User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Australian Psychological Society

I was reading your response to Supertitious123 and it doesn't explain why you continue to not allow any edits to this contentious piece of work. The reference to the line "A growing number of Clinical Psychologists have reportedly resigned from, or are planning to resign from, the APS in protest" does not provide any evidence that this is the case. This line has been removed. This line is then follwed by the advertisement that "A new non-profit organization called the Australian Clinical Psychology Association (ACPA) is being formed with the mission "to represent, support, and promote those with accredited post-graduate qualifications in clinical psychology, and advance the standards of the profession, in the best interests of the public and the profession" with a link to its website. This is promoting another organisation and has been removed. In the 3rd paragrpah the sentence "These claims have been strongly refuted by the APS" has been added and is reported in the existing reference. I agree with Supertitious that the title would be more accurate to be titled education and training which reflects the content and is less emotive. In the 2nd paragraph it says that "Many APS members have completed only four years of University education" this incorrect as APS members must complete four years of university education plus two years of supervised training to be eligible for associate membership not full membership. The way it is currently written it implies that APS accepts members with only fours years of university training.Nik50382 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

TFK

Since the edits were not all the same I did not break 3rr. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to all be the same to violate 3RR. It says it right on the page: "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, HelloAnnyong is correct: it doesn't need to be the same edit. Again Walter, you really should research these things. On my part, I apologise for breaking 3RR, the editing was getting out of hand, and that's why I have now gone to the noticeboard, to get it resolved there first. 86.129.199.44 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism revert

I've got no argument with the revert that you made on the ethnocentrism discussion page, but I do have argument with your reason for it. For each of the comments that I'd trimmed, there had been no replies (after weeks/months).--Iavram (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. You're more than welcome to do that on your own talk page if you want, but it's different on article pages. Someone who came by to look at the discussion would only see half of what was said. Read WP:REDACT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDACT wasn't violated. It is a guideline that applies to removing context from a discussion, while all the comments that were removed were superfluous. Although like I said, I'm not arguing the revert, since as you pointed out, it's a discussion page and not a talk page.--Iavram (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

stickK

Ha. I have some subject matter expertise because I wrote about stickK in my book. I happen to know that the current history is somewhat incorrect and so I updated it, citing my book. That's hardly gratuitous advertising for my "article" as you suggested. And I didn't just re-add language. I look the previous feedback seriously and removed the "peacock" language the last reverter complained about. I think you've way over-reached here. I don't understand why. Jdgrimshaw (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)jdgrimshaw

Actually, you should read the conflict of interest guideline. Since you're adding text and citing your own book, we can count you as having a conflict of interest. Really you should wait 'til someone else reads your book or whatever, and then independently decides to add the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Read it. Did you? Here's what it says: "Citing oneself: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." My changes improve the accuracy of the piece. I fixed it once in response to an earlier reverter's useful criticism. How does your reversion promote wikipedia's goals, exactly?Jdgrimshaw (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)jdgrimshaw

We'll continue this at Talk:StickK#Jdgrimshaw's edits. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash have a chat 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, awesome. Thanks, man. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Diane Arkenstone

Hi, I saw you reverted my addition of a Music Reviews section to this article. I was trying to write it with a NPOV. Mainly for readers with interest in Diane Arkenstone's music, that they can read additional reviews of her albums if they wanted to. The reviews could be negative or positive, however, they are just external reference available for readers, should they choose to read further on the subject. I've seen music reviews posted as external links on other articles on Wiki. I just grouped them into a section on this article. Please add this section back. Thanks. Tweebee (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this conversation over to Talk:Diane Arkenstone#Reviews, and left a comment there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ellie Krieger

Thanks for the work on Ellie Krieger. Do you think Amazon.com is a reliable source? I can't believe Food Network doesn't do a better job with her pr. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I was on the fence about that one. It's probably not a reliable source, but if that text came from one of her publishers then perhaps we can find it elsewhere. As to the Food Network thing, it might be because she's not as active on there anymore. I'm not really sure. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. I couldn't find it elsewhere, so I've tagged it for now. Doesn't look like it's verifying anything that's not available elsewhere. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just switched it over to her official bio. It's a primary source, but I'd take that over Amazon. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Epitaph

Why did you revert my edits to this page? If you revert edits that are not vandalism you should explain why you think that removing the edits improves the article. I understand there is discussion of whether notable epitaphs should be on the page at all given that that "notable" is a value judgment. Unless the epitaphs are removed, they should be accurate to the standards of an encyclopedia. Vroo (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I removed it on sourcing grounds - namely that a Thinkquest page is not all that reliable. But now that I'm looking around, I can find a bunch of actually reliable sources to back it up. Still, I'd support the modern English version on the grounds of readability. Just because something is written in a language that isn't English doesn't mean that we don't show it in English. Quotes of Dmitry Medvedev's, for example, aren't written in Russian here - they're written in English. If people want to look up the actual version on the headstone they can do so, but if they're just looking for examples of epitaphs they probably want something written in a language they can actually understand. (And let's not get into the readability of early modern English.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit more, perhaps. If you want to do a pure count of book sources, the modern English version has 813 hits, whereas the early modern English version is about 466 - so the modern one is more common. Moreover, the Wikipedia convention - at least on naming articles - is to "use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article". I'm using that same logic in my judgment above. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I cited that article because it was the best picture of the actual tombstone. Do a google search for "shakespeare tombstone" and you can find lots of other pictures. There's even one in wikimedia but it's much smaller and harder to read. While you're entitled to your opinion that the original English isn't readable enough, Wikipedia MOS says to preserve original spelling. See WP:MOS#Quotations. It also says to change "ye" to "the" so it's a bit conflicted. In any case, I don't think simply reverting the edit without any explanation is appropriate. That's fine for vandalism, but not sincere edits. Also, you marked that as a minor edit and that's an abuse of the concept of minor edits. WP:MINOR Vroo (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The continuing saga of the International Baccalaureate

