This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That was NOT vandalism at all. The terminology came from the US military, and got picked up by the people at large. I was only answering another contributor who asked why "The shits" redirected to the article Diahorrea, and placing where that came from when you and someone else used the "V-word". 205.240.146.148 ( talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a resident of Zachary and I will tell you that Zachary is experimenting intensive growth currently. The report that is in the article that Zacharys growth was only a result of Hurricane Katrina is purely fictional.
you idiot? -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(years later, shortly before his death in 1990s, he said he was told to lie by his father and the men from the secret police [1]).
was ALREADY in the text 'in your "last known good version". -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bad"??? If you do something like this to people and edits costantly, I hope somebody will erase YOU, you stupid vandal fuck. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit, since the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. 71.204.176.201 ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I hoped my edits here would reorient the article to a NPOV, sharpen contasting issues, raise new ones, and add polish.
The resulting changes to its content and form are of fair variety. Your revert applies to edits according to my IP address, however, so it seems to have followed from a concern about the edits taken as a whole, rather than from editorial disagreement over particular change(s) taken in isolation.
So I feel like I should tread lightly here. I'd like to restore that work, at least in part, but I'd like to hear from you first, in case you have a global objection of some kind, or in case I've run afoul by accident of the guidelines.
Thanks in advance, 216.162.196.34 ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Victor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's what's going on: It doesn't matter whether it's true so much as whether you can prove it's true, with proper references. I.e., when I first joined Wiki, I had non-controversial edits reverted about things I'd seen, in person, because there was no published source to prove I was right. Verifiability is one of Wiki's three "core content policies". See WP:SOURCE. The way to proceed is to find references.
The problem is that if you don't use references, somebody else with an ax to grind will put their own (incorrect) material in. (Or some prankster with a sense of humor will add a few words.) Without a way to tell whether something is factual, there's no way to keep Wiki articles on the straight and narrow. Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that you yourself continue to vandalize. Pastor Benny Hinn regularly wears white suits made of mixed cloth and linen. This is in express contravention of Leviticus 19:19, which you would know had you bothered to read the KJV before vandalizing my perfectly factual entry. You really need to take a less arrogant approach to your self-appointed duties, read the source material, and let the edit I submitted stand as is. It is ENTIRELY correct, though you may find it offends your theological sensitivities. Boo hoo. 75.157.202.114
(Note that this user was blocked from editing for 31 hours.) Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I left a message for the (IP) user who left rude comments for you above. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Regards, — Alan ✉ 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For all you do, keep up the good work Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism. Could you also place the standard vandalism notice on their userpages when you do? Thanks in advance. Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :D
I certainly have found similar situations. That's one of the problems that comes up with school computers editing Wikipedia: multiple, almost thousands, of people seemingly using the same computer to vandalize, and on some occasions (when I went to public school, this was the case for me) attempting to make constructive edits to Wikipedia that get targeted immediately due to the notoriety of that IP, or a block being put on. The easy solution for those people is to get a user account. It increases the amount that people on the wiki trust your edits many times over, and it prevents you from receiving responses to people's vandalism from the same IP. BTW, Wikipedia, at the moment, is getting hammered from vandalism to high school pages, from kids who are angry about having to return from school. I've counted about 15 so far. Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
looking at your talk page, and continuing to look at my huggle readouts, you deserve these.
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
in the face of insult, remains calm Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | ||
rollback expert, beating everyone to the punch Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
If you look to my edits in the external link section, there is no link to a Blog site I added - maybe you see About.com as a Blog? I have no problem to remove it as long as other blogs are also deleted. The Times is also no blogsite. There are a lot of links to anonymous websites, including a blog, like http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which others added. This blog is also quoted in the article what I complained about at the talk page. I mainly wished to make clear who the authors of the plenitude of anonymous websites are. Your advise is most welcome. I tried to restore the Link section, which I mainly wished to balance. Maybe you can add your thoughts at the talk page? Thanks a lot. 79.171.63.246 ( talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There was an error alright - between my keyboard and my chair ;-) -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Want this to be a page of Italian American dishes like Marinara Sauce, Spaghetti Bolognese, Fettucine Alfredo?
Go right ahead, makes a great encyclopedia article!
213.156.49.142 ( talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The IP is correct, community councillors don't get "succession boxes". If you disagree please give reasons on talk page, no blind reverting without discussion please.-- Troikoalogo ( talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's true, part of Brown's penis was placed in Victoria's coffin. Why did you remove it?
I got this message from you: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Blog Quiz. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I did something inappropriate. I did not know I was doing something like that. I red the instructions in Finnish and understood that it is appropriate to add an external link - especially as the previous sentence in Blog Quiz has a similar kind of an external link. Would it be possible for you to tell me if I can add my two sentences without an external link? I would also appreciate an explanation why the other external link is allowed to be there. Furthermore, I would appreciate your opinion whether an article about Definitely Best Questions, if I wrote one, might be published in Wikipedia. Should I write it first and send it to editors for review? I would like to point out that there already are several other articles and mentions of commercial quiz products in Wikipedia. 88.112.13.75 ( talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Vladimir Lenin: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Eeekster ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your well on your way to becoming a great vandal fighter after only a week or two on the wikipedia. When i first started i used to use MWT as well, it played up on me a tad so i ventured around and discovered a great tool called Huggle. If you like MWT, let me tell you Huggle will blow you out of the water! Remember when your ready and think your trustworthy enough apply for rollback which you will need to use Huggle. Happy Editing Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to User talk:128.138.120.79, the edit to Gel was absolutely NOT spam. It is the DOI of the pre-existing reference. Reign in your stupid bot. 128.138.120.79 ( talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My official urgent request demands for somebody to create some articles about Norma-feminine names related-and please specify what the name really means. How to create it and to avoid vandal-related edits at the same time is tricky. Help me please.
Neurotic heart ( talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo! I've seen you reverting vandalism during the past few days (I don't know if you've seen me though). Well, you are pretty fast for someone using MWT. Ever thought of using Huggle? I see you don't have rollback yet, so why not apply for rollback (which you are sure to get) and start using huggle? Looking forward to the day you join us ;) Keep up the good work. Cheers! Chamal Talk 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your continual removal of the 'Further Information' section and website. Your quote: " It's the commerical part which is not allowed. Either add material (and cite your page), or create a new article about your company.)" - unquote. First thing, I have no company! If you took the time to visit the website in question (www.freewebs.com/band-bus) you would see that its in no way a commercial venture. Its an information site only and as such has no revenue generating capability and is in no way affiliated to any operator or company. I started the site a couple of years ago as a source of information (incidently, I also started the wikipedia 'Sleeper bus' article) for people interested in the band bus industry. For people viewing the wikipedia article, a 'further information' website is a positive adition to the article scancoaches ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(Re: edits to Nabih article and to this page.) The edit page I saw showed only deleted material, by an anonymous IP, with no justification. In fact, deleted material was being restored. No serious harm done, I hope. Piano non troppo ( talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is paying no attnetion to warnings. -- Falcadore ( talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, have you even been looking at what is contained in the links? They are extremely specific to the topic, with as much or even more information on the applicable topic than the official websites. I appreciate what you're doing, but in this instance I feel you are doing wikipedia users a major injustice. As you so rightly say, there is no search engine advantage to adding these links, there is however a massive Wikipedia user advantage. I'm only adding the external links because I couldn't find the info I wanted in the Wikipedia, but instead found all of it and more at these links. I'm really not sure what the problem is.
Would you please reconsider deleting my hard work? For everyone's sake?
Oh and fyi, that website is a non profit website, in fact it costs several thousand dollars a year to run. See how many ads there are on there? See how much it costs to sign up? See how, other than for Wikipedia and it's readers, there is no gain from adding links to it in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.130 ( talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this guy did same to my links to reviews of Agone, looks like trolling. 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you with this question. Can you please tell me why my site (Outlines.com) keeps getting removed from the links portion of search term "law school outlines." The site offers free registration and allows students to download free law school outlines if they upload one in exchange, to keep our database growing! The other option is for them to pay a nominal fee ($4.95) mainly to promote them to upload instead. I would not be opposed to having it listed under a category for paid site if you felt that was appropriate, but why not at all? With a site called Outlines.com that has an extensive law school database, it just not seem fully justified to merely remove it. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.(UTC)
Hi, why did you delete my addition about the new domestic book scanner ? I think it's a very useful addition, the Opticbook has opened up book scanning to a lot more people, your truly included. 92.237.186.252 ( talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
These minor edits: [4] are impossible to confuse with vandalism nor are they the kind of statements that require references. Next time, try to make constructive contributions to wikipedia, thank you. 75.15.193.158 ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Heron Marked Barnstar
I hereby award this Barnstar to Piano non troppo for their conspicuous effort reverting vandalism to The Wheel of Time article. Tai'shar Wikipedia! Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for keeping an eye out for the Wheel of Time page and reverting those revolting edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you, and I wish that vandal patrollers got recognition more often. Please consider this Wheel of Time themed barnstar to be a small token of my appreciation for all your hard work. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy for nearly 2,5 hours editing this article and searching/confirming additional information about my hometown Gorredijk during WWII (we HAD a rich Jewish history) and not even a minute after I had finished I saw that all my edits had been reverted by you. Now I want to know why you did that. If you see the Dutch version of the same article you can see that a large part there is about WWII aswell. Because our town had seen alot of action during WWII for such a small town. Please explain, because I don't know why you did that. -- 217.120.149.136 ( talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I’ve reverted your rollback in Linux kernel, but couldn't find out which of the links there were the actual spam. -- AVRS ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont know why the environmentalrefugees.org links was deleted but please keep it on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.104.148 ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a simple note about this article. On the 11th of September you undid an edit by a vandal, but you accidently reverted to a version by the same vandal. I reverted 4 edits including yours to get back to an older, cleaner version. Regards Ksempac ( talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that many people don't care for a statement like this as a 'reason', but it has had that caption for 2.5 years. So, while you might consider it much belated, I might think your change a bit precipitous? Not that it is a big deal, but I'd love for everybody to "think twice" about changes. Shenme ( talk) 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(This comment is about article Muscle worship.) I'm curious about something. You claim to be a professional writer and editor. My guess would be that you spend most of your time professionally editing Wikipedia (judging by some of what I've read here). What do you know about muscle worship? Do you know enough about it to remove an external link to a site that contains content (free content) that would pretty much only be of interest to individuals who have an affinity for muscle worship? You must have, muscle fetish for men that nobody knows about, and are incapable of withstanding the sight of female bodybuilders. I can't think of any other reason you would go to the muscle worship article in the first place and then delete a link to a site dedicated to female bodybuilding. Many of the female bodybuilders featured in the galleries on that site do muscle worship sessions. So, why would you delete a link to a good resource for people interested in the topic? Seriously, what do you know about muscle worship that would precipitate your deletion of an external link that is pretty much a definitive (and free) resource for images and videos on the topic? I'm sure you have an answer, but I doubt it is a good one. But I can't wait to hear it anyways. So please; enlighten me. I'm sure you have the Wikipedia's policies memorized (more likely tattooed backwards on your ass), and have found some caveat to justify your deletion of that resource. And it IS as good resource on the topic. And if you don't believe that it is a good resource on the topic, just ask any of the 20,000+ individuals who visit the site every month to simply to browse the FREE galleries. Nobody spends a dime on that site, and it doesn't sell anything. And I can tell you, I certainly don't make any money from the site. So, if you're going to throw some commercial site bullshit at me, it's going hit the fan and fly back into your face. Think this one through before you answer. And when you answer, please include your expertise in the area of muscle worship to justify your actions. Because, my friend, this is only about what YOU think, and nothing more. But regardless of what you think, I've got my money on you not knowing a damned thing about muscle worship or what interests people who do. You say address the issue on the discussion page of the article. Who the hell is on that discussion page to discuss it with? Incidentally, that site is linked all the way through from the female bodybuilding article, and is within the categories of Bodybuilding and BDSM. Think Mink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you call it linkspam (whatever that is). Tell me what is the difference between www.amg-lite.com and the link in question? It seems to me, that there isn't a bit of difference between the two (other than the fact that www.amg-lite.com contains far more banners), but the external link to amg-lite never gets deleted, though it has far more ads. What is it? It certainly can't be banners on the main page, as www.amg-lite.com has perhaps 20 banners on the index page. It's an honest question that shouldn't be too difficult to answer.
