcirial (Talk,Contribs)10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So it wasn't even you because you don't secure your account properly - that's even worse and the edit summary even more apt! --Allemandtando (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
For the matter, my workstation is located in a keyed room to which only i and my two colleague admins have access. According to one of them he needed the workstation a second, and as of such inadvertently pressed the key that made the revert. Even if this would not have been the case, two wrongs don't make one right. The edit summary is not conform WP:CIV, and any error from my side doesn't make it comply to WP:CIV. So please keep the rudeness down, and also keep it friendly at my user talk. The matter is an accidental incorrect revert, not some discussion on account security being worse then CIV. Excirial (Talk,Contribs)10:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