Hi, thanks for keeping Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY/Archive alive. I can never find the page when I need it, but you're very quick. I guess the article will always be a magnet to that user, but six months is a nice long block, so maybe after this most recent spate of reverts calms down, it can be submitted to WP:GAN again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully it comes out during the GA that the battling was just from a former editor who was banned for being tendentious and disruptive, and who is also evading their block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a problem, and the article definitely is not stable, so I'll wait for a month or more to see what happens before thinking about GAN again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Mausert

dear HA,

Due to your reverts on the Kurt Mausert article, I would appreciate if you communicate with working editors on the Talk page of the article to avoid further disruptive reversals. I have not objection to constructive suggestions from your side and positive work on the article. I in turn will assume good faith. If any of the sources do not comply with the policy [1] please revert, I will be happy to remove material that you consider unduly self serving. Regards, Wikid^as© 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at Talk:Kurt Mausert#Wikidas' edits and sourcing about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

3O request for editorial disagreement on Friedmann equations article

The 3O request that I made is in regard to JRSpriggs handling of my proposed changes to the article on the Friedmann equations. I have proposed numerous amendments to various section of the article over a period of several weeks. All my proposals have been aimed at providing more transparent and emphatic warnings, caveats and cautionary notes regarding the use of the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric to precisely model the behavior of the universe. Spriggs insists that no assumptions are made in this model, no cautions are needed. I say: "BALDERDASH!"

The articles themselves have one short single line entry apiece that acknowledge that the Friedmann model is approximate and that the "precision" in "precision cosmology" comes in when fixes or extensions are spliced into this "standard model". These extensions also require acceptance of more assumptions. But, I think that the articles bury these warnings deep in some rather arcane text and it is surely invisible to certain readers like journalists. Reporters love to hype theories of the accelerating expansion of the universe and dark energy. They get no sense of restraint from Wikipedia. This is what I wish to supply.

Spriggs does not acknowledge that assumptions are made and that the model is approximate. This is incredible! It is a joke! We need 3O to begin a process of reconciliation that may indeed progress all the way to arbitration.

Kentgen1 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Arrested Development

Just saw an edit with your name in it and a little laugh burst out. Nortexoid (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Glad to have brightened your day. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory comments?

Hypothetically speaking, what does one do about 3O's which seem to be less-than-conscientiously rendered? Or, even further, what might be done if there were ever a 3O contributor who frequently gave 3O's that seemed pretty skimpy? BigK HeX (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Weaponbb7's comment on Albert II? That's a good question; there's no structure in place to deal with something like that, so I would say either leave a comment on the user's talk page, or start a thread at WT:3O and we can discuss it there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel comfortable bringing up anybody by name, so I guess I'll leave the matter for now. I hope it's a bridge that doesn't have to be crossed, but I guess we'll see. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		is award to HelloAnnyong for the excellent mediation/3O on Rosary/Chaplet Five Wounds. Thank you. Malke2010 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You guys have been one of the most civil group of editors I've encountered, and you've made this all the easier. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Annyong. I think it is done now because of your smooth manners. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandwich

Hello Annyong, i was just about to add a reference for that because i think there's a semantic issue. As far as i know, a sandwich made with french bread is called a french bread sandwich, or simply a baguette. Also, there is a type of bread called english sandwich bread. As an analogy i'd use coffee, all coffees are coffee, but there's a difference between a white coffee, and an american coffee or an expresso coffee. My intention is only to get to clarify this, because you dont expect to ask for a sandwich and get it made with black german bread made with rice. In Italy they're called paninis, but you wont get a panini with english sandwich bread. In Spain they're called bocadillos and in that country theres a big difference between both, so i guess that the explanation given here does not apply worldwide. By using one word for all types of sandwiches, its a neverending discussion on the subject and its needing clarification. I suggest beginning by differencing a classic sandwich from the others. Rafax (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As I described in the edit summary, a "french bread sandwich" and a "baguette" don't make the rule. In your example, a thing made with black German bread that's made with rice would still be considered a sandwich, not a "black German bread sandwich" or whatever. I'm curious what your source says, but I don't think we should be redefining a sandwich to specify English bread. And we shouldn't be creating rules on naming just based on two examples; that's original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but we have reached the point in where we need clarifying the better the possible. If you take a look a the article automobile, it reads at least 3 different names for the same item, then you have a jeep, a bus and whatever it comes with wheels and you can read the sentence However, the term automobile is far from precise, because there are many types of vehicles that do similar tasks, so the people dont call a bus an automobile because they are supposed to be different things in real life than what they tecnically are. I know that even a hamburger served into a bun would be called a hamburger sandwich but you still would specify that hamburgers are usually served in buns and not in french baguettes. This would be original research as well, as i dont think that there is any valuable reference claiming that a hamburguer can be served into a black german 'riced' bread, but everybody knows that burgers are served in buns. Thanks for your help. Rafax (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Merdith Kercher Documentary

HelloAnnyong made a post shortly after I filed a request for a third opinion. Was that post the third opinion?PhanuelB (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. A 3O is technically only for an issue between two people; there are at least four people active on the page there. Despite that I still left my opinion on the subject there. No one responded to me, so I figured that issue in itself was dealt with. Clearly there are other issues on the page, but there's also a lot of discussion among other editors. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll go up to the next level then. Do you have the text of the complaint?PhanuelB (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You meant, the big diatribe you wrote for the third opinion? First, that text was supposed to be neutral (but it wasn't), so it was neutralized. Second, the "next step up", which is probably WP:RFC, also requires short, neutral and concise text. But I would highly advise you to reconsider your position on the issue. You're arguing against a bunch of editors, one of whom is an administrator. All the other editors have sided against you. Perhaps it's time to let the issue go? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:Reviewing

If you can explain the failure to communicate between myself and the other editors, that would be most appreciated. We have tried doing an example in terms of Editor A and Vandal B. I explained why you can't tell that Vandal B is actually a vandal (unless you go way beyond the scope of reviewing) and was told "look at the edits"... but I had already explained why looking at the edits wouldn't help in this situation. Then a different editor (sorry there was only 2 at the time I made the request) said "there are many reasons not to accept an edit, not only vandalism"... which is going beyond the example we were discussing and doesn't address the issue I had brought up. Yaris678 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, here's an example of the case you're looking at:

• July 15, 2010 23:00 - Vandal B (pending)
• July 15, 2010 22:45 - Editor A (pending)
• July 15, 2010 22:30 - Last good version

And you're asking if, when you look at the 23:00 version, if you should look at the 22:45 version first? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is part of the story. Consider the two different things that Vandal B might have done.