And your insinuation in your message to me, that Amazon Muscle is somehow attempting to gain some type of ranking advantage in Google by linking from Wikipedia, is a quite presumptuous. The site is already ranked high enough in Google for the appropriate search terms, that the site doesn't require any help from Wikipedia.
If the idea is to have external links to sites that refer to bodybuilding or muscle worship, you won't find a single site on the Internet that contains relevant content, but lacks banners; just like amg and amazon are linked together. It's not about making money or spamming, it's about cooperation.
But tell me more about linkspam, and how amazonmuscle differs from amg-lite. Amazon Muscle is a free resource, just like amg, though with far fewer ads. The banners on that site are placed there as a free service to the owners of those sites. Amazon Muscle doesn't have a single affiliate banner in place, and it never has.
And then when you are done answering that question, perhaps you could advise me as to what the Wiki Police consider to be a page that would not offend their sensitivities. AMG and Amazon Muscle are the same model, but somehow, Amazon Muscle continuously get the shaft. Perhaps there is some sort of bias here. And if not, get your ass over to the female bodybuilding article, and start deleting GeneX and AMG as well.
And one other thing, take a look at GeneX, and tell me when you click on the very top link of the page the plainly states "Member", and tell me that you don't have to pay to access the resources of that site. Again, you just aren't going to find any relevant information on female bodybuilding, that isn't linked to some commercial site. That's just the way it is. I count 25 banners on amg's main page; all to paysites, including about 4 or 5 that link to sessions for 6.99 per minute, as does GeneX. Have a look, and then justify your bias against Amazon Muscle.
Oh, my God! Is that a link on the very top the girlgrip.co.uk link just below mine that you keep deleting? And where does it go? It goes to their page where they are selling 5 minute videos for $5. I'm not sure where your head is. I added the External links section to that page, and added my link, which is relevant to the topic. However, my link gets deleted, and some link that leads DIRECTLY to a commercial site that is selling video, stands in it's place. How do and your friends explain your actions?
Incidentally, I've removed my own links, as I just noticed that you and your fellow peons (And before you start freaking-out, no, that is not an insult or personal attack; simply a description of your status in this community.), yankee and quartet have issue similar "orders" to me as yours, threatening to block my account; no doubt in collusion with you. But you cats ought to have a little more sense than to go around harrassing people selectively. I certainly hope that you don't (though I highly suspect you do) get your kicks out of what you are doing. Take for example Elena Seiple's page; doesn't the only external link lead to a commercial site which only has the purpose of reeling in paying members? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Seiple How do you explain yourselves?
In the end, I believe that you will have some rational explanation for your bias. And keep something in mind, all of the people whose links I am mentioning are either friends or acquaintances of mine (in fact Elena has a nice gallery on the site whose link you and your cohorts continue deleting), so I am certainly not encouraging anyone to delete their links. I am mentioning them, as examples of your complete lack of judgment and fairness with reference to deleting external links.
I'm sure you're a nice person, but isn't there something better you could be doing with your time. Perhaps not. But if that is the case, then at least do your job professionally, and don't simply go around with a trigger-happy finger on the delete key, and arbitrarily seek out individuals to screw with.
And if you have something sane to say and don't want to continue having this out in public, send me a message and explain to me how we can resolve this matter in private, as there is no way for me to respond to the Wikigods messages to me. Sorry if I seem pissed. But I am, and you know why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the Madison Avenue Motive is, though I did do quick search but turned up empty handed. And I must say at this point, that Wikipedia is becoming a very weird site. Your link to Women on Top is a bit much for a site like this in my opinion; graphically that is. If there is information of an academic nature, then I can see the point, though the images, I believe, go a bit to far. But I guess images have there place in information as well (a picture being worth a thousand words and all).
Seriously, though, I don't really care about having our site referred to on Wikipedia anymore. Honestly, it doesn't do anything for us in a commercial sense. I simply don't accept the lack of fairness with which we were deleted. And I'm not the only one in the female bodybuilding community that has taken issue with this. Perhaps Wikipedia is simply growing out of control, with no possible way of applying policies in a fair manner, due to the sheer volume and scattered nature of information, exacerbated by the variety topics and the inability of editors/administrators to moderate topics because of insufficient knowledge reference a particular field.
Wiki is a big site, and I don't know how matters such as this can be handled. It's simply too big, and the administrators cannot know everything there is to know about how external sites on a particular topic operate in the real world. I can tell you though, that it is highly unlikely, if not, downright impossible, to find a site on female bodybuilding, that does not have some sort of commercial sponsorship associated with it. It's just not. That is the reality. People have to work very hard and travel all over the world to gather images of these girls at competitions and whatnot. Nobody can do that for free. I'm not saying that they are making a killing, but they must have a way to support their efforts. And this includes the bodybuilders themselves. Some of them spend thousands of dollars preparing for a contest. And even if they win, they usually do receive cash. And if they did receive cash, as in the world's largest competitions, it will probably not be enough to even cover the costs of their contest preparation.
I don't know what else to say, but this is a conundrum that is certain to grow as Wikipedia grows.
That was me changing, "Oh, shit." to, "Oh, my God". Simply and attempt to maintain a little more of a moderate tone, maintain a civil tongue, and be less offensive.
Regarding the girlgrip.co.uk site, that would be in Strongwoman article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongwoman Again, I'm not bashing that site or saying that the link should be deleted. I'm simply saying that if the issue here is the commercial nature of these links, then this is just another example of the problem of having female bodybuilding links with no commercial activity associated with them. Amazon1 ( talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the article was a bit inconsistent because you had helpfully noted "in Spanish", but had left an icon ((in Spanish)) in place. However, I don't claim to be an expert on the guidelines and you are welcome to revert my changes. -- Alan ( talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
since-you-are-such-a-sailor-moon-fan-want-to-help-with-a-new-sailor-moon-wiki[ [5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.172.161 ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, PNT. I've seen your vandal reversions with MWT, but have you ever considered using Huggle or Twinkle? Huggle is, I believe, more faster than MWT, although I've never used MWT. Just voice your opinion here if you want to give Huggle a try or not. I still appreciate your anti-vandalism work. Schfifty Three 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
125.163.214.241 continually changes links in the Kretek article to an advertisement. I saw that you had posted on his "Talk" page, so I'm just wondering what the process is to ban this guy from doing those edits any more. Jehnidiah ( talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Jehnidiah ( talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo, I reverted vandalism to your user page by an IP recently, and I would suggest that you consider having your page indefinitely semi-protected in accordance with the Protection Policy, reducing the likelihood of vandalism in the future. Thanks =) Cflm001 ( Talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I added links to reviews and additional resources. I could see your point that my internal wiki links may have been unecessary, but the links Iadded in the 'external links' section should have stayed, if you have not deleted my hard work, please put them back on.
By the way I am not a college kid in a dorm room, but a professional copy editor and journalist who also happens to know about the article subject. Josh 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Fortune 500? Are we having a contest as to who edits for the best company? Mine's a global TV network that's a household name. Ihear you on broken links, cheers for that. Ditto non-English. However, you miscredited me for this:
"not like most RPG characters"
Because as you can see from Agone's discussion page, I removed that line for the reasons you state.
As for Wiki not being a link farm, agreed, but in this case there is a box on the page saying it needs notability. One of the ways to establish that for a book is to show that there are reviews of it. No matter, I added my links to the discussion page; another editor can determine their suitability.
By the way, at my company we believe in full transparency; we even asked Jimmy Wales why he edited his own page. . 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just coming back to remove my email as I've already gotten some spam. Thanks for removing it. Have linked and cited what I think is fair in the article, and I think improved it greatly.
202.82.171.186 (
talk) 07:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the rest of the info for this article would all be in German or French, which I don't speak. What are the rules, if any, for translating and citing foreign-language sources? 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Removing other users' vandalism is barely vandalism. (71.244.215.164)
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | ||
Hey Piano non troppo! Lately, when I am following the feed of the linkwatcher bots, and I decide that something may be spam, I often see that you already are there as well, reverting and warning the same editor! Compliments, and thanks for the hard work. I don't know if you have access to IRC, but maybe you'd like to join us there in the 'spam fighting channels' #wikipedia-en-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t! In any way, your help is very welcome! Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
you claim that I've edited a page without citing... the thing is I've never edited a wiki page in my life ._. I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, and I'm not even sure if this is where I should be posting stuffs I want you to see? I'm sorry if it's the wrong place o_o just thought I should tell you though. and thanks for anti-spamming =) 124.158.17.69 ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Because you really are good at fighting vandalism! ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, you deserve it, I think you've beaten me to reverting an article about, say, 15 times? ;)
ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose it's like shiftwork. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you editing articles that you have no knowledge of? If you actually bothered to read them you would have noticed that you removed links to a BIOS fix which fixes a not so uncommon problem that renders machines useless. It's posted on a blog, but not available elsewhere. Same is true for the forum which is an invaluable ressource for all new users. And why was a link to one review removed but not the other one? Seems like pretty random vandalization to me. You might also want to check for ref names, so that a few other links are not rendered useless by your vandalization. Also check the history next time to see who actually contributed to the article. You surely didn't. 88.152.211.79 ( talk) 10:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What in the world are you doing reverting my edits on South Dakota Highway 26? I didn't put "external links" in--I simply added information about what was on the road. Get a grip. 24.14.33.171 ( talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I remarked to one key visitor site in the town area and it was NOT allowed. The Fruit Yard is our local Knotts Berry Farm or Disneyland. and no one deletes their references- who is anyone kidding- to be so hippocritical - it has as much a right to be there as any of the others it has been a big deal here for Modesto for over 30 years. Replace what was done. At least they do not charge to park or picnic- try getting that at Disneyland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.77.73 ( talk) 04:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This edit was actually correct, and sourced. Why did you remove it? Corvus cornix talk 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your deletion of links to the page summarizing recent U.S. criminal caselaw, which had been added to pages about U.S. criminal caselaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.237.123 ( talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked the unofficial english page and saw it was a link to and unknown site/advert. So I removed the two unofficial page links but just felt I should have checked the czech page also (So i did -and discovered it was related stuff). I put the czech link back and YOU ... By the way I am an arsenal / Rosický fan so i would not vandalise!
But Still, Great Job (Well done!) to YOU as you try to correct vandalism (You saw my changes real fast!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.136.77 ( talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning but you are mistaken. I fixed a misdirected link to the proper page. If you reverted me, please undo. Im User:Mmcknight4, not logged in. Thanks. 72.184.183.175 ( talk) 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok so youve changed the link to the wrong page. the correction you reverted went to oraniospsis, not clinosperma. Not a big deal but revrrt yourself. 72.184.183.175 ( talk) 06:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Logged in. I'll tell ya what. I couldn't give a shit about the link or the pseudocrisis you mean to create about it. I made the page and Ill come back and make it right when you move on to legitimate vandals; Im not worth your time. Fair enough? Mmcknight4 ( talk) 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well hell, if the fever to remove log-in links exists so steadily, go through all the pages I wrote and remove this supposedly misconforming link from all of them. Or do it to none of them. But be consistent, anyway. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 07:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok well, I just pulled up a palm page and clicked on a GBIF link on my iPhone and got the page you are seeing. Nevertheless, this wasn't the case when the links were initially entered. Furthermore, a remedy might be available short of deleting them. As I said, I'll look into the cause and pursue remedies; viewers didnt previously require such status. I will, of course, press them to make pages instantly viewable though none of the prior admissions condone changing an oraniopsis link, from an oraniopsis page, to a clerosperma link. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 08:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that an article I was viewing was vandalised by the above IP, and I reverted the edit. I also noticed the same IP had done similar edits on that article and others in the past month. Someone has placed a final warning on their talk page, but then the next warning was less severe.
Basically, I was going to get involved in this (I'm new to Wikipedia, editing-wise), but I'm not sure how to proceed, or even if I should. I noticed you're quite the vandalism scout, and you might be interested in giving a budding contributor some advice and pointers.
