User talk:City of Silver/Archive 5

Tyson Fury

Please edit the wiki page as he states he is Irish and not British and fights under the Irish Flag. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmHjEeD-P78 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKsQm-ZvC-U — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1807 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit I didn't watch the first video because it's almost seven minutes long. In the second video, at 0:22, Watson says that Fury "was born in England," verifying the article's claim that he is British. It's worth pointing out that the article stresses that he is both British and Irish. His Irish ancestry is not denied at all. It's just that if he was born in England, and he was, he is considered British whether he considers himself British or not. CityOfSilver 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For that matter, have you ever edited Wikipedia before with a different username than this one? CityOfSilver 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

00.48 states that he fights under the Irish flag. 1.37 the man in question states that he is Irish and he has the documents to prove it. Please amend this wiki page accordingly.

Thanks, JC1807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1807 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please amend as requested due to the new facts that can be referenced. jc1807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc1807 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate username

My username wasn't intended to me inappropriate, it's just a username I use on all websites. The first time I used the phrase "jizzyjugs" was in the creation of my weather site, jizzyjugs.com. Sorry for the confusion.

15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC) JizzyJugs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzyjugs (talk • contribs)

Your username is made up of two words. The first word contains a nickname for semen and the second word is a nickname for breasts. I'm not sure how either relates to weather. What does your name mean? CityOfSilver 15:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Conflict of Interest

The possibility for a conflict of interest is present, I agree. I would highly value your reading of the page, and any notes of bias to be discussed. It is not my intention to use Wikipedia to bolster my own image or whitewash my history.

I would appreciate if the page were left up, but welcome additions/deletions. Thanks in advance for your help.

--- KPatrickWV — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPatrickWV (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That the page was created likely creates a WP:COI problem. The question always is, would the page have been created hadn't created it? In your case, I'm not sure, but I don't think so. CityOfSilver 18:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you will not assist in removing clear bias? What is the process for requesting such help if you do not care to offer it? --- KPatrickWV — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPatrickWV (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I would help but I don't have time right now. Your best bet is WP:HELPDESK. CityOfSilver 18:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants

Um, is this where I start a new message, I haven't done this before so I am kind of new here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppyjonathan (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are attempting to contact me, this is the right place, but I am going offline shortly. CityOfSilver 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll try again later tonight --Puppyjonathan (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WWE PPV Events 2013

I have noticed that you reverted my edit for the section with the Upcoming WWE PPV schedule. I edited it, because there hasn't been any confirmation by the WWE for any other PPV events in 2013. So far the only confirmed events in 2013 are Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules and SummerSlam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivaneurope (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, you didn't use an edit summary in either edit. Edit summaries are the best way of explaining what's being done and why. CityOfSilver 18:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piero Scaruffi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Informatics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Robot. I believe I have fixed this issue. CityOfSilver 19:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

I think you change is opinion-ish. Definition of Dictonary.com and historical origin (all other sources) of the word clarifies the meaning of the world bureaucracy. Administration is the proper word for good functioning of the part of the society. Administration is a service for the rest of the society i.e. applies the rules created by democratically elected legislature - the democratic government. Democratic government is also not the ruler but only representative of the people (demos) - it should proceed for the good of all people. Any kind of government which do not care about good of all people is non-democratic usurper and should expect to be exchange in next election or in worst condition by revolution. The ruler in democratic society are demos (the people as whole). They govern directly by referendums or by the representatives in parliament. Bureaucrat who "implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of their institution" (much older insert definition) means the people provide/support their institution not the society. That bad!!!! habit. Please change the article to the logic and historic origin of the word, or allow me to do so without the editors’ combat. There are seems to be many people who like to erase the true meaning of the word ‘bureaucracy’ God knows for what reason. Maybe by their personal feeling or believing that their beloved ‘scientist’ has the rights to change the meaning of word –kratos . The other option is to use ‘new speech’ for misleading the society, to usurp some power or significance of their own ‘class’. I hope you are not any of this but truthful scientific editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.138.154 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There's really not much I can say but that I stand by my edit. CityOfSilver 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stipe Miocic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valley View (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Right again, Mr. Robot. Fixed. CityOfSilver 23:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed my link from fingerboard (skateboard).