1. If Vandal B has vandalised by adding to the 22:45 version then it is obvious that the 23:00 version should not be accepted. The reviewer can then look at the edit history, see that the 22:45 version is OK, undo the edit by Vandal B and accept the new version. Job done.
2. If Vandal B has vandalised by partially or fully undoing Editor A's contribution then the 23:00 version may look acceptable.

I am interested in case 2. How can a reviewer possibly distinguish between case 2 and a non-vandal who disagrees with Editor A? The only way I can think of is by getting Editor A and Vandal B to explain why they have done what they have done. This may not give a satisfactory answer and is really beyond the scope of reviewing.

This being the case, I am saying that intermediate versions don’t matter if the change from the previous accepted version is acceptable. My aim here is to try to make the step-by-step "how-to" for reviewing multiple edits more efficient.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't a way to look at just the edits without any context, and you're right when you say it's beyond the scope of reviewing. A user would have to look at the edit summaries, article's talk page, or user talk pages to get an idea of what's really going on. Having said that, I'm not sure that the "intermediate versions don't matter if the change from the previous accepted version is acceptable" is actually true, though. Suppose Editor A added some text that was well referenced but was potentially controversial, and Vandal B removed a chunk of it because they disagreed with the text or something (a personal thing, not based on Wiki rules). You wouldn't want to approve Vandal B's edits, but you would probably want to let Editor A's edits through. So there, the intermediate version is important. Or am I misunderstanding? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. If "Vandal" B has removed well referenced information from Editor A based on a personal thing, is that really the sort of thing that a reviewer should get involved in? Surely, the two of them should take it to the talk page. If as a reviewer I accept a version with the new information removed it does not mean I am rejecting the new information. The pending changes feature just controls which version can be shown to non-logged-in users and the reviewer is just saying that it is OK to show the latest version. Yaris678 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. That's a really subjective question and one that I think can't be answered by just a few people; I think some kind of consensus would be needed here. Personally, I would think that a reviewer should not accept the latest version, because it seems to implicitly taking one side or another. And that makes reviewing all the more difficult, but if the alternative is showing a version of the article that is not agreed upon by everyone, then I would prefer to err on the safer side. But now that we've discussed this issue, do you still want me to post on that talk page and explain? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I am so pleased that someone understands what I am saying. If you could explain it on the original talk page I would really appreciate that. I can't think how to summarise what we have been saying... other than just repeating what I have already said there. Yaris678 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've just posted there; take a look and see if I got it right. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I thought it was in decay, anyway here's my take -- I think when one editor chimes in on a content dispute it shouldn't mean another can't as well -- as it is editors are instructed to remove the request for 3O once they go to the article in question, the structure of 3O might benefit from a rethinking IMO, suggest all requests remain open for a set time period, like a week or so? Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed that on 3O several times. My take on it is that 3O is a really lightweight process: two people have an issue, a third gives an opinion, and that's it. Usually there are two ways it goes after that: either both people are amiable enough that they accept the opinion; or one person is rather unhappy and complains elsewhere, to MedCab or RfC or something. Leaving 3O requests open like that would make us roughly the same as RfC, and the only difference would be that RfC requests last longer than 3Os. And the 3O project isn't like that - it's a different format entirely. I'd be opposed to leaving requests open on those grounds. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. RomaC ^TALK 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Eckart Tolle

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for taking the time to give a 3rd Opinion at the Tolle article and for taking additional time to return and explain to my fellow user Gregcalleta (who is a great guy and a good editor) about some of the relevant issues in the discussion of the lead. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Always glad to help out my fellow editors - and in particular, you two who have kept the page so cordial and decent. Seriously well done on that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply from my talkpage

I understand that, but what was odd was they seemed to have said the same thing about articles that didn't have any cover sections. What's wrong with that? Adding cover sections to article? SwisterTwister (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we keep the conversation in one centralized place rather than spreading it out to everyone's talk pages? I'll reply on your talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution at Akins

Since you previously offered an opinion at Akins, I would appreciate it if you could continue to contribute to the discussion. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process relies on editors such as yourself offering their opinions, and any help you can give would be much appreciated. As an administrator who's attempting to ensure that all parties follow policy, I will not be involving myself in content discussions other than to discuss policy. Thanks in advance, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw those edits, but I wasn't really sure what to make of them. It is a bit much, but the text at the top is at least quoted from the book, so it's not original research or something. But I just made an edit, and I'll leave another comment on the talk page. Either way, Wyvren should probably be warned against making edits like that so soon after a block. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

MuseumPlanet narrated slide tours.