Rixxin ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you put on a few tags on the List of Battle Arena Toshinden characters article. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later, haha. I've actually left a much longer message in its talk page.
Are you going to help rewrite the article, seeing how you put the tags up? Just thought I'd ask. 86.11.139.109 ( talk) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the article as much I can, and got rid of most of the bumfluff that was written previously, although I've kept a few things I that I know is official in the game's canon storyline. All I need now is some sources.. and probably fast, seeing how someone dosen't seem to like the recent changes and has sporadically been writing back the ambiguous/false info.
I'm deciding to try and source the third game's characters first, as, IMO, they're getting fooled around with the most. I found an online game guide that lists all of the characters' endings from Toshinden 3, and it's a word-for-word rip. Would that be any use? Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just new to the whole "references" thing.
Scrub that, if you've read this. I'm now well on my way on adding sources, haha. 86.11.139.109 ( talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know it was unavailable outside the UK, I assumed it was just the video portion of the page. Apologies. 81.153.165.99 ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't come to my user page just to give me grief on a small thing such as this. If you look at my contributions, you will see a history of quick, easily judged edits read as vandalism. I apologize, I thought that's what that was. I am not a vandal, believe me. I would never intentionally bruse the honor of a successful organization. 71.176.127.17 ( talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see what you have in mind with Felucca. You might want to have a look at the latest conventions about linking in WP:CONTEXT. The article may have been more correct before you changed it. Piano non troppo ( talk) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo. I noticed your edit on Gregorian calendar. You may not be aware that "alternate" is the US/Canadian equivalent to what is known in the UK/Australia/New Zealand as "alternative". We talk of "an alternative proposal" etc, whereas you guys say "an alternate proposal". We use "alternate" only as a verb, meaning "move backwards and forwards between two things". Just another example of countries being divided by a common language. -- JackofOz ( talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't vandalism, sorry about that. Either Wikipedia or Firefox3 was acting up, which was causing some errors. Anyways, I have the sources cited, didn't edit enough from one edit so I had to go back and do additional ones, which inevitably caused me to deal with the errors. I had to log on so I didn't look like some random IP editing, and talk to you.
Edited: ULTRAZORD ( talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ULTRAZORD ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop reverting the entire article, then. If it's so bothersome to you, just take out the pricing citations. Also, you've only taken out my edits, while the page already had pricing information on it before I edited it. The page hasn't been really changed in a while, so this breaking news seemed relevant to updated its status.
ULTRAZORD (
talk) 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You're a hypocritical asshole, did you realize? You got so ape-shit about me doing "blatant advertising", which wasn't true, and even threatened to block me because I kept updating it, but you completely removed the citation for my information. Kind of narrow-sighted of you to cite Wikipedia policy to enforce one rule while ignoring and even removing one rule? I took out the pricing that I put, which in hindsight was a bit much for such a small article, but really, I must emphasize you're a hypocritical asshole. As of this post, you've only deleted pricing citations I placed, and none that were on the article before my edits. Mind explaining that? ULTRAZORD ( talk) 07:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Tried to delete them all? Sure you did, after I called out on your narrow-sighted bullshit. "Blatant commercialism"? Either you really are short-sighted or you're quite stupid if you took all of that as "blatant commercialism". At least I can admit I put a bit much pricing information, along with proper information, for a page of its size, but you, you keep on with your holier than thou attitude and crusade against perceived vandalism, real or not. You will raze the article of the violation, along with what's correct, right, and needed. Good job, Detective Dipshit.
I'm done with this article for now. I tried to contribute, to something that verily needed an update considering the breaking news I just saw on Gizmodo, but I had to do so while dealing with a power-mongering hypocrite who obviously wants to dip his hands in so many things that he'll sacrifice policies to savagely enforce one, and incompletely to boot. From the looks of this talk page, you're doing less contribution to Wikipedia than needless reversions and annoyances. Do you mind brushing up on reading comprehension, since you apparently lurk a lot of articles with a very poor perception of "vandalism" that leads to too many problems and conflicts, with information and people.
This is probably all you have, though, so I'll leave you with your Pyrrhic victory. ULTRAZORD ( talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the copyvio pics and requested speedy deletion on Commons. As for point 10 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it only refers to unofficial sites. As to whether myspace.com/chrissydaniellemusic is an official link or not, I think it is. Unofficial/fan-made links usually have a low number of views. If you really want, you can remove it until it's proven it's official, but I'm just saying I think it's legitimate. Spellcast ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was passing along as I saw your removed Ludacris' MySpace link from the external links. Per WP:ELNO, it states "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject…" and you removed the official MySpace. If you're not convinced it is the official page, you can search on MySpace in the search bar under music and when the musician's page shows it, it'll be boxed with the words "MySpace Verified - Official Artist". DiverseMentality (Boo!) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, that doesn't really answer what I'm getting at. You removed the MySpace link from the external links section, but the guideline says it can be there as long as it is the official page of the musician, which it is. What I'm asking is, why remove it when it's allowed? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly does it say only one is allowed? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I'll bring up the MySpace concern to the talk page of WP:ELNO and see what is said there. As for the official site of Ludacris, it's hard to say because it is Def Jam's official site, but, but it does seem a little commercial. Maybe we should ask for a third opinion? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I also search Google and only come up with Wikipedia, Def Jam, and MySpace. The rest aren't official sites of Ludacris except the Ludacris Foundation, but that's more for the foundation than it is for him. As for the aspect you brought up, one of four of those links are relevant to most articles. The official site should be the only link of "official sites" under external links. The Spanish site would only be relevant to musician who have both Spanish and English albums, or a combination of both, like reggaeton musicians. Fan sites are not allowed, so that's out. Official concert tour site should only be relevant to the the tour article, if there is one (like the Rock Witchu Tour, for example); if there isn't one, it would fit better in the article of the album it is for, which is for most cases how it works. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I did happen to find a little site called Ludacris.com, but has nothing to do with him, which is a little strange. I wish Def Jam wouldn't make things so complicated. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, alright. Let's wait for a few responses, hoping there will be more. I'm off to bed, hopefully we can resolve this sooner than later. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 07:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from my User page, this comment by 77.73.8.70, regarding this change: [8])
Piano non troppo: Forgive me for using this to communicate with you, however - regarding my recent changes on the landrover page - why is it acceptable to advertise for Jeep by saying its second only to them? Secondly I am fixing a incorrect use of "there" in the engines section.
I will accept you removing the comment "second only to none".
Hello! I wanted to thank you for your comments on vandalism and citations/references, Piano non troppo. Kelly Havel was born in Norway, both of Czech parents, and moved to live in Czech Republic shortly after her birth, where she grew up ( http://www.barfland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59900, http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id=121446/forum_id=5/cat_id=1/121446.htm, and http://forum.vivthomas.com/index.php?showtopic=3707&st=160). We could discuss what her nationality truly is, whether she has dual nationality (or if, at the time, such a thing was legally possible in Norway and Czechoslovakia, etc. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html states that she is Czech before Norwegian). In that case, you can contend that the modification I made to the article is moot. However, she did act for Andrew Blake ( http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0369872/), and she did pose for Perfect 10 magazine ( http://www.perfect10.com/popups/modellist.html and http://usedmagazines.com/titles/Perfect10/Volume1/), so I don't understand why you also undid those changes. Considering that her entry is merely a stub, I would think any contribution would be more than welcomed. I deeply hope that the fact that it is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway is not why the modifications were so quicky dismissed - especially if it was because I argued her nationality. Even though I understand your reservations on changes to entries that are unsubstantiated, I did cite a source when I made the change itself (i.e. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html), so I am a bit confused. Perhaps the references above are sufficient for modifications or contributions under your criteria, but I will leave the task of adding more meat to the three sentences skeleton of the article up to you. Better luck with other revisions, and cheers! 220.41.26.175 ( talk) 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've restored some material you deleted, as I can't see any reason for its removal, and in fact its removal undermines the subject. Hirst's shark is the iconic work of Britart, which he is the leading exponent of, curating the seminal Freeze exhibition and now known world-wide. It is therefore appropriate to have a photo of him in the article. You say, "Self-advertising for one particular artist". What evidence do you have for this assertion that one particular artist (presumably Hirst) is advertising himself? Legitimate content is not "advertising" or WP:SPAM: that only applies when it is inappropriate material. It is accepted knowledge that the two best known members of this group are Hirst and Emin. I agree that material should be referenced, but a lot of this content was added when referencing did not have the emphasis which it now does. Ty 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I find your remarks offensive, and I suggest the way to dialogue with other editors is not by making disparaging comments without any foundation. You seem to be prone to jumping to conclusions as with your edit summary "self-advertising", [9] again without any evidence.
The word seminal does not occur in Young British Artists at all. Presumably you mean the word "iconic". You misunderstand WP:PEACOCK. It applies to editorial observations, not to a widely accepted definition which can be sourced properly. See Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Do_not_hide_the_important_facts. I have added a source from The Sunday Times. There are plenty more, up to 17,400. "Seminal" is also available, as it happens. [10]
I haven't done so much work on Young British Artists, but I've looked through and don't see the bias that you state. The material can be referenced, and there is the negative view put as well. As far as Damien Hirst goes, I don't see how you can possibly make your observation of bias. The negative reaction to Hirst is properly represented in the main text, even with its own section. Most of the article is very well referenced with 44 sources.
Your tone expresses something of a negative view of Hirst and like artists, and this seems to be colouring your analysis. There is no place for that on wikipedia. We work from a WP:NPOV, which means following the sources, whether they are good or bad, and whether they express our own opinion or otherwise.
Ty 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't (if I recall correctly) insert that text. However, I am inclined to think it would represent the mainstream artworld view. Do you think it doesn't? If it does represent the established view, then WP:NPOV demands that it should be represented as such. Do you not agree with that? You object to the photo (standard thumbnail size, not over-sized) of Damien Hirst in, what - Young British Artists and Damien Hirst? Is that what you're saying - that he's not important enough in those two articles to merit a photograph of him? Ty 05:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
a) Your comments were not directed at the article. You posted above to me: "I understand you are a devotee who is going to vigorously defend your page. And that you feel it is somehow a exception to Wiki policies and guidelines. Just don't imagine that other artists are fooled, ok? I can read the same mindless, self-serving commentary on the Britany Spears page."
You have made very serious accusations. I trust you will see to either withdraw them or substantiate them. I understand you may have got over-heated on the subject, which seems to be an emotional one for you.
b) + c) Agreed.
d) That is an accident of wiki formatting, which makes the width of a thumb 180 pixels. It was the same size as Myra. However, I have set the key image of the shark for 300 pixels, which I think helps to redress this. If you read the available material on Britart, you will find a considerable amount of it concerns what you call the "personality cult". We follow the sources. We do not make up our own priorities.
e) Hirst was the driving force of the YBAs and has become the pre-eminent exponent of the group. It is thus entirely in order that there should be a photo of him. If you can obtain free images of other artists, they can be included too, but Hirst is the key one (with Emin second). There is a limit on the amount of Fair Use images of artwork in copyright that can be included, though I dare say more could be justified. You can always add them.
f) I have added another reference to validate its importance, which I am sure you are fully aware of, which makes your objections veer into suspect territory.
g) I have amended one text you objected to and deleted the other. Now, are there any other specific parts of the text you consider are not meeting wikipedia policy?
You seem to be saying I am a fan of the movement. Could you please say exactly where I have made that statement about myself?
If you can improve the article, then you should do so. But if you follow the sources, I don't think they're going to say anything substantially different from what the article does at the moment. Maybe you disagree with the sources, but that is WP:OR, not WP:NPOV.
Ty 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(From user talk page) Hi. Actually Wiki doesn't do spoiler alerts any more. The decision was that a person reading an encyclopedia would expect to read a complete account of the subject. Cheers! Piano non troppo ( talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems like there are rules, but no recourse to challenge the rules. Rules, guidelines, whatever. I am seriously annoyed. There was a section called "call out chart"- um, I had no IDEA what that means or I wouldn't have looked. Plus, it is in my natureto read a graph. I stopped looking as soon as I realized what it was, but alas, it was too late and I read the bright red WIN. And I am not a dummy, I just hadn't heard this very newly coined term for "CHART THAT WILL RUIN AN ENTIRE SERIES FOR YOU." It's the principle of it all. I realize I probably sound like a loser who has nothing better to do than watch VH1 and screw around on the internet, so for the record, the Rock of Love stuff was really the only reality TV I ever watched and I DVRed it! Maybe I am too old to keep up with these new-fangled terms and ways of the internet, especially since it took me forever to figure out how to write you back!
