User talk:Gestrid/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT COUPLES

HOW THE HELL IS IT DISRUPTIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonniewheelerbronnie (talk • contribs) 22:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bonniewheelerbronnie: You keep adding that couples thing after multiple people have told you to stop. That is considered disruptive. Please read our consensus policy. -- Gestrid (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

But I like couples what is so bad about it? I don't undertstand. It's not like it's inappropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonniewheelerbronnie (talk • contribs) 22:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And you guys deleting what I have to say is disruptive to. So there stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonniewheelerbronnie (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bonniewheelerbronnie: We follow policies here. We're just following the rules. Also, your addition is unsourced. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bonniewheelerbronnie: We also have a policy called the Three-Revert Rule, which you just ran over with a sixteen-wheeler. (Although, I do realize you weren't warned about that policy.) Seeing as how you've been indefinitely blocked, we can continue this on your talk page if you want to. It's currently the only page you can edit. (Just a warning that an administrator can turn that ability off, too, if the need arises.) -- Gestrid (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks

Hi gestrid. thanks. i thought that i had and certainly meant to sign my post. i meant no disrespect. ~ jed Jedherman 05:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedherman (talk • contribs)

It's ok. A lot of new editors make the mistake. By the way, your signature appears to be broken. Can you please go to Special:Preferences and, under "Signature" on the first tab, make sure "Treat the above as wiki markup" is unchecked? That should fix your signature. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Jedherman, I suggest you try out our tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure. It's an admittedly cheesy way to learn about the tools we have available to edit Wikipedia. Click the link above to get started. Note that it takes about an hour, so make sure you set aside enough time to do it in one sitting. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been an editor since 2008! I've tried to understand I promise. I tried to fix my signature and my user page. I have no clue if I was successful. Thanks again Jed Herman (talk) 06:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jedherman: You were successful. It's working now. Also, I still suggest you try The Wikipedia Adventure if you haven't already. I've been here for about five years and still learned some new things about editing. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, alright, since you've been so kind;-) Thank you again. Jed Herman (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

• News and notes: Focus on India—WikiConference produces new apps; state government adopts free licenses

• Special report: Engaging diverse communities to profile women of Antarctica

• In the media: The ugly, the bad, the playful, and the promising

• Featured content: Simply the best ... from the last two weeks

• Traffic report: Olympic views

• Technology report: User script report (January–July 2016, part 2)

• Arbitration report: The Michael Hardy case

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Identifying admins

Just an FYI: I saw that ThePlatypusofDoom had provided the link to Special:ListUsers to identify admins. Alternately, you can add a script to your personal common.js page that will automatically highlight admin signatures - although some people find those highlights to be distracting, and if someone uses highlighting in their custom signature, it can result in some confusion. Documentation can be found at User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Barek. That'll help with identifying admins. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

• News and notes: AffCom still grappling with WMF Board's criteria for new chapters

• Special report: Olympics readership depended on language

• In the media: Librarians, Wikipedians, and a library of Wikipedia coverage

• WikiProject report: Watching Wikipedia

• Featured content: Entertainment, sport, and something else in-between

• Traffic report: From Phelps to Bolt to Reddit

• Technology report: Wikimedia mobile sites now don't load images if the user doesn't see them

• Recent research: Ethics of machine-created articles and fighting vandalism

• Blog: Upload of free photos from Swiss library underway

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Widr! -- Gestrid (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your response to my Teahouse questions. Got it. KIRTIS (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Draft Space

Hey. You recently moved my article Hannah Stocking to draft. How do I moved it to article space in the future when I'm done with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willybeez (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Willybeez}. The way to move pages and their associated talk pages is simple. If you look in the upper-right hand corner of Wikipedia's website, you should see a menu near the search bar that says "More". Click on it, and, by default, the only option available is "Move". Click it, fill out the form, and click "Move". There are some special things about moving that you should know about. For one, if you were to move a page from article space to draft space (like I just did with your article), you would just select "Draft" from the dropdown and would not change the title itself to read "Draft:ARTICLE NAME". After the move, that would produce "Draft:Draft:ARTICLE NAME". Also, if you create "Draft talk:Hannah Stocking", the talk page for the draft, you'll be given an additional option to "Move associated talk page" (or something like that). You should always check that box.

Alternatively, you can always ask a more experienced editor to do the move for you.

Also, I'd like to let you know that I've also requested speedy deletion (see WP:R2) of the redirect my moving the page created, so, by the time your article is ready, you should be able to move the page back to its original name.

I hope that wasn't too complicated for you.

-- Gestrid (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Please re-visit Alzheimer's Society of Ireland that you tagged for Speedy Deletion (notability) - there are three independent references added (from the Irish Government Health Authority, The Irish Revenue Service and the Irish Times newspaper) and compare with article on similar charity Irish Cancer Society a long standing article with less independent references Xyzspaniel (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe only an administrator can remove that tag. Anyone can nominate a page for speedy deletion, but only admins can accept or decline one. You'll just have to wait for an administrator to remove it, Xyzspaniel. -- Gestrid (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and removed the A7 speedy delete tag. I won't make any judgements on the notability of the topic, but enough of a credible claim for significance is made for it to not be eligible for speedy deletion.--Slon02 (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gestrid and admin Slon02 I hope to add more including their logo (when I get their permission to do so) in the next few days - With an aging population in Ireland dementia is a much mentioned subject in these parts, especially now as it's close to the governments annual budget speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzspaniel (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Akira Film 2016

Hi Gestrid - yes you did make a mistake by deleting the addition done to Akira Film 2016 . in fact the said blog post has been trending on the internet with regards to the success of the film . I have reposted it. Hope you do not delete it now :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahuldeo26 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rahuldeo26. First of all, when you reply here, please read the stuff in the yellow box at the top before doing so.

Second, I did undo your edit a second time just now because external links of that sort do not belong in the reference section. (One of the now three times you've been reverted was by a bot.)

Third, please read WP:3RR before adding that again.

-- Gestrid (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Boj

I would like to say that my edits to Boj (TV series) are by no means nonconstructive. I am simply adding more information about the characters. 47.152.93.124 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit on the High Desert Mavericks Page

Do I need a citation since I took the photo's and witnessed the historic events first hand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiepedia (talk • contribs) 06:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, Zombiepedia because that's original research. Also, next time, please follow the instructions in the big yellow box at the top of the page when you're adding a comment here. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Veppanatham

Hello Gestrid. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Veppanatham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the articles are about two different villages in different districts. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 07:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Yeah, I saw their contested deletion. The reason I tagged the article is because, when I saw they had edited Chinna Veppanatham to look similar to the article they later created, I believed they were about the same topic. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

JT LeRoy

• JT LeRoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Gestrid. I've applied one week of full protection per your suggestion at WP:RFPP. If you have ideas for improving the article, it would help if you would make them known at Talk:JT LeRoy. In particular, I've been uncertain whether User:NVG13DAO and User:Msturm 8 are working in good faith. User:Aloha27 has been reverting NVG13DAO for making uncited changes. There are also suggestions that Msturm 8 might be trying to "shamelessly promote their own film and to defame the entry subject". Since I'm not familiar with the topic I don't know how to judge these claims. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: To be honest, I don't have any involvement at that page. One of the editors (Msturm 8) in the content dispute posted at the Teahouse asking for help to stop another editor from removing what they were putting in. Others there told both editors (NVG13DAO came to the Teahouse to reply and accuse Msturm 8 of suckpuppetry) to stop edit-warring and to settle it on the article talk page. I took a look at the article and saw that there were at least three editors edit-warring, and one of them was auto-confirmed, so I requested full protection to force them to go to the talk page to discuss it. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:Thanks for letting me know this thread exists here. I appreciate being included. As I see/understand it, User:Msturm 8 has made a few good-faith, cited edits as a newbie editor to the article and has asked for guidance at the teahouse on how to proceed. User:NVG13DAO is vehemently opposed to any edit no matter how well cited or who added it and removes these cited entries (after being warned ad nauseum not to) and replaces them with his/her own uncited version with the latest seen here and the obtuse explanation "... if information awaits a citation, that does not mean information is incorrect."

Unless I have had the five pillars completely wrong for over nine and a half years, that's not how things work around here. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  02:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Aloha27, admins can fully protect pages if they deem it necessary to stop people from edit-warring. See WP:PREFER. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem there. It's all good. I just can't seem to get NVG to realize (yet) that properly cited edits are how things work around here. He/she hasn't answered my COI suspicion or edited the article since my final warning on removal of cited material, although a possible sock may have. Cheers!   Aloha27  talk  02:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion and the support, Aloha27. It's true that I am just learning and didn't know about the thee edits a day. I was getting aggravated that even my cited contributions were getting quickly removed. I'm actually very relieved that there are 'rules' and 'guidelines' that we all can follow. This is a topic that I know very well, and I know unfortunately there is no 'good faith,' and why I was resistant to trying to begin. But people refer to Wikipedia right away as a source, and I do think for the public record it is important. This is my first time attempting to work with Wikipedia, it seemed an undertaking to understand, but the scandal and its' representation here has bothered me. I will continue to contribute cited contributions and try not to revert any of the other editing as I believe that it is the more graceful way to go about this process. Thank you very much. Msturm 8 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Msturm 8, I think the "three edits a day" rule you're referring to is the Three-Revert Rule. You can edit articles more than three times in a day, but you cannot undo an edit, even partially, that someone else has done more than three times in a day. There are some exceptions to the rule, which are listed at the link I've provided for you. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid Thank you for clarifying the "Three-Revert Rule" as opposed to the edit rule. I have a lot of contributions that I would like to make and I have been wary of even beginning. Thank you all again. Msturm 8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, Msturm 8.

Keep in mind that, in general, if you try to edit while obeying the rules (such as making sure to cite material you add), you will generally be welcomed by other users. If an edit you make is undone by another user, be sure to look at their edit summary to see why, and also feel free to ask them on their talk page why they did what they did, just as you have done here. Feel free to ask questions you may have at the Teahouse, and we'll do our best to answer. You can also copy and paste {{help me}} onto your own talk page to get help with something quickly. Also, for now, it's probably best to stay away from the more complicated parts of Wikipedia until you have some more experience.

One more thing: I've left a "pre-recorded" message on your talk page (linked above) with instructions on how to sign your talk page posts correctly. However, if you do forget (as everyone does sometimes), it will eventually be fixed automatically. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Protection of user page

Hi,Gestrid.I want to know that how you protected your user page?I want to do the same for my user page.Rudra 10:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk • contribs)

My userpages aren't protected, Rudra Protap Chackraborty. If they were vandalized, though, they would be. However, pending the outcome of this discussion, you may be able to protect your userpages by yourself in the future. -- Gestrid (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Education Program case study published; and a longtime Wikimedian has made his final edit

• In the media: Wikipedia in the news

• Featured content: Three weeks in the land of featured content

• Arbitration report: Arbcom looking for new checkusers and oversight appointees while another case opens

• Traffic report: From Gene Wilder to JonBenét

• Technology report: Category sorting and template parameters

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)