Exactly how does this tour constitute spaming? I have no connection to the site. but have found the thousands of photograpsh extremely useful. Please respond? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You've edited at least thirty articles where all you've done is just added links to that one particular site. That sounds like spamming to me. Further, the site you're adding fails WP:ELNO #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website." The site isn't particularly notable; it's just a collection of pictures made by one David Brown. There's a curious notion - if you and he are the same person (which seems quite likely), then you're a conflict of interest and shouldn't be self-promoting like that. Either way, the answer is that you're spamming. I can't really explain it better than that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure wh adding that link was spam? Did you actually go to it. It is/was a slide toour of Gran't Tomb. How does that offend you. How could it offend you? Please explain. And how do I get to an editor higher up than you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I was offended; it's that it violates Wikipedia policy. You've now had three editors tell you that the inclusions are unacceptable, so honestly, I wouldn't push the issue further. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually four editors -- Sadads told him so last week. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually sire I've had one editor tell me it was ok...I assumed it was because I added a few links quickly tht that was why it was called spamming. Actually you use the term 'editor' in a rather peculiar fashion. How do I find who I appeal to that has higher authority. Talking to the 'help' is getting me aggravated and it is clear that I've offended some unimportant self-appointed folk who have no but the traditional bureaucratic one to say "no.' What they are doing is weakening wikipedia not strengthening it. But this has become a matter of principle for me. And I don't intend to let the issue go. Besides it is fun to whup nincompoops.

David K Brown (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The one editor who told you it was OK was me, before I realized that you were connected with the webiste. In the light of additional information, I have since changed my evaluation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, David K Brown, you clearly have no notion about how Wikipedia works, or what it's about. This is a voluntary project, run (essentially) by the people who edit it. Administrators are simply editors who have been entrusted by other editors with additional capabilities to enforce policies, policies which have been agreed upon consensually by the community (that's all editors). So far in the various discussions you have instigated, you've been informed about a number of those policies, such as those on spam, conflict of interest, external links and no personal attacks, but you show no more understanding of those policies now then you did at the beginning, leading me to wonder whether you read them at all. Wikipedia is intended to be a collegial project, in which people behave civilly to each other, and yet you have managed to refer to other editors, all of whom are vastly more experienced than you as, variously:

• college sophomore
• junior high school teacher
• arrogant school crossing guard
• low level editor
• not overqualified
• the help

If you're interested in continuing to edit here, you are going to need a serious attitude re-adjustment. Other editors here are not your adversaries or your inferiors, they are your colleagues in building an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia policies are not pulled out of the air by other editors when they are cited to you, they are the result of extensive discussion and debate, and are meant to be followed except in extraordinary circumstances. I suggest you rethink your involvement here if you cannot edit under those conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was doing wikipedia a favor. obviously some editors do not. I have also been called a liar which I resent. I must admit that a stranger calling me such a name is quite confrontational and obviously incorrect. I have no connection to the MuseumPlanet site. None. I had been planning to add a good deal of information to wikipedia but no longer. A horse designed by a committee is a camel. I have made my point and I hope I have offended no one no one at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David K Brown (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to continue editing here, but please don't bother editing to "do Wikipedia a favor", edit because Wikipedia is now the online resource that most people turn to first for immediate information, and the better it is, the better we serve our readers and (not to be too grandiose about it) society. But if you do continue to edit, you're going to have to edit under the same rules as everyone else. Of course we want any good, solid information you have to contribute, but not at the cost of chucking away our standards and policies. Think about it - if you think you can help out with those conditions, the same conditions that everyone edits under, then stick around and give it a try, but if you're going to insist that our policies aren't what they are, or that they don't apply to you, you're probably better off not editing here -- Wikipedia's not for everyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Again...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I actually forgot about that page. I do wish there had been more conversation on the talk page, though; seems like there hasn't been any regarding this little flareup. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Restored comment

Thanks for restoring my comment. That case really is something else! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous. Probably not the strangest thing that's ever happened here, though.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about that. ;-) Anyway, you really stayed on that thread, which was great. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Always glad to help. I really only got involved because of giving a third opinion, but I wanted to see it to an end rather than just opining and leaving. And with such a tendentious editor involved, I knew I couldn't just leave it alone. It's always nice to have more editors around, and I appreciate you helping out; it certainly turned the tide in the discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd been watching that one from the beginning, although I did opt to opine and then leave the heavy lifting to others (you and Brianann). It's nice to see how far teamwork goes on here sometimes, isn't it? Have a great day. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Akins on RSN

Thanks for letting me know and I have responded. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Merrick

I added a section for local media to the Merrick listing. That is certainly a legitimate addition to the site. Plenty of towns and cities have local media sections, not sure why you think Merrick shouldn't have one? 69.117.195.211 (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Ryan

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to spam links to your website. I can see that you're the editor of the Merrick Patch, so you're basically using the article to get people to come to the site. And that's a violation of our external links and spam policies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

question

having observed you a lot on various talk pages and of course at WP:3O I was curious why you have not sought Adminship? Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given it some thought, just never really followed through or anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And now, it is done! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

3O at Talk:Time

Please do not remove the 3O, so that just in case you can't help, its still there as a record. FYI I think it was JimWae, not Modocc who made those changes to Punishment. FTR, JimWae followed me there from Talk:Time. Modocc followed me there from Talk:Universal reconciliation - both apparently cases of stalking me via my edit history. PS, now Steve Quinn appears to be following me at the Punishment article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct responses: In no way am I being "tendentious" and I dislike you suggesting such. Is JW being "being particularly tendentious?" No he isn't. He's simply someone who thinks they know better than anyone else, and has chosen to be unnecessarily adversarial. You asked "If there's a consensus for one particular view and he's the only one speaking out against it, then he might be." - This is the point. Wae has chosen to take a stand against finding consensus, first by claiming OWNership of the article, then by promoting a subjectivist view that rejects an objective, neutral overview of time. You wrote: "And if you feel like you're being stalked, well, that's an issue too." - I don't simply "feel like [I'm] being stalked," I am being harassed by the listed editors. How else do they purport to find interest in the punishment article and my edits to it?

You wrote "I would be careful, as it could end up backfiring on you." - How and why would it "backfire" on me? Because ANI is run by teenagers? You wrote: "on Punishment, for example, it seems that Modocc was unhappy with your edits, yet you just reverted rather than start a thread on the talk page and discuss your edits." - How is it that wholesale reverts by Modocc (or JimWae) are just them being "unhappy with [my] edits" while my restoration of my own edits is a case of me committing a "revert" and me 'failing to comment on the talk?'