76.189.137.199 ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't an inapproprite link 142.46.7.18 ( talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't stop laughing. I opened your userpage because I've seen your revert on Meshuggah and the first thing I saw was the "I edit, therefore I exist?" I was so laughing... René Descartes...fine, very fine wiki-joke!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
why would I need to cite a link on a page when the link on the page goes to a page with all the required references. Kim Ung-yong got a phd from Colorado State University as noted on his page. It also notes on his page that he has the highest verified iq. You deleting the link is lame and not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.102.229 ( talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:92.72.9.102&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Istari_Lasterfahrer&diff=245870395&oldid=245870324
Can you please explain why linking to the release page of an album in the discography of an artist is considered bad, or why that justifies the removal of the complete entry in said discography?
Can you please explain why linking to the artists personal blog (myspace links are VERY common, and myspace is basically a blogging system) is considered bad?
Can you you please explain, why you just reverted all of the changes instead of adding discussion on the issues on the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.9.102 ( talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You recently removed myspace links in band articles claiming to follow WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But it specifically states, "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject". The links you removed were all official myspace pages, which are allowed. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You're doing it again. Please stop. It's not up to you to decide whether the links should be removed. There are arguments on both sides grounded in policy. I recommend you discuss with the community first. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I partially reverted your deletion [11] of sources from the New Seven Wonders of the World article, and instead re-worked the citation to reference the original printed story rather than the on-line article. For future reference when you run into dead reference links like this, you should probably follow Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repairing dead links rather than just removing the citation. Thanks, -- Kralizec! ( talk) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I believed it was a known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.31.69 ( talk) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for the vandalism of those student's who have used this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.111 ( talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you have again removed one of the links regarding the above band. I note you did so previously, and it was I who reverted you and invited you to discuss the matter on the talkpage, per WP:BRD. I am gently dismayed that you have simply again removed the link, citing WP:EL (criteria 10, I hazard). While MySpace is generally a networking site, the link is to the "official" (it is run by a former member of the band, and his wife) site for the band - and since there is no other official Siouxsie & the Banshees website it would make sense to keep the semi-official one in the article. I look forward to your response. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted vandalism on Diwali but you reverted my fixes!
72.192.188.179 ( talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
excuse me, how was my edit vandalism? it was a legitimate entry. please give something more than 2 seconds thought before you accuse someone of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.231.15 ( talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just added a person's middle name, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I added sources, this biased vandal/partisan removed them in an earlier revision. I'll happily re-add them, but meantime I really must ask you to remove the fact tag. It just doesn't seem appropriate. This stuff is effortlessly provable. He just doesn't like it because it paints his hero Moore in a bad light. Could you please warn him to stop reverting for absurd reasons. I've left a message on his talk page and the article talk page. I don't think he's going to listen. JJJ999 ( talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted an edit calling it vandalism. Have you read the definition of [ [12]] at all? Factual information was added. The only constructive comment you make is that a comment and/or a discussion page entry should be added with references. *Both* were done. 76.116.5.27 ( talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm kind of confused about this edit where you removed a whole chunk of the singer's biography. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 06:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think there's any reason that an IP cannot remove a PROD and the user explained on the talk page the reason for removing the notability tag (though I disagree). http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=I+Wrestled+A+Bear+Once&diff=254558477&oldid=254558360 Cheers! DoubleBlue ( talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, I Wrestled A Bear Once, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Wrestled A Bear Once. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed your message at
User talk:189.50.161.77, and was curious: You really considered
this to be an improvement? All wikilinks were removed, so was the bolding of the lead. I mostly undid it, and was about to tell the user to cut it out when I noticed your message there. Maybe the changes at
WP:CONTEXT were more profound than I was aware of. :) --
Amalthea
Talk 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(copied from user talk page) Hi. I noticed your changes to Locrian mode. Is there more information about whether the use was intentional? And if it was, if there was any special purpose? I know the Beatles used mixolydian mode...but it wasn't intentional, as such. Just wondering. Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've removed your tag on this article. ( Springtime (guitar)) You were right there are instruments with more than just plain 6 strings, but this instrument has a stereo system (not like on the Rickenbackers, but completly separated outputs for the individual string sessions). This relevance of this object is besides this odd deviation also because it has been made exclusive for Blood Red Shoes, Lou Barlow and dEUS, which are all quiet famous bands. 83.87.170.234 ( talk) 07:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
When reversing mindless vandalism, could you please check the history. Sometimes, as in that instance, the previous edit has also been vandalistic, but less obvious. If you reverse one and leave the other, it gives a false impression that everything is correct. 1/4 of the article on Fra Angelico went missing in that way, and I didn't discover it until I reread the whole article.
Amandajm ( talk) 11:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's my picture from mark, sorry i didn't log in. And by the way it's in CC on my flickr [14], so i don't see why you see it as copyright? Sincerely -- Ulikleafar ( talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) See my french wikipedia account [15]
Why did you delete my post after I cited it. That is legit information. Stop deleting stuff that is true. 204.198.75.129 ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please help, I tried to delete the notice for the page Glint (band) that says its considered for deletion because it came off the AFD log and is cleared. How do you make a notice in the edit summary, I am confused. Also, if you want a link to the band to come up on the page "Glint" (which is a radar entry) what is the proper way of adding a link so someone typing in "Glint" can also find a link to Glint (band)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No opinion, just cleaned up. It is what it is.-- 96.245.40.224 ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the edit because it did not fit well within the context of the article. While washing machine spin cycles separate water from clothing using centripetal force, it neglects the fact that water escapes the central portion of the washing machine through holes on the side. Additionally, the use of gravity driven spin cycles is only true for top loading machines, where front loading machines use the inertia of the water to drive the movement. As for the context in centrifugation, clothing is not separated in a gradient fashion (mass or density gradient from the center of the washing machine), and the water removal is more of a sieving mechanism, facilitated slightly by the spin cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revwar98 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What I wrote was neither opinion nor analysis. (in Ultra) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is a link to a band's record label site considered spam? (In Skeleteen.) I see it on other band's pages. I don't see anything in the policies that cover that. I'm very confused. Particularly as it's an independent label that supports the noise rock scene that they are in. Thanks for the reply ahead of time. M. W. Eilers 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Hi Piano non troppo, this may have just been an oversight on your part, but this edit is incorrect. Any editor can remove a prod tag and they don't need to provide a reason (although it's nice when they do). The IP shouldn't have been reverted or warned. Just wanted to let you know for next time. Regards, Somno ( talk) 05:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
please help me stop a indian pov pusher from the states from adding his anti pakistan bias into the azad kashmir article hes using the term POK i did the same to jammu to give him a taste of his own medicine 81.158.129.185 ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The user whose Jammu and Kashmir edits you just reverted is a sock puppet of Nangparbat. See User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader for their list of ips. Please revert all their edits; i was trying but I violated 3RR.
Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
no im not its called a dynamic ip your very slow in memory it seems i explained anyways hes using this mountain nangparbat as a excuse to add his indian pov into articles 81.158.129.185 ( talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that you tagged Jacko Barry for inprovement. I am currently improving it now, but I will leave the tag on it so you can look at it and then decided wether it's good enough. Raphie ( talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really get why you removed the link to Storytron at Chris Crawford (game designer) as WP:SPAM; it certainly doesn't strike me as spam. Storytron is the culmination of Chris Crawford's life of work, so I think it's a very relevant and useful external link. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
the info was in there twice, that is why i removed it thankyou. please revert my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.128 ( talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the information that I have submitted on this page(release date revisions, new information, ect.) has come to me directly from Atari UK's PR Rep. Lee Kirton, so it is fact, as for citations, there hasn't been any "breaking news" yet, but as soon as I hear from him on this, I will be sure to add them to my future edits. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.135.140 ( talk) 07:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
you have reverted my edit. fair enough, I was lazy enough not to give the reasons. that section is poorly written and incorrect. please see the talk page. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.229 ( talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the line about the three actors from the original film having died belongs in the TIME BANDITS Sequel section as it gives yet another impediment to a sequel being made.-- Swingkid570 ( talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just nominated it for deletetion.-- RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you had actually read the changes that you are complaining about, you would see that I made a grammatical correction, and did not add any external link. 12.76.157.0 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Piano, I too am a professional editor, so I'm curious as to why you edited out my link to the Navigation Foundation's website in the Robert Peary article. Insofar as the Navigation Foundation is mentioned in the introductory line to the article as validating Peary's claim, it seems to me that readers might have a reasonable expectation of a link to that organization. True, perhaps it's better to put the link in a reference, but I can't do that without messing up someone else's footnote. Generally speaking, the Peary article is a bit "breezy" for my taste anyway -- needs a serious academic edit. RLM1961 ( talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)RLM1961
Yes, it appears I am up to my daily limit. I considered the links added to be WP:SPAM, but I know I can't consider that obvious vandalism, so WP:3RR applies. I waited to remove the link the last time in hopes that someone else would, but no one did, so I used my last one. Glad to know you're keeping an eye out, though. Cheers. – Alex43223 T | C | E 09:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel I deserve an apology :-p -Guy who de-vandalized a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.214.65 ( talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, sorry! My editing tool switched away from the Wiki article I was trying to revert -- then Wikipedia decided it was going to be painfully slow, when I went back to fix it. My neighbors got to hear some choice language! Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the most recent edits, it's possible that the user isn't being altered by talk page messages for some technical reason. The user does seem to be aware of other editors making changes to his/her contributions, though. just64helpin ( talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This was a valid article and in my opinion should not be removed.. regardless you are the expert so it's your call.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.139.141 ( talk) 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. I kept rolling back, and there was more! -- Chasingsol (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It is common practice on Wikipedia for details of works of fiction to be explored when relating to real world events.
And since I am the author of the said novel. Kindly leave my page alone. Otherwise, you are engaging in vandalism. (unsigned from 76.89.226.240 about Decipher (novel))
Your edit summary may at first look harsh, but actually it's an understatement. Welcome to the world of professional photography, where hype, promotion and simple vanity are endemic and shameless. (Although it doesn't have to be that way.) -- Hoary ( talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo! Can you be more specific about this edit you made to Lasantha Wickramatunga? I've been trying to improve the article since a few hours ago. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate more on this on the talk page (or here or my talk page - whatever is convenient). Thanks. Chamal talk 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Piano non Troppo , you flagged my article for notability , I am still working on it but, I think I might have established notability through references as of my last update. Please let me know if I have not done so. Thanks for the Help talk 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding my edits at D. B. Cooper in popular culture—"popular culture" lists are merely a relabeling of what were openly called trivia lists until sometime around 2006. I believe that citing cultural references to secondary sources is an effective and objective way of keeping this material encyclopedic, based on core Wikipedia policy. However, sometimes I fall back on the "whole work" vs. "passing reference" distinction when I run into editors who think secondary sources shouldn't be required, just so I can get some cleanup done. WillOakland ( talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That was NOT vandalism at all. The terminology came from the US military, and got picked up by the people at large. I was only answering another contributor who asked why "The shits" redirected to the article Diahorrea, and placing where that came from when you and someone else used the "V-word". 205.240.146.148 ( talk) 23:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I am a resident of Zachary and I will tell you that Zachary is experimenting intensive growth currently. The report that is in the article that Zacharys growth was only a result of Hurricane Katrina is purely fictional.
you idiot? -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 12:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(years later, shortly before his death in 1990s, he said he was told to lie by his father and the men from the secret police [1]).
was ALREADY in the text 'in your "last known good version". -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
"Bad"??? If you do something like this to people and edits costantly, I hope somebody will erase YOU, you stupid vandal fuck. -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 13:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit, since the article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. 71.204.176.201 ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I hoped my edits here would reorient the article to a NPOV, sharpen contasting issues, raise new ones, and add polish.
