User talk:UnicornTapestry/Archive 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:UnicornTapestry. 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.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

→

What?

I almost never log on here anymore? You know how to reach me? tanner@

What is the question? Client434 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

cool ceasar? He's an asshole, been that way since joined. KNows more than any expert here, more French than the French, etc. Forget him. Client434 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Trijicon

Looks like our ideas are similar in working on Trijicon. I was the one who created the table. Is there anything that you'd like to see worked on there? Trijicon's corporate website might have some pictures... Also, how large do you think the table should get?Naraht (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The place you pulled the information from is a great source. Not sure if we want to split out type/model/spec like that location does. Not sure about photos, but you are right, copyright could be an issue.

I've only seen Ezekiel mentioned in suggestions for additional ones they can do. If you see it specifically, please add.

Let me think about the spokesman... I'll comment on the Trijicon talk page.

No problem with adoption, either with the boxes, or without.Naraht (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Abiotic Oil

Hello UnicornTapestry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Abiotic Oil, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sorry, I'm confused. Should the other article be moved to this one? . Thank you. Ged UK 20:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is we have 2 redirects, Abiotic Oil and Abiotic oil. The first, which isn't a proper noun anyway, isn't necessary. My guess is someone didn't get a hit on Abiotic oil and rather than rename the first, added the second. No harm's done, but Abiotic Oil is a wasted page.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, I didn't spot the difference. Done now. Ged UK 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Alumnus

Hi, not really wanting to take this further, but OED may state that an Alumnus does not have to be a graduate. However, most other dictionaries do state this requirement. Also the Vicoria University Almuni webpage states that an Alumnus is a graduate. other people are just "friends". Welcome your opinions, but Im happy to defer to the voices of experience. Gmoney484 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not adamant either way. Although I lean toward the OED, I additionally felt it was useful to have the inclusion, but if you prefer otherwise, I don't object. Reverts are so ugly anyway! My main concern was getting the citations under control.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines on Blogs.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources , in short, if the blog is by someone who is also published in reliable third-pary sources, it may be OK.Naraht (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

iamamiwhoami

Just a note - I think you altered the capitalization of the track B placed on iTunes. I debated whether to use the lower case 'b' as used on the video, but the track on iTunes is a capital 'B' - not lower case. Probably not hugely important, but just wanted to point that out. 86.152.222.48 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you are correct. Feel free to change it back, and thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Koch Industries political activity

Hi. I don't believe cited text and references were stripped under political activity. No points were removed. Text was combined into existing paragraphs in political activity that was most appropriate for the subject (see edits on April 3rd 2010). I will undo. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if there is a misunderstanding. --Grshpr09 (talk)

My apologies! You are correct. I saw DBrane's comment about the last paragraph being propaganda and Bonewah's comment rejecting Greenpeace as a source and thought the citations had been deleted. You did the right thing.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

nope :)

Wrong article... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, UnicornTapestry. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Stanford White

Concerning your addition of a "citation" tag to this article: a 47 year old man has a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old girl, and you're concerned that the adjective "manipulative" needs a citation? Can you please explain this thinking? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, gladly. What seems to us an inappropriate today may not have been a century ago (and vice versa, as Edith Wharton pointed out). Examples abound in literature and history of underage (by our standards) relationships that weren't considered inappropriate or even unequal (Abélard et Héloïse, Romeo and Juliet, etc) and cases in which the 'underage' party was the manipulator (Lolita).

"Manipulative" is a heavily loaded adjective which if used, certainly needs backing. In professional reporting, we're encouraged to lay out the raw facts and let the reader judge for him/herself. In other words, we're giving the tools to think rather than telling them what to think. Thanks for the note!

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense -- however, given that, I think it would have been better to remove the POV word entirely rather than tag it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Thanks for your well wishes. The only thing I am aware that I recently changed regarding dates was on Janis Joplin, which was here. My issue regarding dates on that is related to WP:ENGVAR. The editor reformatted the dates, which were in American English style, i.e. October 1, 1970 to the British style of dates, i.e., 1 October 1970. Those aren't ISO style dates, it is American vs. English. The mandate per MOS:TIES is to use the style that is predominantly used in the country associated with the person or topic. Joplin was American, therefore, the dates should be American style. And mostly, regarding dates in references, the trend has been to do away with the use of ISO dates. If it wasn't that article, please let me know what one of which you speak. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashwood University: reply

Hi, I saw your editing comment while trying to sort out the article. I know nothing about Ashwood University and don't know which way the 'lies' run. Have you made your case on the talk page?

Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See for example [1], where "not accredited" is changed to "accredited". There is no doubt that the university is not accredited, which is also backed up by reliable references in the article; changes like this is pure attempts at fraud. All the Wikipedia articles about degree mills are frequently attacked in this way, presumably by people who bought or sold the fraudulent diplomas. Though the number of attacks decreased once I semi-protected most of the articles about degree mills. Hence I believe that all the degree mill articles should require review. Thue | talk 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Keeping in mind the adage of proving a negative, be sure to load up on citations. Good luck!

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Sergio Vega (singer)‎

Re Sergio Vega (singer) an article with three refs, why did you revert a Ref improve tag? Dubious stuff has been added. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just left you a note. The edits on the review screen show up as a single edit unless we break them out. Sorry to put you to the extra work for one questionable edit.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates

Please do not accept edits inserting birth dates of living people that do not have sources [2]. Such claims are clearly personal information and likely contentious and under WP:BLP require valid sourcing and not just a wikipedia editors claims. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Singular teams

Hi. I noticed that you made a few edits to sentences involving British football club names, such as this, changing "are" to "is". The problem is that in British English it's convention to treat sports teams as plural (see collective noun), so "is" sounds strange in this context. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Larry. I'd thought that was Liverpudlian. I hadn't noticed the use in counties south and I'm no FC expert. Notice 4 items above I was criticised for using 'British dates', whatever those are! Thank you, Larry.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, British dates make much more sense to me than American ones, but then I would say that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, what is that M/D/Y? But I never heard D-M-Y called 'British dates'. Must have something to do with 'British' metric system, you think? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Non-American dates" might be more appropriate! Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: vandalism to Alexander Hamilton article

Thank you for catching and correcting the recent vandalism. How did you do that so quickly?WCCasey (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You're welcome. I was monitoring the review screen and saw it come up. You can do that too, if interested, which you can find here.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about that page - thanks! WCCasey (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Intelligent Design, 2010-July-09

I've responded to your concern about my edit. (Please keep the discussion on my Talk page. ) --98.14.192.146 (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Zac Efron

We got an unintentional edit conflict. My comment wasn't about your edit but the one we both attempted to undo. When you went to edit the article, did the entry show as yellow or white? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither, I don't use TW for that kind of bugs. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry to barge in on this discussion, but why did you accept this revision? BOVINEBOY2008 16:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! Hmm… looks like I did. I see you reverted it, so you must have spotted something I didn't. What did you catch?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The ip added an empty image gallery and what looks like a link to a file that doesn't exist. BOVINEBOY2008 18:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

This is actually vandalism. Just so you know. • GunMetal Angel 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know for sure, but could tell from the introductory text metalcore looked safe. When I don't know for certain, I revert but don't slap them with the 'vandal' tag.

Thanks again. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could even see the article for screamo where it says "misuse of screamo". Calling a metal band "screamo" is utterly an insult if not shows how damn ignorant the person saying it is and thus is considered vandalism. There was even this one kid that got blocked for two weeks because he kept putting that on the Trivium (band) article. Ahaha. • GunMetal Angel 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

accepting pending

Hi, why did you accept this uncited claim of trasnsfer to another club without a citaton? Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It happens. Good thing you caught it. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a transfer rumor and may well be going to happen but has not hapopened as yet. I have been a bit involved in the discussions surrounding the pending trial, and would welcome your comments about how you reviewed it with a view to understanding any areas that need strengthening or explaining to the community to improve pending results. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I almost always revert unsourced additions but I noted

The editor was in Exeter, which led me to think he might know more than I, and
I wasn't convinced English was the editor's native language (wording and capitalisation).

Thus, I gave the ed a break, which likely shouldn't have happened until he ref'ed his material.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated your comments, thanks. I have a system of undoing or rolling back anything that is not cited, using twinkle (undo assume good faith) and a summary of uncited, please provide citations to support your desired additions. If I thought it was true and the editor needed assistance and the edit is not controversial I sometimes accept and then add a fact tag and go and look for a supporting citation. If it is contensious or controversial, which I would say a uncited claim of a legal contract transfer of a football player is, then if uncited I would never accept it and after rejecting it as uncited I would then go and google the claim and if I found a supporting citation then I would go back and revert myself, which would replace the content and then I would add the supporting citation. Using this system controversial content never gets accepted uncited, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good insight, good system. Do you sometimes encounter conflicts with others trying to approve/revert? --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Estonia LGBT Community section removed?

So, Could someone please give a very good explanation, WHY THE Estonian LGBT Community related section that was written on 16 July 2010 got removed? Like, does the remover think that the facts were wrong or what?

Just simply removing the whole section without any comments is not a way to cooperate.

Or is the game here really that the one who has "higher rank" in the administration hierarchy just enforces one's own will to others? Well, guess what, one day You might not be the only one with that high admin-rank and the erasing-adding game goes quite nasty to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.25.170 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! One should never pull rank to enforce one's will upon another (many of us have had that done to us) and that is not the reason for the revert which I marked a "good faith" edit, nor am I saying the section doesn't have a place in the encyclopedia. In other words, I have sympathy for your viewpoint, but I had to revert. There were a few reasons for not excepting:

lack of citations (the reference or advert about Club Angel doesn't count)
the insertions were opinion (which way political parties leaned, small towns)
it didn't seem appropriate in a national article (as opposed to LGBT article)

My suggestion is to either include it in a an article about LGBT on the international scene, or, if you pull together enough sources, you might consider a separate article, but that might prove trickier. Also, don't forget the Estonian and Russian language Wikis.

Good luck! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tony Anselmo

Howdy. You approved this edit on the Tony Anselmo article and I was a little concerned. This is the very REASON that the protection was placed. Despite constant notes from myself and WMF staff that the subject has confirmed otherwise (not only by phone conversations with both of us through OTRS but also with passport evidence ;) )it is constantly being changed back by IPs.

While obviously you can not be expected to know the entire history while looking at a diff (you can see many of the notes in the history obviously) I would expect that a large change in the birthdate and the removal of a note explicitly talking about problems with the birthdate would set off warning flags. I know that you approve more Pending Changes then any other reviewer (by far) but if this is how the changes are being approved I'm very concerned :/. I've now placed the article on indefinite semi-protection instead. James (T C) 18:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I can hear your frustration, but let me assure you that I took the time to check then and now. My note was then and is now the only note on the talk page (plus your response). I don't even see a reference to an archive, which hardly seems fair to be chided for notes that should be there but aren't (while missing my note).

To be clear, here is the entire Talk page log:

* (cur | prev) 00:22, 29 July 2010 Jamesofur (talk | contribs) (1,766 bytes) (→Another birthday update?:  rsp) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 06:48, 28 July 2010 UnicornTapestry (talk | contribs) (558 bytes) (→Another birthday update?: new section) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 02:04, 1 April 2010 ListasBot (talk | contribs) (101 bytes) (Applied fixes to WPBiography template. Did I get it wrong?) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 21:27, 26 September 2007 Katharineamy (talk | contribs) (112 bytes) (Adding listas parameter; removing auto=yes) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 12:00, 19 April 2007 MartinBotIII (talk | contribs) (100 bytes) (Bot (FAQ) (Plugin) Tag Category:Entertainer stubs. class=Stub, auto=yes, a&e-work-group=yes, a&e-work-group→filmbio-work-group.) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 18:51, 17 April 2007 MartinBotIII (talk | contribs) (86 bytes) (Bot (FAQ) (Plugin) Tag Category:Filmmakers. filmbio-work-group=yes.) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 22:00, 8 October 2006 PAK Man (talk | contribs) m (61 bytes) (Deleted Pokemon Collaborative Project; He never worked on Pokemon) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 10:06, 24 August 2006 Kingbotk (talk | contribs) (69 bytes) (Tag with WPBiography for WP1.0 assessments/Living persons bio) (undo)
* (cur | prev) 22:57, 5 June 2006 Wisden17 (talk | contribs) (22 bytes) (Pokémon Collaborative Project using AWB)

Nothing showed on the talk page and history pages aren't particularly useful since we don't know who's right and who's wrong and we have to make a binary decision… approve or disapprove. A reviewer has no don't know button.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I somehow didn't see your note about this on the talk page. I also responded there but that just makes it worse you should have seen the history notes then ;) James (T C) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tone down the aggression– I'm on the side of truth, justice, and safe sex. While you express concern that I approved one sourced update of an article without notes to the contrary (as above), others complain that I rolled back their uncited updates about their favorite football player (or whatever). It's pretty much thankless. Subtitles are not always obvious from the reviewer's screen, but I went beyond that to check the Talk page which, as noted above, was empty. It's still possible a review might not check the talk page, but this one did, which raises the question:

          Why isn't there a permanent note on the talk page?

Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. I wanted to point out that in terms of how a page is rendered, it makes no difference whether there's a blank line after a section title or not, but when you add a blank line when you're editing, the paragraphs become unaligned in the diff, making it almost impossible to see what changes you have made to the paragraph. (Since they're now unaligned, the entire graf is marked in red, rather than the changes you made.) My suggestion is that when you're doing a bunch of copyediting, you not add the blank lines so that your alterations will be easier to see in the diff. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it throws off the following paragraph. My intent is to open a bit of white space, which makes separating entities easier, particularly when editing a full page or when dealing with a combination of heading-graphic-paragraph jammed together. White space makes a difference for the vision impaired, which I can personally attest. Of course we've seen the opposite, where another editor strips out as much white space as possible.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand the desire to use whitespace creatively, as opposed to deleting it robotically as some editors do – I'm of that school (the creative use school, that is) as well. Perhaps the thing to do when you plan on working extensively on an article is to make the separation edits, adding blank lines after section titles, first, in an initial edit, and then do the substantive edits. That way the diff for the substantive work will show them compared to the re-aligned paragraph, and the changes will be apparent. Of course, when I edit I don't always know I'm going to get sucked into making substantial changes, so what I'm proposing is kind of an ideal to be used whenever it's possible, not a hard-and-fast rule.

Anyway, it's an idea. Thanks for the comeback. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

{out} I wanted to let you know that I reverted a part of your last edit to Flapper, the part where you made "Further reading" into a hierarchical section. I may be a bit ahead of the curve here, but I think that we have a general problem about what they call in publishing the "back of the book". We put all this nuts-and-bolts information – see also, notes, bibliography, further reading and external links into seperate individual hierarchical sections – to the point that on many articles, especially short ones, the table of contents is overwhelmed by these secondary entries. If I had my druthers, all of those sections would be included in one big "back of the book" section (of course, it couldn't be called that), but that's something which some editors have tried and met with resistance. But all the actual reference sections: notes and bibliography, as well as further reading, (which is a essentially a bibliography by another name, since our articles are never finished products, but continually evolve, so the books listed in further reading lists are sources for future editing) should be combined together into a "reference" section, and the divisions slugged with ";" rather then put into hierarchical sections using "=" levels. I do this as a general thing, and it's mostly met with good response, or at least wide-spread acquiesence. I don't generally revert when folks object and go with MOS-standard layout, but I thought since we had had the above prior discussion, I would take a chance and revert, and explain why I did. If you feel strongly that it should be the other way, please go ahead and change it, I won't revert again, but I thought you might be open to this evolutionary change which I think is useful and helps to create a cleaner, sleeker and less clunky layout (one of my concerns). Thanks for taking this into consideration. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. That was the first or second time I encountered that form and I'm open to it. It's not like you're removing hierarchy, but organising within that framework.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your openness to new possibilities, something that I wish was more widespread hereabouts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

English Mastiff

Hi UnicornTapestry, I need help,someone needs to stop this unreasonable changes on English Mastiff article. This record part either should removed or clearly and fairly mention the records. I have both dogs and am fair enough, original text about Benedictine already says it is a claim and moreover it is recorder at December 17, 1970. Even this record valid and I know it is in some books since I don't have the soruce, am okay to keep it just as a claim. However, Collieuk's modifications are not fair and trying to show this claim is a lie which is not acceptable. I respect him and can see he is from England originally but this is not about it, it is about being fair. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastiffkennel (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I had an uncomfortable feeling I stumbled into something not quite right. I read the extensive notes on the talk page. While I'm not qualified to judge mastiffs, I can tell when someone steps off the path.

I left a comment on the talk page suggesting how the parties might compromise. Be sure to be logged on and sign your comments to make it easier to tell who is commenting.

Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello UniformTapestry. You left a message on my talk page, "Good morning! In the spirit of not agitating the waters, I rolled back your most recent edit, marking it 'in good faith', because (a) the talk page hadn't been updated and (b) it wasn't clear if you intended to reedit the original, which I believe you contributed to. Mind that I'm not disagreeing, but seeking an equitable solution.", which was apparently not meant for me, because that edit wasn't mine, but I must say that the solution of the user who simply deleted the whole Benedictine section has some appeal to me, as indeed it has nothing directly to do with the Mastiff breed. It was included and expanded by others, and rather than delete it, I have been minded to retain it in a more (in my view) acceptable way. I regret that Mastiffkennel feels I have been unfair, and I certainly have not implied that he or she has lied, nor that any of the authors of the references cited have lied, but only that they are tertiary sources which do not have a locatable primary or indeed secondary source. I have searched for such a source and found the website of the kennel that bred and owned the dog that seems to be the one referred to, but the weight recorded is not the one being promulgated. For comments on your proposed compromise, see the article's talk page.Collieuk (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wisden 100

This edit that you accepted was vandalism, please take more care. --JP (Talk) 09:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can a reviewer possibly identify vandalism in a ten-year-old Australian cricket match with India by distinguishing two numbers 249.8 and 234.8?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a blue link at the bottom of the table which leads to data. --JP (Talk) 10:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPS - A small edit to a statistical figure is hardly WP:VANDALISM - Hi, yes, these small detail are something that is an issue with pending, I have a few footballers on my watchlist that are protected by pending and it gets messy on a Saturday (match day). I have found myself accepting a goal increase wrongly but after some time I accepted that a couple of them on a Sat maybe accepted false but it was better to accept than let the reviews build up. Then at the end an informed user came and tweaked the figures up. This had still allowed the users to do what they would have done if the article was unprotected but at least allows the unconfirmed users the chance to contribute over the whole week and at football articles they get a lot of positive additions from unconfirmed users. So such minor stat discrepancies for small amounts of time on a match day are worth the advantages. I support Unicorn in this review and have found such accepting to be required. If an article is well watched be reviewers then it may not be required to accept with a question in your mind, but at some articles I have watched in football, the only users that actually knew the correction were unconfirmed users, so this is not really an issue that Unicorn has done anything wrong and I suggest he continues in a similar manner if a review of such a minor alteration is needed as they build up or have been sitting for a little while. I was going to raise this issue at the pending discussion board, if someone wants to do that I will add my thoughts there, but as a new interface is expected soon I also thought just to wait and see that. If a user like JP has a lot of knowledge about that article, it and it is under pending protection it would be a benefit to him to ask for reviewer status and then he can help review the edits himself. Off2riorob (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to have any knowledge of the subject, a number series goes 236.8, 234.8, 234.2 and the middle number gets changed by an IP to 249.8, doesn't common sense kick in? Looking at the article history other reviewers have been able to find the link and check edits so is it really that difficult? --JP (Talk) 10:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if you feel strongly about the article and it is under pending protection, rather than complain about a reviewers good faith acceptance of a minor statistical number .. Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer is thatta way. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

To ask for UnicornTapestry's reviewer right to be removed? --JP (Talk) 11:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI? a community review would be required as I dispute it and support him in his review. You know I will support him and for such an acceptance, the reviewer guidelines support his actions completely as far as I can see, rather that attempt that, take responsibility yourself and get your own permission. Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I was temporarily stunned into speechlessness.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, sadly or strangely , I am not sure, he appears to have retired, I expect he will think on it and return. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Jasmine Villegas

Hi UnicornTapestry. I wanted to let you know that you accepted a revision on Jasmine Villegas that I don't think should have been accepted. Per Wikipedia:Patrolled revisions, edits such as vandalism and patent nonsense are expected to be caught by patrollers. In this case, the user added a test edit which amounted to nonsense, as it was meaningless markup with placeholder images.

I'm not sure if this was just a mistake on your part or if you are interpreting the patrolling guidelines differently than I am. If it was just a mistake, please try to be more careful with your patrolling. If, on the other hand, you believe your action was within the patrolling guidelines, might I suggest you or I bring the issue up on Wikipedia talk:Patrolled revisions or Wikipedia:Reviewing to try to get some clarification? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I did accept the edit and annotated it asking if there was more to come, and monitored the update (which has since been rolled back). My thought was (a) the user may have been taken the fist step to add a graphic or other media and (b) it did not look like vandalism, so I intended to monitor it to see what happened. Upon occasion, I've been in the midst of partial edits only to have someone revert changes before I was finished, which is very frustrating. While they should have used a sandbox if experimenting, I didn't want to penalize a new or naïve user if they were trying to accomplish something positive.

So no, it was not a mistake, but a watch-and-see what the user was trying to do. Unfortunately, there's not a good way to let others know what the reviewer is thinking.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense. Thanks for explaining. That does seem to be a lack in the patrolled revisions implementation, now that I'm looking for your annotation. I saw the change on my watchlist (which has no indication of patroller comments) and then rolled it back from the article history (ditto). Annotations don't do much good when people looking at history and watchlist can't see them! Do you know where they are shown? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I regret I don't have any idea where the notes are kept, which is frustrating. I'm referring to the box next to the Accept/Unaccept buttons, and while I don't often annotate acceptances, I made a particular effort to in this case since I wondered about an incomplete edit. Unfortunately, I have no clue where those notes end up. If you learn anything, please let me know.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Hunyadi

The reference ("Zoltán Bodolai, Hungarica: a chronicle of events and personalities from the Hungarian past, Hungaria, 1983" and "Anthony Endrey, Hungarian History: From 1301 to 1686, Hungarian Institute, 1980") were not removed, but were moved to their proper paragraph, alongside the rest of the modern references arguing for a Hungarian origin. Moreover, my revert was also justified because user Fakibakir introduced a statement completely unsourced - Her nationality was Hungarian, however her ethnicity was probably Romanian or Hungarian. It is also superfluous, considering that the article already says that some modern sources label Elisabeth as "Hungarian". SISPCM (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I could see you were earnestly working away, but didn't understand why you deleted references. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

I reverted your recent edit. Much of the material seemed relevant, but as far as I can make out, Whoopi Goldberg is in the cast, but not Oprah.

best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your references to Whoopi or Oprah, as I did not change anything in the cast. What I did change was the plot synopsis regarding Lotso's fate at the end of the movie (seen it three times, including last night), and the claim that Lotso was tossed into the flames is blatantly false. He was found by Sid, who grew up to be a refuse collector. Sid strapped Lotso to the front of his garbage truck, where one of the other plush toys already "rescued" there advised Lotso to keep his mouth closed (to avoid getting the landfill's flies in his mouth while the truck was in motion). The truck drove off, and that was the last we saw of him. I'm not going to change it back, though. Do what you want. Fjbfour (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen this happen before, but I dug into the history and you're right. It appears IP 98.93.52.245 made the Oprah change, but by the time I brought the article up for review, you'd made additional changes. I reverted Oprah, but it also reverted your (subsequent) change and brought up your talk page for me to comment.

At the time I thought it was odd since I noticed you were granted reviewer status, but I hadn't realised your edit came after the questionable Oprah insertion. As a reviewer, you'd expect to see the previous needed approval, but it's possible your edit commenced as he finished his, leaving his (or yours) in limbo.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken revert

Careful when doing vandalism reversion. :-) Recognizance (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ach! I didn't realise you'd come in between. Sorry!

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

kudos on SJ work

Good stuff, man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.6.169 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have some questions about the structure in TALK. Please give it a think and give me your take. I won't mess with it for now. Want to brush up the competitive hsotry section first (content, copy), as higher priority.72.82.33.250 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Left a comment. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

John S. Pistole

You approved an edit of mine on the Pistole article, e. fokker thinks it's vandalism as she asserts w/o proof that my reference is a fake interview, can you tell me who is is administratively above her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.108.210 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Look for a list of bureaucrats. You can officially challenge an edit, although I've never done it and am not familiar with the process.

After considering her reasoning, I couldn't find another hard news source (except redactednews.com), only mention on blogs and opinion pieces. She may well be right that it's satirical, although very well done with a high degree of verisimilitude. You can post it on the article's talk page, which will let others look at it. (Generally items on the talk page won't be deleted unless offensive.)

I know you're ticked right now and you did not intend vandalism. I don't want to guess what she had in mind; if she misspoke, that's unfair to you. If I can advise, roll with this one. Post it on the discussion page and see what happens. Don't let this discourage you.

kind regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)