You wrote: "And over on Time in physics, it seems that Steve Quinn didn't like your changes to the lede." - True. But if you read the talk, I was the last to comment there and because I called Steve Quinn on a fabrication (claiming that DVdm's edits were "sourced"), he has chosen not to respond there (note, that could be on Talk:Time, not Talk:Time in physics). Hence while SQ has failed to respond to my charges on the talk, he instead appears to be following my edit history. Classic case of stalking someone whom they are losing to in direct argument. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your initial request for help is in the 3O history. The project works by people leaving requests, someone handles them, and then the request gets removed. Again, in this case, there are more than 4 editors active in this whole thing, so a third opinion to break a disagreement between two editors isn't applicable.

I wasn't saying "you are being tendentious" because I don't know the full history of the discussion, and to follow it back would take more time than is readily available. It's a huge issue that spans multiple articles and talk pages. And yes, I meant that ANI could backfire on you because when a person starts a thread there, everyone - including the original editor - is scrutinized. I merely wanted to try to help move this issue towards some sort of conclusion by pointing you in the right direction, so if you feel I wasn't being helpful, well.. sorry, I guess.

Anyway, this issue is bigger than 3O. You could try WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC or WP:ANI. Good luck. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated, and I know that you weren't suggesting that I was being tendentious, I simply felt that by my writing you should be able to tell that I was not. I may call on you to make a comment at WP:MED. Thanks, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 14:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Annyong indeed

If you're so inclined, weigh in on Project on Government Oversight and Talk. Specifically, reality-check me where I may be incorrect. --Lexein (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions about 3RR

Hi HelloAnnyong,

Thank you for staying involved in the issues at the AE911Truth article! Out of curiosity, and not because I want to strech the limits myself, but rather because I could need some guidance on when an editor actually breaches 3RR, so that another editor (e.g. myself) might legitimately report this editor at the 3RR noticeboard, I have some questions regarding the 3RR guideline:

1. I assume that, according to the 3RR guideline, more than three reverts, i.e. four or more than four, constitute edit warring under normal circumstances. Is this correct? (I am aware that the rule is not meant to imply that any kind of behaviour would be acceptable as long as it avoids performing four reverts in a 24h period.)
2. If reverting more than one edit in a single revert operation, is that being interpreted as one revert, or as multiple reverts?
3. If an editor makes a bold edit (whether in a situation in which the editor cannot determine whether the edit is controversial or in a situation where the editor performs the bold edit while being aware that it is controversial), can the editor prevail in a dispute between two editors because he would need one revert less than the editor who objects to the edit in order to change the article to his preferred version? I once was in that situation, an RFC was inconclusive for some time, other editors, while generally agreeing with my position, didn't want to get further involved by reverting the edit themselves. Ultimately, I was able resolve the situation by doing some research that established the likelihood that the other editor was a sock account, and at this point, the editor finally agreed to a compromise that largely fell in line with my arguments.

Could you give me some advice, or just your viewpoint on this issue? Thank you very much in advance!  Cs32en Talk to me  20:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 4+ edits are warring. I can't really say one way or the other on whether you roll them all into one revert; it depends on the circumstances. Bold editing is ignored when it comes to 3RR; if it's three reverts, then it's three reverts. When the actual 3RR report is made, everyone's editing behavior will come up, and both people could find themselves blocked. In this case it would have been a hard call. If it's a constant barrage of edits and you're in danger of hitting 3RR, sometimes bringing it up to an admin is a good idea. If you can show that it's definitely the other editor that's being tendentious or whatever, that usually works towards your cause. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! As the situation is often not exactly clear, it's probably best to notify admins in such circumstances, even if both editors have not acted in a way that merits any sanction.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz discussion

Since u brought an valid point about the authership, I thought u would be interested with this, which at the links section shows a link to Elevado's discussions and Gearslutz account. Dan56 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, man; the people have spoken, and it's not reliable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was a couple users and one with a, for lack of a better word, "grudge" against its use as a source. But u dont have a response towards this proving his authership? even after stating "my opinion was predicated on the assumption that it really is him writing the forum post. But since it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's him, then it shouldn't be allowed". And keep in mind, the source was not questioned when The Root was assessed for B-class. Dan56 (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it was a grudge; a bunch of people who left their thoughts were longtime RSN contributors, so they know what they're talking about. If he had posted the text on http://www.russelevado.com/ or something then you could have argued the point a bit more since he controls that space, but I guess with a forum it's still too potentially unreliable. You would probably do better to drop the forum issue and try to find that information somewhere else. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt call two people, excluding yourself, a bunch, but how is it too potentially unreliable? What in it has the potential to be unreliable? Elevado's profile contact info at Gearslutz has a link to his website, and his website offers the Gearslutz link, listed as "my Q&A section @ Gearslutz". So the authorship is clear, which u expressed before that it largely depended on that, didnt u? U seemed to agree in previous comments at the noticeboard that if it were clear that the author was Elevado and not someone posing as him then it would be acceptable, before I had brought up the link information, but doesnt the Links here and the contact info at this page have any affect on your previous opinions? Unfortunetley the content Elevado provided at the forum posts is not available anywhere else, so I please appreciate if u gave it a second thought at the noticeboard. Dan56 (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At first I did agree, but after reading the rest of the comments there I more or less realized that forums really aren't reliable in any circumstance, even if there is overwhelming evidence. I am just one editor, and Wikipedia works based on consensus, so if everyone else believes one thing and I believe something else, as an experienced editor I should respect the consensus and drop the argument. And anyway, the text being added to the page is superfluous enough that it won't suffer too much if it's not included. There really is no point in continuing this conversation; I've said my share, but I'm not going to start arguing with other people over something like this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Defender barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts to make sure entries are truthful and well-sourced. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! Always glad to see that my edits here are helpful. You did a really great job with finding that link; it made all the difference, so thank you for that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was a pleasure working on it with you and the group. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Really glad to see that you are in the running for adminship. I have full confidence in your abilities, and I hope things go well. All best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong. Thanks for taking up the third opinion, and reading the riot act on the whole Akins situation. It's totally draining dealing with editors like that, so I really appreciate all the time you spent over there.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz at RSN