The resulting changes to its content and form are of fair variety. Your revert applies to edits according to my IP address, however, so it seems to have followed from a concern about the edits taken as a whole, rather than from editorial disagreement over particular change(s) taken in isolation.
So I feel like I should tread lightly here. I'd like to restore that work, at least in part, but I'd like to hear from you first, in case you have a global objection of some kind, or in case I've run afoul by accident of the guidelines.
Thanks in advance, 216.162.196.34 ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Victor Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's what's going on: It doesn't matter whether it's true so much as whether you can prove it's true, with proper references. I.e., when I first joined Wiki, I had non-controversial edits reverted about things I'd seen, in person, because there was no published source to prove I was right. Verifiability is one of Wiki's three "core content policies". See WP:SOURCE. The way to proceed is to find references.
The problem is that if you don't use references, somebody else with an ax to grind will put their own (incorrect) material in. (Or some prankster with a sense of humor will add a few words.) Without a way to tell whether something is factual, there's no way to keep Wiki articles on the straight and narrow. Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully submit that you yourself continue to vandalize. Pastor Benny Hinn regularly wears white suits made of mixed cloth and linen. This is in express contravention of Leviticus 19:19, which you would know had you bothered to read the KJV before vandalizing my perfectly factual entry. You really need to take a less arrogant approach to your self-appointed duties, read the source material, and let the edit I submitted stand as is. It is ENTIRELY correct, though you may find it offends your theological sensitivities. Boo hoo. 75.157.202.114
(Note that this user was blocked from editing for 31 hours.) Piano non troppo ( talk) 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I left a message for the (IP) user who left rude comments for you above. You shouldn't have to put up with that. Regards, — Alan ✉ 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For all you do, keep up the good work Ottawa4ever ( talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for tirelessly reverting vandalism. Could you also place the standard vandalism notice on their userpages when you do? Thanks in advance. Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC) :D
I certainly have found similar situations. That's one of the problems that comes up with school computers editing Wikipedia: multiple, almost thousands, of people seemingly using the same computer to vandalize, and on some occasions (when I went to public school, this was the case for me) attempting to make constructive edits to Wikipedia that get targeted immediately due to the notoriety of that IP, or a block being put on. The easy solution for those people is to get a user account. It increases the amount that people on the wiki trust your edits many times over, and it prevents you from receiving responses to people's vandalism from the same IP. BTW, Wikipedia, at the moment, is getting hammered from vandalism to high school pages, from kids who are angry about having to return from school. I've counted about 15 so far. Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
looking at your talk page, and continuing to look at my huggle readouts, you deserve these.
The Anti-Flame Barnstar | ||
in the face of insult, remains calm Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | ||
rollback expert, beating everyone to the punch Miquonranger03 ( talk) 05:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
If you look to my edits in the external link section, there is no link to a Blog site I added - maybe you see About.com as a Blog? I have no problem to remove it as long as other blogs are also deleted. The Times is also no blogsite. There are a lot of links to anonymous websites, including a blog, like http://www.wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com/ which others added. This blog is also quoted in the article what I complained about at the talk page. I mainly wished to make clear who the authors of the plenitude of anonymous websites are. Your advise is most welcome. I tried to restore the Link section, which I mainly wished to balance. Maybe you can add your thoughts at the talk page? Thanks a lot. 79.171.63.246 ( talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There was an error alright - between my keyboard and my chair ;-) -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Want this to be a page of Italian American dishes like Marinara Sauce, Spaghetti Bolognese, Fettucine Alfredo?
Go right ahead, makes a great encyclopedia article!
213.156.49.142 ( talk) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The IP is correct, community councillors don't get "succession boxes". If you disagree please give reasons on talk page, no blind reverting without discussion please.-- Troikoalogo ( talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's true, part of Brown's penis was placed in Victoria's coffin. Why did you remove it?
I got this message from you: Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Blog Quiz. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I did something inappropriate. I did not know I was doing something like that. I red the instructions in Finnish and understood that it is appropriate to add an external link - especially as the previous sentence in Blog Quiz has a similar kind of an external link. Would it be possible for you to tell me if I can add my two sentences without an external link? I would also appreciate an explanation why the other external link is allowed to be there. Furthermore, I would appreciate your opinion whether an article about Definitely Best Questions, if I wrote one, might be published in Wikipedia. Should I write it first and send it to editors for review? I would like to point out that there already are several other articles and mentions of commercial quiz products in Wikipedia. 88.112.13.75 ( talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Vladimir Lenin: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Eeekster ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Your well on your way to becoming a great vandal fighter after only a week or two on the wikipedia. When i first started i used to use MWT as well, it played up on me a tad so i ventured around and discovered a great tool called Huggle. If you like MWT, let me tell you Huggle will blow you out of the water! Remember when your ready and think your trustworthy enough apply for rollback which you will need to use Huggle. Happy Editing Monster Under Your Bed ( talk) 13:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
In regards to User talk:128.138.120.79, the edit to Gel was absolutely NOT spam. It is the DOI of the pre-existing reference. Reign in your stupid bot. 128.138.120.79 ( talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My official urgent request demands for somebody to create some articles about Norma-feminine names related-and please specify what the name really means. How to create it and to avoid vandal-related edits at the same time is tricky. Help me please.
Neurotic heart ( talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo! I've seen you reverting vandalism during the past few days (I don't know if you've seen me though). Well, you are pretty fast for someone using MWT. Ever thought of using Huggle? I see you don't have rollback yet, so why not apply for rollback (which you are sure to get) and start using huggle? Looking forward to the day you join us ;) Keep up the good work. Cheers! Chamal Talk 15:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your continual removal of the 'Further Information' section and website. Your quote: " It's the commerical part which is not allowed. Either add material (and cite your page), or create a new article about your company.)" - unquote. First thing, I have no company! If you took the time to visit the website in question (www.freewebs.com/band-bus) you would see that its in no way a commercial venture. Its an information site only and as such has no revenue generating capability and is in no way affiliated to any operator or company. I started the site a couple of years ago as a source of information (incidently, I also started the wikipedia 'Sleeper bus' article) for people interested in the band bus industry. For people viewing the wikipedia article, a 'further information' website is a positive adition to the article scancoaches ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
(Re: edits to Nabih article and to this page.) The edit page I saw showed only deleted material, by an anonymous IP, with no justification. In fact, deleted material was being restored. No serious harm done, I hope. Piano non troppo ( talk) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is paying no attnetion to warnings. -- Falcadore ( talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, have you even been looking at what is contained in the links? They are extremely specific to the topic, with as much or even more information on the applicable topic than the official websites. I appreciate what you're doing, but in this instance I feel you are doing wikipedia users a major injustice. As you so rightly say, there is no search engine advantage to adding these links, there is however a massive Wikipedia user advantage. I'm only adding the external links because I couldn't find the info I wanted in the Wikipedia, but instead found all of it and more at these links. I'm really not sure what the problem is.
Would you please reconsider deleting my hard work? For everyone's sake?
Oh and fyi, that website is a non profit website, in fact it costs several thousand dollars a year to run. See how many ads there are on there? See how much it costs to sign up? See how, other than for Wikipedia and it's readers, there is no gain from adding links to it in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.135.130 ( talk) 06:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this guy did same to my links to reviews of Agone, looks like trolling. 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 04:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to trouble you with this question. Can you please tell me why my site (Outlines.com) keeps getting removed from the links portion of search term "law school outlines." The site offers free registration and allows students to download free law school outlines if they upload one in exchange, to keep our database growing! The other option is for them to pay a nominal fee ($4.95) mainly to promote them to upload instead. I would not be opposed to having it listed under a category for paid site if you felt that was appropriate, but why not at all? With a site called Outlines.com that has an extensive law school database, it just not seem fully justified to merely remove it. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration.(UTC)
Hi, why did you delete my addition about the new domestic book scanner ? I think it's a very useful addition, the Opticbook has opened up book scanning to a lot more people, your truly included. 92.237.186.252 ( talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
These minor edits: [4] are impossible to confuse with vandalism nor are they the kind of statements that require references. Next time, try to make constructive contributions to wikipedia, thank you. 75.15.193.158 ( talk) 21:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The Heron Marked Barnstar
I hereby award this Barnstar to Piano non troppo for their conspicuous effort reverting vandalism to The Wheel of Time article. Tai'shar Wikipedia! Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you for keeping an eye out for the Wheel of Time page and reverting those revolting edits. Wikipedia needs more people like you, and I wish that vandal patrollers got recognition more often. Please consider this Wheel of Time themed barnstar to be a small token of my appreciation for all your hard work. Nutiketaiel ( talk) 12:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been busy for nearly 2,5 hours editing this article and searching/confirming additional information about my hometown Gorredijk during WWII (we HAD a rich Jewish history) and not even a minute after I had finished I saw that all my edits had been reverted by you. Now I want to know why you did that. If you see the Dutch version of the same article you can see that a large part there is about WWII aswell. Because our town had seen alot of action during WWII for such a small town. Please explain, because I don't know why you did that. -- 217.120.149.136 ( talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I’ve reverted your rollback in Linux kernel, but couldn't find out which of the links there were the actual spam. -- AVRS ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont know why the environmentalrefugees.org links was deleted but please keep it on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.104.148 ( talk) 07:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a simple note about this article. On the 11th of September you undid an edit by a vandal, but you accidently reverted to a version by the same vandal. I reverted 4 edits including yours to get back to an older, cleaner version. Regards Ksempac ( talk) 08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that many people don't care for a statement like this as a 'reason', but it has had that caption for 2.5 years. So, while you might consider it much belated, I might think your change a bit precipitous? Not that it is a big deal, but I'd love for everybody to "think twice" about changes. Shenme ( talk) 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
(This comment is about article Muscle worship.) I'm curious about something. You claim to be a professional writer and editor. My guess would be that you spend most of your time professionally editing Wikipedia (judging by some of what I've read here). What do you know about muscle worship? Do you know enough about it to remove an external link to a site that contains content (free content) that would pretty much only be of interest to individuals who have an affinity for muscle worship? You must have, muscle fetish for men that nobody knows about, and are incapable of withstanding the sight of female bodybuilders. I can't think of any other reason you would go to the muscle worship article in the first place and then delete a link to a site dedicated to female bodybuilding. Many of the female bodybuilders featured in the galleries on that site do muscle worship sessions. So, why would you delete a link to a good resource for people interested in the topic? Seriously, what do you know about muscle worship that would precipitate your deletion of an external link that is pretty much a definitive (and free) resource for images and videos on the topic? I'm sure you have an answer, but I doubt it is a good one. But I can't wait to hear it anyways. So please; enlighten me. I'm sure you have the Wikipedia's policies memorized (more likely tattooed backwards on your ass), and have found some caveat to justify your deletion of that resource. And it IS as good resource on the topic. And if you don't believe that it is a good resource on the topic, just ask any of the 20,000+ individuals who visit the site every month to simply to browse the FREE galleries. Nobody spends a dime on that site, and it doesn't sell anything. And I can tell you, I certainly don't make any money from the site. So, if you're going to throw some commercial site bullshit at me, it's going hit the fan and fly back into your face. Think this one through before you answer. And when you answer, please include your expertise in the area of muscle worship to justify your actions. Because, my friend, this is only about what YOU think, and nothing more. But regardless of what you think, I've got my money on you not knowing a damned thing about muscle worship or what interests people who do. You say address the issue on the discussion page of the article. Who the hell is on that discussion page to discuss it with? Incidentally, that site is linked all the way through from the female bodybuilding article, and is within the categories of Bodybuilding and BDSM. Think Mink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you call it linkspam (whatever that is). Tell me what is the difference between www.amg-lite.com and the link in question? It seems to me, that there isn't a bit of difference between the two (other than the fact that www.amg-lite.com contains far more banners), but the external link to amg-lite never gets deleted, though it has far more ads. What is it? It certainly can't be banners on the main page, as www.amg-lite.com has perhaps 20 banners on the index page. It's an honest question that shouldn't be too difficult to answer.
And your insinuation in your message to me, that Amazon Muscle is somehow attempting to gain some type of ranking advantage in Google by linking from Wikipedia, is a quite presumptuous. The site is already ranked high enough in Google for the appropriate search terms, that the site doesn't require any help from Wikipedia.