Hey,

You recently removed my link from the fingerboard (skateboard) section. This website is an official fingerboard news website sponsored by many fingerboard companies such as Blackriver. This was a misunderstanding. Thank you,

Matejuks (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Szymon

It reads like an attempt at promotion. That it's sponsored by companies isn't really relevant. Please read WP:LINKSPAM. CityOfSilver 20:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Todd Gordon

Hi, I cannot understand what I am doing wrong. I only took the existing version (that is being displayed now), improved it for style, took out promotional quotes, and I believe it now reflects the singer well in a non-promotionial manner.

at any rate reverting to the old version --> more commercial article, not adhering to style of musician details. what's the sense in this? the new article is improved in terms of "less promotion" and adheres to the lines of the stule

could you please give me an example of a text that should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyrab (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for the time it took me to reply. I forgot to switch the box at the top of this page to "offline" the other day.

As for your concerns, I tried to cram as many as I could into the edit summary here. The first paragraph, according to WP:LEAD, "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." A quote complimenting Gordon reads like spam and the lead paragraph definitely should not contain one, let alone be entirely comprised of just that quote. The references section is not like references on a résumé; it's for sources. It should contain something like {{reflist}} and nothing else. I don't see how those quotes that were included in the reference section are appropriate at all. Use of nicknames like "Ol' Blue Eyes" is not keeping the article in an encyclopedic tone and should never happen unless the person is best known by the nickname, which Sinatra is not. Also, outside of the very first mention of the person and near mentions of other people with the same last name, using someone's surname is not in keeping with an encyclopedic tone unless the person is best known by his first name. There is no indication Todd Gordon is better known as "Todd" than "Gordon" so the word "Todd" should be used sparingly.

That's most of what I could find. Let me know if you have any other concerns and I'll try to address them faster. CityOfSilver 23:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Josip Kuže

He's a Croat and not Serbian Croat and was just born in Vranje. Compare to Boro Cvetković which also has Cyrillic name written as a Croatian Serb born in Karlovac.203.25.149.10 (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. In the future, please use edit summaries so there's no reason to doubt your actions. CityOfSilver 19:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance, I was about to undo my correction.

Apparently I didn't read the section closely enough. I misunderstood "Differences from the works of Barrie" and interpreted it as 'Differences from the (other) works of (Barry)'. I realized my error almost immediately, but you beat me to my own re-correction.

Thank you for your vigilance, keep up the good work.

JD

Johnny banzai (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for editing. CityOfSilver 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series)

apologies (walking dead), BUT most people who watch the show can tell ya Melissa McBride and Scott Wilson are main characters.

I meant well. I was using what I knew but backing it up with IMDB, but seriously the producers use the opening credits as a "device." Just thought i was contributing. apologies. 50.26.136.217 (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. The main issue with IMDb is that much of its content is user-generated and apparently not fact-checked, except by users. Thank you for your efforts. CityOfSilver 18:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's odd

STiki noted that you were an established user, and told me not to make the edit. I did so... it's odd that my revert shows up then. Regardless, that's still odd - I'll revert it. Thanks for letting me know. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 21:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. CityOfSilver 01:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits

You've been labeling most of your edits "minor". As explained at Help:Minor edit, "a check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions" and a "a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

To cite recent examples, content disputes and deletion declinations are not "minor".