Hi. Thank you so much for weighing in at that thread. I'm attempting to summarize viewpoints there, since at this stage numbers seem somewhat divided, and I have included your view in my summary. Please read it over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided and speak up if I've misunderstood you or if your opinion has changed. Under the circumstances, I think we need to nail this down, one way or another. :) Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of EL and lists of software

There is a discussion you might be interested in as well as able to provide useful input regarding the use of EL. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I've just chimed in and will keep an eye on the conversation. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More Akins

Thanks for letting me know about that. It's high time. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

86(term)

Perfect! Nice, neat and clean. Thanks,- User: Jjozoko —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, August 19, 2010.

No problem. Glad to help! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adder word

Dear HelloAnnyong (( why Reverted my edit Please in light ))Adder word (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA icons

Hi! I'm looking at your RfA, and then at your userpage, and I note that you have four GA icons and you don't mention those articles as among your best contributions. Curious, I looked at your contributions to those articles and I noticed that your involvement is to revert inappropriate edits rather than to be involved in writing them, so that would explain why you didn't mention them. Are they there because you want to keep an eye on them? If that is the case, wouldn't using your WP:WATCHLIST be more useful, and less misleading for the casual observer? Good luck with the RfA which is fairly certain to pass successfully. I'm pleased that a significant Third Opinion contributor is coming forward as an admin. Dispute resolution experience, and the ability to give informed advice are valued qualities in admins. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do use my watchlist for those articles. I was more active in the later two GAs than the former two, so I could remove links to them if they don't really count. But thanks for the support all the same! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anne Marie d'Orléans

Thank you for advising me to try to avoid an edit war on Anne Marie d'Orléans. I would very much prefer to do so and that is my intent. But I am unsure how to intervene in repeated, flagrant degradation of articles I am accustomed to edit (on the House of Capet and other dynasties) without doing what I've been doing for years: desisting in order to comply with the rules, only to have admins alternately ignore the offending behavior or punish me for acquainting them with the problem before I approach (never violate) 3RR -- yet leave his version of the article un-reverted, which invariably encourages the offender to persist. Please read the note I've just written on a related article on another's talk page. I've engaged this person repeatedly, reported his sockpuppets, extensively yet specifically defined my objections to some of his edits (unencyclopedic redundancy and trivia), asked other Wikipedians to aid in restraining the sub-grade changes and edits to which royalty articles are being subjected, and gone through the 3O process to establilsh that my concerns are reasonable -- as you well know. All to no avail. No one has ever explained to me how, without devoting my days as well as my nights to the effort, I get the appropriate attention drawn to this pattern. Your advice would be most appreciated because I am simply not willing to be ignored and bullied here anymore. FactStraight (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started a new thread on the Anne Marie talk page. I can't find any actual reports of sockpuppets (on SPI, at least), but I'd rather not get into that just yet. I think there's a real issue of sourcing on these articles. Articles need to be sourced by reliable sources, so if you two are having a dispute, go to the sources and see what they say. In looking at the Polyxena article, I can see at least one issue: the line "Nonetheless, she is said to have had a close relationship with her mother-in-law Anne Marie d'Orléans and the two frequented the Villa della Regina outside the capital, where the latter died in 1728" is problematic in that there's no source to assert such a close relationship. You can ask for a third opinion on articles just between the two of you, but if there are more people involved, you can try RFC or something. Above all, though, you should be discussing and documenting all this in the talk pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

While I continue to await the reply you kindly offered to make September 1st to my comments at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans#Another edit war, I ask that you please note my response to the resumption of a problem with the same editor (using a new name) on an article to which your attention was previously drawn, Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. FactStraight (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really want to drag the issues over into another article. I was sort of waiting for the other editor to reply, but since s/he doesn't seem willing to engage, I'm not sure what else we can do. But you're right that I forgot to respond, so I'll do that now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Machete

First off - it's not opinion it's FACT... the original script is Cited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck limbaugh (talk • contribs) 15:29, September 1, 2010

You sure? That looks like a YouTube link to me. And either way, the text you're adding is entirely based on your own interpretations of the script, which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations on a strong showing. I've closed your RFA as successful. Go forth and do good unto the wiki. –xeno^talk 23:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation on getting the mop  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad it went well for you, now good luck and don't accidentally delete something important. Also remember that the admin secret handshake isn't to be performed while wearing rubber gloves, ever since that incident in Bogota. -- Atama頭 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who voted for me. I am quite humbled to have been accepted. Here's to not screwing up Wikipedia all that badly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!!! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. Glad to see it worked out. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pile on congratulations! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've written a draft blurb on you at The Signpost. Can you check, please? Do you have a presence on jp.WP? Is there an interwiki opportunity for us here? May I refer to you as he or she, or would you prefer privacy on that count? Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I'm sure you'll be great :D GedUK  13:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Telewizja Polska at RfPP

Hey there! Thanks for this decline at RfPP. There's a whole lot of IP traffic around a range of TV articles that's causing me a bit of a headache (see my talk page today for the most recent outburst). If any IPs come to you about east european or asian TV channels, I'd advise you to forward them to me and not get sucked in!

Congrats again on getting the mop; any questions feel free to drop me a line. GedUK  13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Damn, that's a mess there. But yeah, I'll hand off to you if need be. Thanks for the heads up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Name??