If the idea is to have external links to sites that refer to bodybuilding or muscle worship, you won't find a single site on the Internet that contains relevant content, but lacks banners; just like amg and amazon are linked together. It's not about making money or spamming, it's about cooperation.
But tell me more about linkspam, and how amazonmuscle differs from amg-lite. Amazon Muscle is a free resource, just like amg, though with far fewer ads. The banners on that site are placed there as a free service to the owners of those sites. Amazon Muscle doesn't have a single affiliate banner in place, and it never has.
And then when you are done answering that question, perhaps you could advise me as to what the Wiki Police consider to be a page that would not offend their sensitivities. AMG and Amazon Muscle are the same model, but somehow, Amazon Muscle continuously get the shaft. Perhaps there is some sort of bias here. And if not, get your ass over to the female bodybuilding article, and start deleting GeneX and AMG as well.
And one other thing, take a look at GeneX, and tell me when you click on the very top link of the page the plainly states "Member", and tell me that you don't have to pay to access the resources of that site. Again, you just aren't going to find any relevant information on female bodybuilding, that isn't linked to some commercial site. That's just the way it is. I count 25 banners on amg's main page; all to paysites, including about 4 or 5 that link to sessions for 6.99 per minute, as does GeneX. Have a look, and then justify your bias against Amazon Muscle.
Oh, my God! Is that a link on the very top the girlgrip.co.uk link just below mine that you keep deleting? And where does it go? It goes to their page where they are selling 5 minute videos for $5. I'm not sure where your head is. I added the External links section to that page, and added my link, which is relevant to the topic. However, my link gets deleted, and some link that leads DIRECTLY to a commercial site that is selling video, stands in it's place. How do and your friends explain your actions?
Incidentally, I've removed my own links, as I just noticed that you and your fellow peons (And before you start freaking-out, no, that is not an insult or personal attack; simply a description of your status in this community.), yankee and quartet have issue similar "orders" to me as yours, threatening to block my account; no doubt in collusion with you. But you cats ought to have a little more sense than to go around harrassing people selectively. I certainly hope that you don't (though I highly suspect you do) get your kicks out of what you are doing. Take for example Elena Seiple's page; doesn't the only external link lead to a commercial site which only has the purpose of reeling in paying members? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Seiple How do you explain yourselves?
In the end, I believe that you will have some rational explanation for your bias. And keep something in mind, all of the people whose links I am mentioning are either friends or acquaintances of mine (in fact Elena has a nice gallery on the site whose link you and your cohorts continue deleting), so I am certainly not encouraging anyone to delete their links. I am mentioning them, as examples of your complete lack of judgment and fairness with reference to deleting external links.
I'm sure you're a nice person, but isn't there something better you could be doing with your time. Perhaps not. But if that is the case, then at least do your job professionally, and don't simply go around with a trigger-happy finger on the delete key, and arbitrarily seek out individuals to screw with.
And if you have something sane to say and don't want to continue having this out in public, send me a message and explain to me how we can resolve this matter in private, as there is no way for me to respond to the Wikigods messages to me. Sorry if I seem pissed. But I am, and you know why.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the Madison Avenue Motive is, though I did do quick search but turned up empty handed. And I must say at this point, that Wikipedia is becoming a very weird site. Your link to Women on Top is a bit much for a site like this in my opinion; graphically that is. If there is information of an academic nature, then I can see the point, though the images, I believe, go a bit to far. But I guess images have there place in information as well (a picture being worth a thousand words and all).
Seriously, though, I don't really care about having our site referred to on Wikipedia anymore. Honestly, it doesn't do anything for us in a commercial sense. I simply don't accept the lack of fairness with which we were deleted. And I'm not the only one in the female bodybuilding community that has taken issue with this. Perhaps Wikipedia is simply growing out of control, with no possible way of applying policies in a fair manner, due to the sheer volume and scattered nature of information, exacerbated by the variety topics and the inability of editors/administrators to moderate topics because of insufficient knowledge reference a particular field.
Wiki is a big site, and I don't know how matters such as this can be handled. It's simply too big, and the administrators cannot know everything there is to know about how external sites on a particular topic operate in the real world. I can tell you though, that it is highly unlikely, if not, downright impossible, to find a site on female bodybuilding, that does not have some sort of commercial sponsorship associated with it. It's just not. That is the reality. People have to work very hard and travel all over the world to gather images of these girls at competitions and whatnot. Nobody can do that for free. I'm not saying that they are making a killing, but they must have a way to support their efforts. And this includes the bodybuilders themselves. Some of them spend thousands of dollars preparing for a contest. And even if they win, they usually do receive cash. And if they did receive cash, as in the world's largest competitions, it will probably not be enough to even cover the costs of their contest preparation.
I don't know what else to say, but this is a conundrum that is certain to grow as Wikipedia grows.
That was me changing, "Oh, shit." to, "Oh, my God". Simply and attempt to maintain a little more of a moderate tone, maintain a civil tongue, and be less offensive.
Regarding the girlgrip.co.uk site, that would be in Strongwoman article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongwoman Again, I'm not bashing that site or saying that the link should be deleted. I'm simply saying that if the issue here is the commercial nature of these links, then this is just another example of the problem of having female bodybuilding links with no commercial activity associated with them. Amazon1 ( talk) 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazon1 ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the article was a bit inconsistent because you had helpfully noted "in Spanish", but had left an icon ((in Spanish)) in place. However, I don't claim to be an expert on the guidelines and you are welcome to revert my changes. -- Alan ( talk) 19:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
since-you-are-such-a-sailor-moon-fan-want-to-help-with-a-new-sailor-moon-wiki[ [5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.172.161 ( talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, PNT. I've seen your vandal reversions with MWT, but have you ever considered using Huggle or Twinkle? Huggle is, I believe, more faster than MWT, although I've never used MWT. Just voice your opinion here if you want to give Huggle a try or not. I still appreciate your anti-vandalism work. Schfifty Three 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
125.163.214.241 continually changes links in the Kretek article to an advertisement. I saw that you had posted on his "Talk" page, so I'm just wondering what the process is to ban this guy from doing those edits any more. Jehnidiah ( talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Jehnidiah ( talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Piano non troppo, I reverted vandalism to your user page by an IP recently, and I would suggest that you consider having your page indefinitely semi-protected in accordance with the Protection Policy, reducing the likelihood of vandalism in the future. Thanks =) Cflm001 ( Talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I added links to reviews and additional resources. I could see your point that my internal wiki links may have been unecessary, but the links Iadded in the 'external links' section should have stayed, if you have not deleted my hard work, please put them back on.
By the way I am not a college kid in a dorm room, but a professional copy editor and journalist who also happens to know about the article subject. Josh 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 04:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Fortune 500? Are we having a contest as to who edits for the best company? Mine's a global TV network that's a household name. Ihear you on broken links, cheers for that. Ditto non-English. However, you miscredited me for this:
"not like most RPG characters"
Because as you can see from Agone's discussion page, I removed that line for the reasons you state.
As for Wiki not being a link farm, agreed, but in this case there is a box on the page saying it needs notability. One of the ways to establish that for a book is to show that there are reviews of it. No matter, I added my links to the discussion page; another editor can determine their suitability.
By the way, at my company we believe in full transparency; we even asked Jimmy Wales why he edited his own page. . 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 05:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Just coming back to remove my email as I've already gotten some spam. Thanks for removing it. Have linked and cited what I think is fair in the article, and I think improved it greatly.
202.82.171.186 (
talk) 07:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the rest of the info for this article would all be in German or French, which I don't speak. What are the rules, if any, for translating and citing foreign-language sources? 202.82.171.186 ( talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Removing other users' vandalism is barely vandalism. (71.244.215.164)
The Anti-Spam Barnstar | ||
Hey Piano non troppo! Lately, when I am following the feed of the linkwatcher bots, and I decide that something may be spam, I often see that you already are there as well, reverting and warning the same editor! Compliments, and thanks for the hard work. I don't know if you have access to IRC, but maybe you'd like to join us there in the 'spam fighting channels' #wikipedia-en-spam and #wikipedia-spam-t! In any way, your help is very welcome! Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
you claim that I've edited a page without citing... the thing is I've never edited a wiki page in my life ._. I do not mean to be offensive in anyway, and I'm not even sure if this is where I should be posting stuffs I want you to see? I'm sorry if it's the wrong place o_o just thought I should tell you though. and thanks for anti-spamming =) 124.158.17.69 ( talk) 13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Because you really are good at fighting vandalism! ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
Hey, you deserve it, I think you've beaten me to reverting an article about, say, 15 times? ;)
ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose it's like shiftwork. ɷ i m b u s a n i a 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why are you editing articles that you have no knowledge of? If you actually bothered to read them you would have noticed that you removed links to a BIOS fix which fixes a not so uncommon problem that renders machines useless. It's posted on a blog, but not available elsewhere. Same is true for the forum which is an invaluable ressource for all new users. And why was a link to one review removed but not the other one? Seems like pretty random vandalization to me. You might also want to check for ref names, so that a few other links are not rendered useless by your vandalization. Also check the history next time to see who actually contributed to the article. You surely didn't. 88.152.211.79 ( talk) 10:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
What in the world are you doing reverting my edits on South Dakota Highway 26? I didn't put "external links" in--I simply added information about what was on the road. Get a grip. 24.14.33.171 ( talk) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I remarked to one key visitor site in the town area and it was NOT allowed. The Fruit Yard is our local Knotts Berry Farm or Disneyland. and no one deletes their references- who is anyone kidding- to be so hippocritical - it has as much a right to be there as any of the others it has been a big deal here for Modesto for over 30 years. Replace what was done. At least they do not charge to park or picnic- try getting that at Disneyland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.77.73 ( talk) 04:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This edit was actually correct, and sourced. Why did you remove it? Corvus cornix talk 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your deletion of links to the page summarizing recent U.S. criminal caselaw, which had been added to pages about U.S. criminal caselaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.237.123 ( talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked the unofficial english page and saw it was a link to and unknown site/advert. So I removed the two unofficial page links but just felt I should have checked the czech page also (So i did -and discovered it was related stuff). I put the czech link back and YOU ... By the way I am an arsenal / Rosický fan so i would not vandalise!
But Still, Great Job (Well done!) to YOU as you try to correct vandalism (You saw my changes real fast!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.136.77 ( talk) 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning but you are mistaken. I fixed a misdirected link to the proper page. If you reverted me, please undo. Im User:Mmcknight4, not logged in. Thanks. 72.184.183.175 ( talk) 06:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok so youve changed the link to the wrong page. the correction you reverted went to oraniospsis, not clinosperma. Not a big deal but revrrt yourself. 72.184.183.175 ( talk) 06:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. Logged in. I'll tell ya what. I couldn't give a shit about the link or the pseudocrisis you mean to create about it. I made the page and Ill come back and make it right when you move on to legitimate vandals; Im not worth your time. Fair enough? Mmcknight4 ( talk) 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well hell, if the fever to remove log-in links exists so steadily, go through all the pages I wrote and remove this supposedly misconforming link from all of them. Or do it to none of them. But be consistent, anyway. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 07:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok well, I just pulled up a palm page and clicked on a GBIF link on my iPhone and got the page you are seeing. Nevertheless, this wasn't the case when the links were initially entered. Furthermore, a remedy might be available short of deleting them. As I said, I'll look into the cause and pursue remedies; viewers didnt previously require such status. I will, of course, press them to make pages instantly viewable though none of the prior admissions condone changing an oraniopsis link, from an oraniopsis page, to a clerosperma link. Mmcknight4 ( talk) 08:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that an article I was viewing was vandalised by the above IP, and I reverted the edit. I also noticed the same IP had done similar edits on that article and others in the past month. Someone has placed a final warning on their talk page, but then the next warning was less severe.
Basically, I was going to get involved in this (I'm new to Wikipedia, editing-wise), but I'm not sure how to proceed, or even if I should. I noticed you're quite the vandalism scout, and you might be interested in giving a budding contributor some advice and pointers.
Rixxin ( talk) 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you put on a few tags on the List of Battle Arena Toshinden characters article. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later, haha. I've actually left a much longer message in its talk page.