To be clear, I'm not criticising the edits themselves or the underlying rationales. They simply aren't "minor" (as defined at Wikipedia). Please apply that label only when an edit fits the description provided at Help:Minor edit. Thank you. —David Levy 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason that doesn't blatantly violate WP:TLDR is, simply, that the edit must be "Major" with a capital "M" to avoid getting marked as minor, and the three examples you listed were not, based on my reading of WP:MINOR, major. They were uncontroversial, they added (or subtracted) little, and, with one since-reverted accidental exception, they have not been undone.

As for the TLDR version, the first edit was a removal of 117 bytes of information, claims that likely would not withstand scrutiny from any established editor. Indeed, there's a section on this very page that has the editor I reverted agreeing with me, fulfilling WP:MINOR's requirement that the edit in question "could never be the subject of a dispute." The second was a blatant WP:CENSOR vio that, again, would not withstand scrutiny. It restored 1 byte of information. The third edit was as you described it and nothing more, a removal of a template that hasn't been restored. Assuming the nominator saw my edit summary, which is likely, there is no dispute.

I assume there's a reason that certain edits are marked in histories in bold, even though I've not learned what it is. It stands to reason, though, that certain edits are bold and certain edits are not because bold edits are removing, restoring, or adding a lot of content. If it's not bold, which is the case for a majority of my edits, it's not consequential enough to be considered a major edit. In sum and again, if it's not "major," it gets marked with a little "m."

And slightly off-topic but maybe not...If I'd been forced to guess, I would have guessed that my edit to the Sandy Hook shooting article was what set off an alarm for you, since it actually changed prominent content on a volatile article. But I still can't see how that edit, which you reverted with the odd reasons "not a minor edit" and "Significantly increased the column's width without conveying any additional information," could be considered major. You might even have unconsciously agreed that the edit was minor since you didn't address my reasoning for it ("Kind of goes along with the grouping of the other victims, even if her group consists of one person"), instead using your edit summary to focus on something that didn't summarize your edit at all (that it was marked as minor) and on something that wasn't a problem for my Firefox browser or, apparently, anybody else's in the 24 hours the edit stood.

I suppose I can continue to double check edits; I have, believe it or not, changed minor assignations after further review before. But I disagree on four out of four edits mentioned here, and unless I have a reason to fear sanctions of any sort, I probably won't be doing things very much differently based on this. CityOfSilver 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The reason that doesn't blatantly violate WP:TLDR is, simply, that the edit must be "Major" with a capital "M" to avoid getting marked as minor, and the three examples you listed were not, based on my reading of WP:MINOR, major.

As noted above, Wikipedia has a very specific definition of "minor edit", which is not "any edit that isn't major".

They were uncontroversial, they added (or subtracted) little, and, with one since-reverted accidental exception, they have not been undone.

The edits in question reflected disagreement with other editors and reverted good-faith changes that they made, so it obviously isn't true that they "could never be the subject of a dispute". Whether they were the subjects of disputes after your edits were made (which you had no way of knowing) is immaterial.

As for the TLDR version, the first edit was a removal of 117 bytes of information, claims that likely would not withstand scrutiny from any established editor.

That would be relevant if I were criticising the edit itself (which I'm not). But it was the removal of 117 bytes of content contributed in good faith. By labeling your edit "minor", you indicated that no such scrutiny could reasonably be regarded as necessary.

Indeed, there's a section on this very page that has the editor I reverted agreeing with me, fulfilling WP:MINOR's requirement that the edit in question "could never be the subject of a dispute."

The fact that it wasn't the subject of further dispute (which you had no way of knowing at the time) doesn't mean that it "could never be".

The "minor edit" checkbox is for things along the lines of typo corrections, template repairs and clarifications to talk page messages that don't alter their meaning. It isn't for material changes to article content or anything that another editor contests in good faith.

The second was a blatant WP:CENSOR vio that, again, would not withstand scrutiny.

Agreed. Again, I'm not criticising the edits themselves. But the other user, while editing in a manner inconsistent with policy, appeared to be acting in good faith. The censorship attempt wasn't tantamount to vandalism and shouldn't have been treated as such.

It's interesting that you've cited WP:DTTR. I don't agree that it's inherently inappropriate to communicate with regular editors via templates, but I recognize that doing so sometimes causes offense (depending on the template's message). Mislabeling reversions "minor" can have a similar effect. Editors (more likely to be newcomers) see their good-faith contributions undone, with notations indicating that this is inconsequential and needn't be given a second thought. It makes them feel unwelcome.

Of course, this assumes that the editor notices the reversion. Because minor edits "[require] no review", some users hide them, so they might not even realize that someone undid their work.

It restored 1 byte of information.

It was a content dispute. The "minor edit" checkbox unequivocally isn't intended for use in content disputes. Who was right doesn't matter.

The third edit was as you described it and nothing more, a removal of a template that hasn't been restored.

Again, that's irrelevant. Someone wanted the article to be deleted. Declining this request wasn't "minor". It reflected fundamental disagreement regarding the proper course of action.

Assuming the nominator saw my edit summary, which is likely, there is no dispute.

As noted above, you shouldn't assume that the nominator saw your edit summary. (By labeling the edit "minor", you conveyed that your action required no review.) And even if he/she did, that doesn't mean that there's been no dispute. You disputed the assertion that the article was a speedy deletion candidate, and the nominator might disagree but not wish to pursue the matter at this time.

I assume there's a reason that certain edits are marked in histories in bold, even though I've not learned what it is.

Please see Wikipedia:Added or removed characters.

It stands to reason, though, that certain edits are bold and certain edits are not because bold edits are removing, restoring, or adding a lot of content. If it's not bold, which is the case for a majority of my edits, it's not consequential enough to be considered a major edit. In sum and again, if it's not "major," it gets marked with a little "m."

Again, that isn't what the notation means. It means that the edit is so inconsequential that others needn't pay attention to it (because no one acting in good faith would object).

One can dramatically alter a statement's meaning by replacing a single word.

And slightly off-topic but maybe not...If I'd been forced to guess, I would have guessed that my edit to the Sandy Hook shooting article was what set off an alarm for you, since it actually changed prominent content on a volatile article.

Yes, that's what led me to examine your contribution history.

But I still can't see how that edit, which you reverted with the odd reasons "not a minor edit" and "Significantly increased the column's width without conveying any additional information," could be considered major.

You need to stop categorizing all edits as either "minor" or "major". At Wikipedia, "minor edit" has a specific meaning. You made a substantial (albeit not Earth-shattering) modification (and as you've noticed, I disputed it).

You might even have unconsciously agreed that the edit was minor since you didn't address my reasoning for it ("Kind of goes along with the grouping of the other victims, even if her group consists of one person"),

I don't disagree that it "kind of [went] along with the grouping of the other victims". I believe that this is an inadequate rationale (for the reasons cited in my edit summary).

instead using your edit summary to focus on something that didn't summarize your edit at all (that it was marked as minor)

That was an aside.

and on something that wasn't a problem for my Firefox browser or, apparently, anybody else's in the 24 hours the edit stood.

I don't assert that your change broke anything. It simply wasted space (more problematic for users with low screen resolutions, large text sizes, and or small browser windows) without improving the information's presentation. (Of course, I don't seek to impose my judgement without review. Note that I didn't label my reversion "minor".)

I suppose I can continue to double check edits; I have, believe it or not, changed minor assignations after further review before.

I'd sincerely appreciate greater care and consideration. Please err on the side of not labeling edits "minor".

But I disagree on four out of four edits mentioned here,

You disagree that the edit that I disputed "could [ever] be the subject of a dispute"?

and unless I have a reason to fear sanctions of any sort, I probably won't be doing things very much differently based on this.

I don't know whether you stand to receive sanctions. That certainly isn't my goal, and I'm not here to make threats. I would hope that you'd want to address others' concerns for the sake of collegiality, not merely to avoid getting in trouble. —David Levy 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)