How did you get you name in black and white??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackImperial (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just a little CSS and HTML. You can change your signature if you go to Special:Preferences. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

IB Diploma Programme again

Hi, I'm sure you don't want to hear about this but ... this morning I woke up to find a a review of the IB DP page. I assumed I'd forgotten to remove it from WP:GAN, but was fairly certain I had. So I looked - here I've deleted the entry on June 3rd. Today it's listed at GAN [2] with the deleted May 22nd entry in place. How is that possible? Any ideas? Btw - so thrilled about your successful RfA! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind - found what happened - see discussion at TFOWR's page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Belated congratulations on your RfA, too! Belated support !vote, too - apologies for missing the real thing. Back on-topic, User:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB Diploma Programme is a revised IBDP article for the GAR: mostly the lead has changed, but there's been a slight ref re-jig as well. Any input gratefully received ;-) TFOWR 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Sorry I forgot to respond to your comment! Glad you figured it out, though. And for the record, it's okay that it went to GAN, I think - it seems to have done fairly well in the initial assessment.

TFOWR - Heh, thanks. I've left my thoughts on the talk page on your sandbox. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you won't help yourself to this, but you certainly deserve it! Your thoughtful guidance shepherded the article to this point. Thanks so much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status.

Aw, thanks. I actually added it to my user page before, heh. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Modest barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		My thanks and a modest barnstar for quickly responding to a request for a temporary IP address block of a vandal, with a warning template on their IP address talk page. My impression is the vandal may be too much a newbie even to find and use their own talk page. Judging from the peculiar edit summaries, maybe a child. If an IP block proves necessary (and I think it will) I hope the notice will be a gentle admonition about edit warring, blocking the IP only for a limited time--24 or 48 hours say. Just to get their attention, and re-orient them to learn proper Wikipedia procedure. ElijahBosley (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

protocoll to block a user vandlising pages?

Hi there, i see you put a protection on the the_temper_trap page earlier, thanks!. is there anyway to block user 82.28.32.80 as they seem to be editing pages with fony data everyday with whatever is coming up on the xfm best non fest? Many thanks for any info you can provide (Pierceuk (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

You sure it's them? Since I put the protection on that page, that editor hasn't really done anything. But aside from that, they probably shouldn't be blocked unless there's sufficient reason to do so. They've been warned several times about their edits, so if it does continue, feel free to report it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, block needed

THe IP address 68.57.75.71 has ignored your final warning, and once again vandalized the Virginia Quarterly Review page in their ongoing single-purpose edit war. At this point the 24 or 48 hour block needs to be implemented. I do think this is just a newbie with an ax to grind, rather than a malicious grafitti writer-type vandal. Too new even to know about setting up an account or reading their own talk page. With any luck a short term block will educate them to go learn how Wikipedia properly works. ElijahBosley (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In looking more closely at this issue now, I'm not entirely convinced that it's vandalism per se. This is a content dispute, so blocking one editor over another wouldn't really solve the problem. For one, your edits added the text "only Mr. Genoways and a former intern whom Genoways had promoted to Assistant Editor/ Development Manager". But there's no source to back it up, particularly the latter; how do we know that it was just an intern that had been promoted? Further, you're using several sources to derive the text, which is a violation of our synthesis policy - and you're doing so using primary sources. Something isn't right here, and I don't think a block is going to solve anything. I've left a note on the IP's talk page about discussing their edits. I also have to head out for most of the day, so I won't be able to deal with this too much. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. What your note calls a "content dispute" was: informing the reading public that VQR is temporarily out of business while U Va investigates its editor, with multiple cites to newspaper and national television accounts of the situation--versus repeatedly deleting the entire paragraph. That is edit warring which is indeed vandalism; if nothing else this IP address has violated the bright-line three revert rule WP:3RR.

However--I am very pleased to say that the threats of blocking may finally have got through. The most recent edit alters, rather than deletes, the text. The current iteration has no sources, and needs to be refined, but it is better than empty space. Perhaps that is what confused you: now there is text. I am perplexed about the primary sources remark and in the hope of improving my own editing I hope you'll clarify to what you refer. The text links (or used to link) to the VQR masthead sine the text mentions it, but that is not the source of the information. The sources are, or were, all secondary and footnoted: the Washington Post, an extensive article in the Charlottesville Hook with four follow-ups (which discuses the intern); the Charlottesville Daily Progress; and the Today Show. There are a lot of others including the Chronicle of Education and the New York Times but multiplying footnotes seems to me unnecessary for a Wiki entry about a situation in transition. Once U Va decides what to do this will probably convert to one or two sentences to the effect that the staff are back, or replaced, and VQR will publish a Spring or Summer issue. Or cease publishing. Whatever the decision is.

Meantime I am going to revert to the earlier footnoted version, but leave out the intern, it being my guess that is where the trouble is. Problem is with an unresponsive editor deleting footnoted material, now replacing it with unsourced material, and unwilling to talk on the discussion page, is a block may be the only recourse.ElijahBosley (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Having just looked at the article history I see you edited the most recent iteration, and reintroduced the footnotes. I think it improved. I made a couple minor changes, notably removing the last sentence about "cancelled" the Winter issue since what U Va said was on hold, and I think the Hook overstated it with cancelled; there could still be a winter issue. I hope that this version sticks. If not, though I reiterate--a block may be the only recourse.ElijahBosley (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(this is my third time writing this response, so hopefully it sticks) I'm glad you're happy with the changes I made. It's a version that we can more or less agree on. You should read WP:FOOT and learn about folding references together; you'll see I did that with the ref name="takescharge". As to the cancellation thing, I'm going to readd it and will leave a note on the talk page. And with regards to the block, well, let's see what happens. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

72hours?

Have you seen the block log. This guy will be back straight away. Just asying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not going to indef block an IP.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I wasn't suggesting that. AH well... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if it happens again, and then we'll take it from there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, I just upped it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was hinting at. thx. :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

207.67.17.67

Might wanna extend that block... HalfShadow 18:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What

What was wrong with it i had it confermed with a guy and he said it was ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullsbud (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i asked about all my other warnings and he said he finaly found out i was tring to help just you guys say it as vandilism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullsbud (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it was skullsbud who posted those last comments--Skullsbud (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis

Got it, I didnt know. Its a bit shame you don't allow to simply list them, but hey, rule is a rule ;) --Pkuczynski (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Tut

Thanks for protecting Tutenkhamun...definitely long term vandalism. The article was semi protected in the past.(olive (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

3O on Manila hostage crisis

First of all, thank you for providing a third opinion on Manila hostage crisis. Given your opinion, would it be okay to also add a see also link to 2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbing? Lambanog (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your offer to provide a 3rd Opinion on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe

Hello, you recently offered to provide a 3rd opinion on the talk:Amy Elizabeth Thorpe page. While we may have come to a resolution, I'm sure your opinion would be helpful.Leidseplein (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:SPI

Just sent you a fairly long e-mail which should keep you busy for a while. As I said in the e-mail, don't worry if anything there doesn't make sense, just ask on IRC, my talk page, or by e-mail and I should be able to help you out. A lot of it makes more sense once you start putting it into practice, and we should be able to start doing that once we run across each other on IRC. :)
Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions.
Best wishes,
Spitfire^Tally-ho! 03:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Automated code review article cruft

Just in case you're interested. Since you follow List of tools for static code analysis you might want to check out Automated code review. It suffers from some list-cruft issues IMO. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Grant birthday

I'm not sure why you changed this to 1961 as the source says 1951. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it because of this edit since they (potentially) threatened legal action over changing 1961 -> 1951. When it comes to things like legal issues I'm in a little over my head. But in looking at it now, I should have left it. Sorry. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, I should have realised why you did it although I think you were wrong, we need to stay with our sources. Of course, if they are questioned, that's another kettle of bubblegum. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles

Hello! You seem to have experience with User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I removed categories from his user space because his user pages appeared in categories together with articles, explaining that it was against Wikipedia:User pages#Categories, templates, and redirects. He reverted. I reverted again and explained it to him on his talk page; he ignored me and reverted again.[hthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LouisPhilippeCharles/Anne_Marie_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans&curid=28197213&diff=385902530&oldid=385891642][3] Could you try to explain the issue to him? Surtsicna (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I hid them on the page =S What is wrong with that! Gosh Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I read your message after posting this message. You hid them after reverting twice and ignoring my attempts to discuss the issue. If the articles won't appear in categories anymore, I'm fine. Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was on the second revert having read the link thank you! =\ Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Commenting them out with <!-- --> is sufficient to keep them out of the categories. You should probably also comment out the links to other Wikis as well. I trust that this won't be a problem going forward. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Drink coca cola

Whoooaaa, 4im? Do you really think that's necessary? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not. But rather than someone else just blocking them as a vandalism-only account, I figured a pretty sharp warning would stop any such behavior. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HelloAnnyong. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 12:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block of Chao62332

Any reason you went for 24 hours, instead of indef for a VOA? I'm not really seeing any constructive contributions, but I'll respect your judgement, and watch the account closely after the block. Connormah (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; not all of their edits are vandalism per se. For example, this is at least an attempt to add value to the article, even if it's poorly formatted and so on. Most of their edits could probably be marked as vandalism, but I wanted to at least give them a second chance before just jumping straight to an indef. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Must have missed that - good call. Cheers, Connormah (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Color commentary

Ha! I was dubious about the red text too, having dimly remembered there is some Wikipolicy discouraging it, but when I looked I couldn't find the policy. In fact, as I say on the article talk page, the Wiki Manual of Style seems to allow and even encourage color so long as it is sensitive to the needs of the color blind. However aesthetically I thought it too garish. An experiment, and any experiment is a success if one learns from it. Glad to see you are still hovering watchfully over that page. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not even a question of aesthetics. The article isn't meant to be used as a place for promotion, and I think highlighting the current status of the paper with any sort of emphasis does that. Anyone who reads the lead of the article can clearly figure out that it's on hiatus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Puzzled as I am about how highlighting the suspended status of the publication promotes it, I wont argue, as we agree on the result, which is no color in the lede text. Lawyers learn it is pointless and even counter productive to keep arguing after everybody agrees on something unless of course, the lawyers are getting paid. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are an SPI clerk?

Could you possibly archive or re-open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City please? NI4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly a sockpuppet related to that, and with the case in a half-finished state I am wary of tampering with it. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was done. Sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Russel Grant

Was a bit confused about this edit; do you think you could explain further? NW (Talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - I have replied to you comments on Talk:Russell_Grant --Holkingers (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

re: Orfeh

Hi! I was having trouble figuring out a link, but if you search the US Federal Copyright database, copyrights registered to Orfeh's name actually do cite a birthdate of March 28th, 1967. Originally, the search engine was being a pain in the ass getting a direct link but  :) I think I've got it now. Here it is, I will be editing it into the article: http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SA=Alimorad%2C%20Orfeh%2C%201967%2D&PID=aajYTBocnI5HFkkOa1ch8k-d&BROWSE=1&HC=2&SID=2 MsEveHarrington (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Ha, that's very clever. But all that says is 1967-. It doesn't specify month or day, so I'll update the page to reflect that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gokkun

Your attempt at tempering any frustration is appreciated but might have been a little quick. The comments made afterward by the other editor and myself don;t stray into any grey are of incivility so everything should be all good.Cptnono (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Plastic Beach

I noticed that you blocked many of the socks involved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plastic Beach, but not all. I realize that some of the socks had not actually made any edits, but others had. Why only block some? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Life (specifically my job) got in the way and I had to stop. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm>How annoying that such trivialities as work can get in the way of Wikipedia!!</sarcasm> WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15