Are you going to help rewrite the article, seeing how you put the tags up? Just thought I'd ask. 86.11.139.109 ( talk) 05:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the article as much I can, and got rid of most of the bumfluff that was written previously, although I've kept a few things I that I know is official in the game's canon storyline. All I need now is some sources.. and probably fast, seeing how someone dosen't seem to like the recent changes and has sporadically been writing back the ambiguous/false info.
I'm deciding to try and source the third game's characters first, as, IMO, they're getting fooled around with the most. I found an online game guide that lists all of the characters' endings from Toshinden 3, and it's a word-for-word rip. Would that be any use? Sorry for bothering you again, I'm just new to the whole "references" thing.
Scrub that, if you've read this. I'm now well on my way on adding sources, haha. 86.11.139.109 ( talk) 03:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? I didn't know it was unavailable outside the UK, I assumed it was just the video portion of the page. Apologies. 81.153.165.99 ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't come to my user page just to give me grief on a small thing such as this. If you look at my contributions, you will see a history of quick, easily judged edits read as vandalism. I apologize, I thought that's what that was. I am not a vandal, believe me. I would never intentionally bruse the honor of a successful organization. 71.176.127.17 ( talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see what you have in mind with Felucca. You might want to have a look at the latest conventions about linking in WP:CONTEXT. The article may have been more correct before you changed it. Piano non troppo ( talk) 06:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo. I noticed your edit on Gregorian calendar. You may not be aware that "alternate" is the US/Canadian equivalent to what is known in the UK/Australia/New Zealand as "alternative". We talk of "an alternative proposal" etc, whereas you guys say "an alternate proposal". We use "alternate" only as a verb, meaning "move backwards and forwards between two things". Just another example of countries being divided by a common language. -- JackofOz ( talk) 00:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't vandalism, sorry about that. Either Wikipedia or Firefox3 was acting up, which was causing some errors. Anyways, I have the sources cited, didn't edit enough from one edit so I had to go back and do additional ones, which inevitably caused me to deal with the errors. I had to log on so I didn't look like some random IP editing, and talk to you.
Edited: ULTRAZORD ( talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ULTRAZORD ( talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop reverting the entire article, then. If it's so bothersome to you, just take out the pricing citations. Also, you've only taken out my edits, while the page already had pricing information on it before I edited it. The page hasn't been really changed in a while, so this breaking news seemed relevant to updated its status.
ULTRAZORD (
talk) 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You're a hypocritical asshole, did you realize? You got so ape-shit about me doing "blatant advertising", which wasn't true, and even threatened to block me because I kept updating it, but you completely removed the citation for my information. Kind of narrow-sighted of you to cite Wikipedia policy to enforce one rule while ignoring and even removing one rule? I took out the pricing that I put, which in hindsight was a bit much for such a small article, but really, I must emphasize you're a hypocritical asshole. As of this post, you've only deleted pricing citations I placed, and none that were on the article before my edits. Mind explaining that? ULTRAZORD ( talk) 07:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Tried to delete them all? Sure you did, after I called out on your narrow-sighted bullshit. "Blatant commercialism"? Either you really are short-sighted or you're quite stupid if you took all of that as "blatant commercialism". At least I can admit I put a bit much pricing information, along with proper information, for a page of its size, but you, you keep on with your holier than thou attitude and crusade against perceived vandalism, real or not. You will raze the article of the violation, along with what's correct, right, and needed. Good job, Detective Dipshit.
I'm done with this article for now. I tried to contribute, to something that verily needed an update considering the breaking news I just saw on Gizmodo, but I had to do so while dealing with a power-mongering hypocrite who obviously wants to dip his hands in so many things that he'll sacrifice policies to savagely enforce one, and incompletely to boot. From the looks of this talk page, you're doing less contribution to Wikipedia than needless reversions and annoyances. Do you mind brushing up on reading comprehension, since you apparently lurk a lot of articles with a very poor perception of "vandalism" that leads to too many problems and conflicts, with information and people.
This is probably all you have, though, so I'll leave you with your Pyrrhic victory. ULTRAZORD ( talk) 08:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the copyvio pics and requested speedy deletion on Commons. As for point 10 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it only refers to unofficial sites. As to whether myspace.com/chrissydaniellemusic is an official link or not, I think it is. Unofficial/fan-made links usually have a low number of views. If you really want, you can remove it until it's proven it's official, but I'm just saying I think it's legitimate. Spellcast ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was passing along as I saw your removed Ludacris' MySpace link from the external links. Per WP:ELNO, it states "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject…" and you removed the official MySpace. If you're not convinced it is the official page, you can search on MySpace in the search bar under music and when the musician's page shows it, it'll be boxed with the words "MySpace Verified - Official Artist". DiverseMentality (Boo!) 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, that doesn't really answer what I'm getting at. You removed the MySpace link from the external links section, but the guideline says it can be there as long as it is the official page of the musician, which it is. What I'm asking is, why remove it when it's allowed? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly does it say only one is allowed? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I'll bring up the MySpace concern to the talk page of WP:ELNO and see what is said there. As for the official site of Ludacris, it's hard to say because it is Def Jam's official site, but, but it does seem a little commercial. Maybe we should ask for a third opinion? DiverseMentality (Boo!) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I also search Google and only come up with Wikipedia, Def Jam, and MySpace. The rest aren't official sites of Ludacris except the Ludacris Foundation, but that's more for the foundation than it is for him. As for the aspect you brought up, one of four of those links are relevant to most articles. The official site should be the only link of "official sites" under external links. The Spanish site would only be relevant to musician who have both Spanish and English albums, or a combination of both, like reggaeton musicians. Fan sites are not allowed, so that's out. Official concert tour site should only be relevant to the the tour article, if there is one (like the Rock Witchu Tour, for example); if there isn't one, it would fit better in the article of the album it is for, which is for most cases how it works. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 05:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I did happen to find a little site called Ludacris.com, but has nothing to do with him, which is a little strange. I wish Def Jam wouldn't make things so complicated. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 05:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, alright. Let's wait for a few responses, hoping there will be more. I'm off to bed, hopefully we can resolve this sooner than later. DiverseMentality (Boo!) 07:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from my User page, this comment by 77.73.8.70, regarding this change: [8])
Piano non troppo: Forgive me for using this to communicate with you, however - regarding my recent changes on the landrover page - why is it acceptable to advertise for Jeep by saying its second only to them? Secondly I am fixing a incorrect use of "there" in the engines section.
I will accept you removing the comment "second only to none".
Hello! I wanted to thank you for your comments on vandalism and citations/references, Piano non troppo. Kelly Havel was born in Norway, both of Czech parents, and moved to live in Czech Republic shortly after her birth, where she grew up ( http://www.barfland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59900, http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/topic.dlt/topic_id=121446/forum_id=5/cat_id=1/121446.htm, and http://forum.vivthomas.com/index.php?showtopic=3707&st=160). We could discuss what her nationality truly is, whether she has dual nationality (or if, at the time, such a thing was legally possible in Norway and Czechoslovakia, etc. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html states that she is Czech before Norwegian). In that case, you can contend that the modification I made to the article is moot. However, she did act for Andrew Blake ( http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0369872/), and she did pose for Perfect 10 magazine ( http://www.perfect10.com/popups/modellist.html and http://usedmagazines.com/titles/Perfect10/Volume1/), so I don't understand why you also undid those changes. Considering that her entry is merely a stub, I would think any contribution would be more than welcomed. I deeply hope that the fact that it is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway is not why the modifications were so quicky dismissed - especially if it was because I argued her nationality. Even though I understand your reservations on changes to entries that are unsubstantiated, I did cite a source when I made the change itself (i.e. http://www.eurobabeindex.com/sbandoindex/kellyhavel.html), so I am a bit confused. Perhaps the references above are sufficient for modifications or contributions under your criteria, but I will leave the task of adding more meat to the three sentences skeleton of the article up to you. Better luck with other revisions, and cheers! 220.41.26.175 ( talk) 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've restored some material you deleted, as I can't see any reason for its removal, and in fact its removal undermines the subject. Hirst's shark is the iconic work of Britart, which he is the leading exponent of, curating the seminal Freeze exhibition and now known world-wide. It is therefore appropriate to have a photo of him in the article. You say, "Self-advertising for one particular artist". What evidence do you have for this assertion that one particular artist (presumably Hirst) is advertising himself? Legitimate content is not "advertising" or WP:SPAM: that only applies when it is inappropriate material. It is accepted knowledge that the two best known members of this group are Hirst and Emin. I agree that material should be referenced, but a lot of this content was added when referencing did not have the emphasis which it now does. Ty 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I find your remarks offensive, and I suggest the way to dialogue with other editors is not by making disparaging comments without any foundation. You seem to be prone to jumping to conclusions as with your edit summary "self-advertising", [9] again without any evidence.
The word seminal does not occur in Young British Artists at all. Presumably you mean the word "iconic". You misunderstand WP:PEACOCK. It applies to editorial observations, not to a widely accepted definition which can be sourced properly. See Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Do_not_hide_the_important_facts. I have added a source from The Sunday Times. There are plenty more, up to 17,400. "Seminal" is also available, as it happens. [10]
I haven't done so much work on Young British Artists, but I've looked through and don't see the bias that you state. The material can be referenced, and there is the negative view put as well. As far as Damien Hirst goes, I don't see how you can possibly make your observation of bias. The negative reaction to Hirst is properly represented in the main text, even with its own section. Most of the article is very well referenced with 44 sources.
Your tone expresses something of a negative view of Hirst and like artists, and this seems to be colouring your analysis. There is no place for that on wikipedia. We work from a WP:NPOV, which means following the sources, whether they are good or bad, and whether they express our own opinion or otherwise.
Ty 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't (if I recall correctly) insert that text. However, I am inclined to think it would represent the mainstream artworld view. Do you think it doesn't? If it does represent the established view, then WP:NPOV demands that it should be represented as such. Do you not agree with that? You object to the photo (standard thumbnail size, not over-sized) of Damien Hirst in, what - Young British Artists and Damien Hirst? Is that what you're saying - that he's not important enough in those two articles to merit a photograph of him? Ty 05:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
a) Your comments were not directed at the article. You posted above to me: "I understand you are a devotee who is going to vigorously defend your page. And that you feel it is somehow a exception to Wiki policies and guidelines. Just don't imagine that other artists are fooled, ok? I can read the same mindless, self-serving commentary on the Britany Spears page."
You have made very serious accusations. I trust you will see to either withdraw them or substantiate them. I understand you may have got over-heated on the subject, which seems to be an emotional one for you.
b) + c) Agreed.
d) That is an accident of wiki formatting, which makes the width of a thumb 180 pixels. It was the same size as Myra. However, I have set the key image of the shark for 300 pixels, which I think helps to redress this. If you read the available material on Britart, you will find a considerable amount of it concerns what you call the "personality cult". We follow the sources. We do not make up our own priorities.
e) Hirst was the driving force of the YBAs and has become the pre-eminent exponent of the group. It is thus entirely in order that there should be a photo of him. If you can obtain free images of other artists, they can be included too, but Hirst is the key one (with Emin second). There is a limit on the amount of Fair Use images of artwork in copyright that can be included, though I dare say more could be justified. You can always add them.
f) I have added another reference to validate its importance, which I am sure you are fully aware of, which makes your objections veer into suspect territory.
g) I have amended one text you objected to and deleted the other. Now, are there any other specific parts of the text you consider are not meeting wikipedia policy?
You seem to be saying I am a fan of the movement. Could you please say exactly where I have made that statement about myself?
If you can improve the article, then you should do so. But if you follow the sources, I don't think they're going to say anything substantially different from what the article does at the moment. Maybe you disagree with the sources, but that is WP:OR, not WP:NPOV.
Ty 03:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(From user talk page) Hi. Actually Wiki doesn't do spoiler alerts any more. The decision was that a person reading an encyclopedia would expect to read a complete account of the subject. Cheers! Piano non troppo ( talk) 02:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it seems like there are rules, but no recourse to challenge the rules. Rules, guidelines, whatever. I am seriously annoyed. There was a section called "call out chart"- um, I had no IDEA what that means or I wouldn't have looked. Plus, it is in my natureto read a graph. I stopped looking as soon as I realized what it was, but alas, it was too late and I read the bright red WIN. And I am not a dummy, I just hadn't heard this very newly coined term for "CHART THAT WILL RUIN AN ENTIRE SERIES FOR YOU." It's the principle of it all. I realize I probably sound like a loser who has nothing better to do than watch VH1 and screw around on the internet, so for the record, the Rock of Love stuff was really the only reality TV I ever watched and I DVRed it! Maybe I am too old to keep up with these new-fangled terms and ways of the internet, especially since it took me forever to figure out how to write you back!
76.189.137.199 ( talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't an inapproprite link 142.46.7.18 ( talk) 10:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't stop laughing. I opened your userpage because I've seen your revert on Meshuggah and the first thing I saw was the "I edit, therefore I exist?" I was so laughing... René Descartes...fine, very fine wiki-joke!-- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
why would I need to cite a link on a page when the link on the page goes to a page with all the required references. Kim Ung-yong got a phd from Colorado State University as noted on his page. It also notes on his page that he has the highest verified iq. You deleting the link is lame and not helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.102.229 ( talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:92.72.9.102&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Istari_Lasterfahrer&diff=245870395&oldid=245870324
Can you please explain why linking to the release page of an album in the discography of an artist is considered bad, or why that justifies the removal of the complete entry in said discography?
Can you please explain why linking to the artists personal blog (myspace links are VERY common, and myspace is basically a blogging system) is considered bad?
Can you you please explain, why you just reverted all of the changes instead of adding discussion on the issues on the discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.72.9.102 ( talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You recently removed myspace links in band articles claiming to follow WP:LINKSTOAVOID. But it specifically states, "Except for a link to an official page of the article subject". The links you removed were all official myspace pages, which are allowed. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 13:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You're doing it again. Please stop. It's not up to you to decide whether the links should be removed. There are arguments on both sides grounded in policy. I recommend you discuss with the community first. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I partially reverted your deletion [11] of sources from the New Seven Wonders of the World article, and instead re-worked the citation to reference the original printed story rather than the on-line article. For future reference when you run into dead reference links like this, you should probably follow Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repairing dead links rather than just removing the citation. Thanks, -- Kralizec! ( talk) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I believed it was a known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.31.69 ( talk) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for the vandalism of those student's who have used this computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.218.240.111 ( talk) 09:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you have again removed one of the links regarding the above band. I note you did so previously, and it was I who reverted you and invited you to discuss the matter on the talkpage, per WP:BRD. I am gently dismayed that you have simply again removed the link, citing WP:EL (criteria 10, I hazard). While MySpace is generally a networking site, the link is to the "official" (it is run by a former member of the band, and his wife) site for the band - and since there is no other official Siouxsie & the Banshees website it would make sense to keep the semi-official one in the article. I look forward to your response. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted vandalism on Diwali but you reverted my fixes!
72.192.188.179 ( talk) 02:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
excuse me, how was my edit vandalism? it was a legitimate entry. please give something more than 2 seconds thought before you accuse someone of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.231.15 ( talk) 03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just added a person's middle name, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymichaelcleary ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I added sources, this biased vandal/partisan removed them in an earlier revision. I'll happily re-add them, but meantime I really must ask you to remove the fact tag. It just doesn't seem appropriate. This stuff is effortlessly provable. He just doesn't like it because it paints his hero Moore in a bad light. Could you please warn him to stop reverting for absurd reasons. I've left a message on his talk page and the article talk page. I don't think he's going to listen. JJJ999 ( talk) 08:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You have reverted an edit calling it vandalism. Have you read the definition of [ [12]] at all? Factual information was added. The only constructive comment you make is that a comment and/or a discussion page entry should be added with references. *Both* were done. 76.116.5.27 ( talk) 03:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm kind of confused about this edit where you removed a whole chunk of the singer's biography. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 06:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think there's any reason that an IP cannot remove a PROD and the user explained on the talk page the reason for removing the notability tag (though I disagree). http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=I+Wrestled+A+Bear+Once&diff=254558477&oldid=254558360 Cheers! DoubleBlue ( talk) 05:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, I Wrestled A Bear Once, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Wrestled A Bear Once. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 13:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi
I noticed your message at
User talk:189.50.161.77, and was curious: You really considered
this to be an improvement? All wikilinks were removed, so was the bolding of the lead. I mostly undid it, and was about to tell the user to cut it out when I noticed your message there. Maybe the changes at
WP:CONTEXT were more profound than I was aware of. :) --
Amalthea
Talk 20:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
(copied from user talk page) Hi. I noticed your changes to Locrian mode. Is there more information about whether the use was intentional? And if it was, if there was any special purpose? I know the Beatles used mixolydian mode...but it wasn't intentional, as such. Just wondering. Piano non troppo ( talk) 04:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've removed your tag on this article. ( Springtime (guitar)) You were right there are instruments with more than just plain 6 strings, but this instrument has a stereo system (not like on the Rickenbackers, but completly separated outputs for the individual string sessions). This relevance of this object is besides this odd deviation also because it has been made exclusive for Blood Red Shoes, Lou Barlow and dEUS, which are all quiet famous bands. 83.87.170.234 ( talk) 07:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
When reversing mindless vandalism, could you please check the history. Sometimes, as in that instance, the previous edit has also been vandalistic, but less obvious. If you reverse one and leave the other, it gives a false impression that everything is correct. 1/4 of the article on Fra Angelico went missing in that way, and I didn't discover it until I reread the whole article.
Amandajm ( talk) 11:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's my picture from mark, sorry i didn't log in. And by the way it's in CC on my flickr [14], so i don't see why you see it as copyright? Sincerely -- Ulikleafar ( talk) 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) See my french wikipedia account [15]
Why did you delete my post after I cited it. That is legit information. Stop deleting stuff that is true. 204.198.75.129 ( talk) 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please help, I tried to delete the notice for the page Glint (band) that says its considered for deletion because it came off the AFD log and is cleared. How do you make a notice in the edit summary, I am confused. Also, if you want a link to the band to come up on the page "Glint" (which is a radar entry) what is the proper way of adding a link so someone typing in "Glint" can also find a link to Glint (band)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 ( talk) 16:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No opinion, just cleaned up. It is what it is.-- 96.245.40.224 ( talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the edit because it did not fit well within the context of the article. While washing machine spin cycles separate water from clothing using centripetal force, it neglects the fact that water escapes the central portion of the washing machine through holes on the side. Additionally, the use of gravity driven spin cycles is only true for top loading machines, where front loading machines use the inertia of the water to drive the movement. As for the context in centrifugation, clothing is not separated in a gradient fashion (mass or density gradient from the center of the washing machine), and the water removal is more of a sieving mechanism, facilitated slightly by the spin cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revwar98 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What I wrote was neither opinion nor analysis. (in Ultra) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 ( talk) 12:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is a link to a band's record label site considered spam? (In Skeleteen.) I see it on other band's pages. I don't see anything in the policies that cover that. I'm very confused. Particularly as it's an independent label that supports the noise rock scene that they are in. Thanks for the reply ahead of time. M. W. Eilers 17:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godblessyrblackheart ( talk • contribs)
Hi Piano non troppo, this may have just been an oversight on your part, but this edit is incorrect. Any editor can remove a prod tag and they don't need to provide a reason (although it's nice when they do). The IP shouldn't have been reverted or warned. Just wanted to let you know for next time. Regards, Somno ( talk) 05:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
please help me stop a indian pov pusher from the states from adding his anti pakistan bias into the azad kashmir article hes using the term POK i did the same to jammu to give him a taste of his own medicine 81.158.129.185 ( talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The user whose Jammu and Kashmir edits you just reverted is a sock puppet of Nangparbat. See User:Thegreyanomaly/Nangparbat the evader for their list of ips. Please revert all their edits; i was trying but I violated 3RR.
Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly ( talk) 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
no im not its called a dynamic ip your very slow in memory it seems i explained anyways hes using this mountain nangparbat as a excuse to add his indian pov into articles 81.158.129.185 ( talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that you tagged Jacko Barry for inprovement. I am currently improving it now, but I will leave the tag on it so you can look at it and then decided wether it's good enough. Raphie ( talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really get why you removed the link to Storytron at Chris Crawford (game designer) as WP:SPAM; it certainly doesn't strike me as spam. Storytron is the culmination of Chris Crawford's life of work, so I think it's a very relevant and useful external link. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
the info was in there twice, that is why i removed it thankyou. please revert my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.48.242.128 ( talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
All of the information that I have submitted on this page(release date revisions, new information, ect.) has come to me directly from Atari UK's PR Rep. Lee Kirton, so it is fact, as for citations, there hasn't been any "breaking news" yet, but as soon as I hear from him on this, I will be sure to add them to my future edits. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.135.140 ( talk) 07:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
you have reverted my edit. fair enough, I was lazy enough not to give the reasons. that section is poorly written and incorrect. please see the talk page. thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Air_Force —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.229 ( talk) 17:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that the line about the three actors from the original film having died belongs in the TIME BANDITS Sequel section as it gives yet another impediment to a sequel being made.-- Swingkid570 ( talk) 19:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just nominated it for deletetion.-- RandomHumanoid( ⇒) 06:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you had actually read the changes that you are complaining about, you would see that I made a grammatical correction, and did not add any external link. 12.76.157.0 ( talk) 01:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Greetings Piano, I too am a professional editor, so I'm curious as to why you edited out my link to the Navigation Foundation's website in the Robert Peary article. Insofar as the Navigation Foundation is mentioned in the introductory line to the article as validating Peary's claim, it seems to me that readers might have a reasonable expectation of a link to that organization. True, perhaps it's better to put the link in a reference, but I can't do that without messing up someone else's footnote. Generally speaking, the Peary article is a bit "breezy" for my taste anyway -- needs a serious academic edit. RLM1961 ( talk) 02:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)RLM1961
Yes, it appears I am up to my daily limit. I considered the links added to be WP:SPAM, but I know I can't consider that obvious vandalism, so WP:3RR applies. I waited to remove the link the last time in hopes that someone else would, but no one did, so I used my last one. Glad to know you're keeping an eye out, though. Cheers. – Alex43223 T | C | E 09:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel I deserve an apology :-p -Guy who de-vandalized a page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.214.65 ( talk) 19:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, sorry! My editing tool switched away from the Wiki article I was trying to revert -- then Wikipedia decided it was going to be painfully slow, when I went back to fix it. My neighbors got to hear some choice language! Piano non troppo ( talk) 19:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on the most recent edits, it's possible that the user isn't being altered by talk page messages for some technical reason. The user does seem to be aware of other editors making changes to his/her contributions, though. just64helpin ( talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This was a valid article and in my opinion should not be removed.. regardless you are the expert so it's your call.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.139.141 ( talk) 10:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist. I kept rolling back, and there was more! -- Chasingsol (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It is common practice on Wikipedia for details of works of fiction to be explored when relating to real world events.
And since I am the author of the said novel. Kindly leave my page alone. Otherwise, you are engaging in vandalism. (unsigned from 76.89.226.240 about Decipher (novel))
Your edit summary may at first look harsh, but actually it's an understatement. Welcome to the world of professional photography, where hype, promotion and simple vanity are endemic and shameless. (Although it doesn't have to be that way.) -- Hoary ( talk) 12:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Piano non troppo! Can you be more specific about this edit you made to Lasantha Wickramatunga? I've been trying to improve the article since a few hours ago. I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate more on this on the talk page (or here or my talk page - whatever is convenient). Thanks. Chamal talk 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Piano non Troppo , you flagged my article for notability , I am still working on it but, I think I might have established notability through references as of my last update. Please let me know if I have not done so. Thanks for the Help talk 10:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding my edits at D. B. Cooper in popular culture—"popular culture" lists are merely a relabeling of what were openly called trivia lists until sometime around 2006. I believe that citing cultural references to secondary sources is an effective and objective way of keeping this material encyclopedic, based on core Wikipedia policy. However, sometimes I fall back on the "whole work" vs. "passing reference" distinction when I run into editors who think secondary sources shouldn't be required, just so I can get some cleanup done. WillOakland ( talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |