User talk:AddWittyNameHere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Links for personal reference[edit]

Subpage Index for non-archive subpages

Thanks for the assist on the AFD[edit]

He's not quite taking the hint, is he? I don't know whether he isn't reading the notice, simply doesn't care, or... but he's perilously close to making it a moot point, at least for himself. It's unfortunate really. DonIago (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he isn't. I don't know if he's reading the messages on his talk-page, but the speed at which he re-reverts seems to make it somewhat likely that he at least looks at it (or at his watchlist) to notice the template has been added back on. I've tried to point him in the right direction by also adding an explanation of what he should do instead in the edit summary, rather than a brief "restoring AfD template" as I'd usually would, but he doesn't seem to read that any more than the messages. Next revert is, in my opinion, a report to the admins. Either he doesn't read or doesn't want to read what we're saying. A block might grab his attention long enough to direct it at the proper procedure. Unfortunate, but restoring the same template on the same article six times in less than two hours is at least as unfortunate, if not worse. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say thanks again, but since we're evidently the same editor anyway, I see no need to thank myself. :p DonIago (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Honestly, that guy is so ridiculous that he's funny. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel rather bad for him myself, but I can't figure out whether he's being willfully ignorant, doesn't speak English natively, simply doesn't care, actually doesn't understand what we're saying, or some combination of the above. And now I'm having a conversation with myself. :p DonIago (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Either he doesn't want to know (which is very well possible) or doesn't care about the rules because he feels he is Right and everyone else is Wrong (also possible) or his understanding of English is so lacking that he just doesn't get it. My bet is on the first or second, because he figured out really quick which part he had to delete to get rid of the AfD-template, figured out how to place a Today's Article For Improvement template on the page, knew about page-protection, manages to use edit summaries like "I object deleting of this article !It contains information about Pomodoro technique software timers (not links only , but platform and functionality specific). And because practicing pomodoro technique is impossible without timer,this page is helpful" which is not quite perfect English, but certainly of high enough level that he ought to be capable of understanding "Don't delete that template/notice". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he just doesn't know what the word "don't" means? But that was a cheap shot... I was rather surprised to see someone else try for a speedy on the article (I don't think I've ever seen a speedy requested on an article that was already at AFD), but can't say I'd be opposed. I'd also be fine with the "soft delete" that another editor suggested at AFD.
He may know about the various options, but certainly managed to make a mess of his own Talk page...
For my part it didn't help that I'm also involved in a DRN situation with someone who considered my removal of their unsourced information an attack upon them, and now I've got someone who doesn't seem to understand that wikias aren't RS and aren't sufficient to establish significance for an item being added to a list article. They always come in threes... :p DonIago (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This may interest you, and I won't even begin to comment on the irony. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, if it's him (which seems likely to me, as per my edit to the investigation), then he can't claim he was unaware of the rules after that nice little temper tantrum he threw earlier. Regarding troubles coming in threes (or more...), don't I know it? Beyond our lovely template-remover, I also dealt with a vandal that kept inserting "cult", "WE ARE A CULT", links to a cult-awareness site and other unhelpful behaviour on Magnificat Meal Movement - about 22 such edits to the same article in a span of 1h17 if I include two edits by an IP that undid the reverts; a vandalizing IP that added some pretty inappropriate content to the Sadducees page amongst other pages, several blatant promotions in userspace, a sock of an user who changed templates on their previous socks' pages to read as though they were socks of the admin that blocked them... pretty busy yesterday. After a while, I just started keeping an eye on the User Creation Log (and the other on the AIV) and checked them out once their contribs link turned blue. About 75% of those edits were problematic one way or another. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I really wanted to believe that it was another editor who had somehow stumbled onto that article, but the fact that it's the only place they've edited and the sheer number of coincidences... that's hard to swallow. Guess Alex will be looking at a rather longer block then, which is ironic as he's basically undermining his own ability to save the article he apparently cares about so deeply.
Sounds like we're both having a fun time on Dramapedia. :p If you ever need a non-canvassy assist feel free to give me a poke, chatting with you's being both entertaining and probably a bit therapeutic. My friends can't for the life of them figure out why I do this beyond "I have nothing better to do during downtime at work...and...goddammit...I think I actually believe in the place." :p DonIago (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to believe it as well, but it was getting pretty clear to me that either he's not here to help the wiki or he's at the moment not competent enough to help the wiki, sad to say.
Will do for case where I could use a helping hand where there is no risk of canvassing or it being seen as canvassing (which basically means stuff like helping revert a page that's targeted by one or more persistent vandals, etc. I'm glad I've had help on several pages yesterday (or jumped to help people in some cases), because a couple of those would've been difficult to keep pace with if reverting on my own) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the list o' software just became a moot point. I'll be curious to see whether he tries to create a new copy though. DonIago (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your assistance and guidance on WP:ANI. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. User:Anna Frodesiak, the admin that blocked them, promised to keep an eye on the page, so that might help in case he decides he's up for a second round. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Globalization[edit]

  • Goedenavond AddWittyNameHere, Can you give this edit a look when you have little time? It quotes a reference but adds a negative sense to the article. I have left the page as it is. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean the edits by Medbak? You linked to the difference between Materialscientist's edit and the current edit, which had already received several updates by another user. If so, the point is now moot as the edits have been mostly reverted. As to the edits themselves, they do not seem to be bad faith edits to me, but are problematic in the way placed and formulated. The ref does exist, as does criticism on globalization; however, the placement in the lead and especially the later edits by Medbak which placed it at the start of the lead, does seem to give the point undue weight. One source is not enough to state the process is "a highly contentious phenomenon [...] widely open to different, sometimes conflicting, interpretations", especially not as definition given in the lead. The use of the reference in the etymology part, where it is one of two sources used to reference the claim that "Since its inception, [...] has inspired competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire [...] from the 15th century onwards." seems correct to me. Furthermore, had the negative statement been added under "Support and criticism", it would likely have been correct with a few adaptations. All in all, I agree that there were some issues with the edit, which have since been solved. The edits could quite possibly have been good faith, but do seem to have their share of issues regarding WP:WEIGHT; WP:POV and quite possibly WP:COI, because said user seems intent on adding that specific source to different articles regarding economics and there is similarity between the username and the author's name (Medbak72 vs. Mohamed El-Kamel Bakari). It does however seem highly possible that the user is unaware of the specific guidelines and is acting in good faith; he is not adding his book (assuming he is indeed Mohamed El-Kamel Bakari) to all sorts of articles, just those that seem to be actually related to his book. Sustainability, Sustainable development, Ecologically sustainable development, Environmentalism, Globalization and Anti-globalization movement. I believe that this editor could easily turn problematic, but that if it is properly explained to him what he should and should not do regarding wikipedia, he might also become a constructive editor. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello AddWittyNameHere, Yes, the link I posted was with reference to current edit and hence the confusion. Since the page has already gone extensive edits and several editors have reviewed it, should we leave it in as is condition? Right now, I am busy fighting vandalism on my own talk page (some of which was reverted by you - thanks). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
AKS.9955: Leave it in for now as is. The part that was most problematic got stripped out; I have approached said user on their talk-page, asked an admin. Advice for now is wait and see if they respond on talkpage and/or if they keep contributing this way. If not, no need for action at the moment. Regarding the IP-hopper, report new incarnations directly to User:Favonian, so long Favonian is online, if you would, at least if you're reasonably sure it's the same one. They're up-to-date on the issue atm. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help again[edit]

Hello AddWittyNameHere, I wrote an article just now (Poddutoori Ganga Reddy). I can see a photo of this politician here, very tempted to put it on the article but don't know the right way of going about it since copyright issues might be involved. Can you teach me how to do it? FYI, I have already uploaded some pics on Wikipedia; they all were my work, taken by me using my camera - so no issues. But in this case, I am clueless. Thanks again in advance. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That depends.
  • If the picture is released under a specific license, and that license is compatible with wikipedia, you could upload it to Commons ([commons.wikimedia.org] - see here for a list of acceptable licenses). Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any licenses provided with the image, nor any information about the owner of the copyright on the image;
  • If not, an option would be fair use, which would be notoriously hard in case of a living person, because fair use of an image essentially says that the image fulfils a role that cannot be fulfilled by any free material, whether already existing or to be created. That is a point that can in some cases be made for persons that have deceased, provided no relevant free use images exist, but far more difficult in case of living people, because it is in most cases considered (at least theoretically) possible for a free-use image to be made. See here for the rules on non-free content.
  • If not possible, one more option would be to approach the copyright holder of the image and ask them to release the image under one of the licenses compatible with wikipedia.

All in all, I see no way for you to be able to use this image, because neither license information nor copyright holder information is released (making options one and three impossible) and it would be pretty much impossible to make a case for fair use. Sorry. =( AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A very big Thank-you, AddWittyNameHere![edit]

dear AddWittyNameHere, Thank you so much for your help. I really find the explanation you gave me very helpful. It's so kind of you to help newbies like me because honestly this is a whole new world to me! I hope that I'm not bothering you with my messages. I'll do my best to follow all the necessary steps if I want to contribute to Wikipedia again. Your guidance and help are really appreciated AddWittyNameHere. Have a nice day! Med ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medbak72 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Hell Witty, Congratulations on the rollback rights. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dear. Made my first two edits with Huggle earlier. Still trying to figure out how it works exactly. I know the theory, but getting used to it will probably take a few days. Once I'm used to it and have a few more edits in mainspace to my name, I might look into AutoWikiBrowser as well. For now, Twinkle and Huggle will suffice, though. I see you recently got approved for using STiki? Good job! Keep up the good work and keep fighting the good fight as well. Cheers to you as well! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ringwood[edit]

Hi,

i am just trying to update the beers at ringwood wiki which is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.190.233 (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tyop Contest![edit]

tyop

typo
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder that the first ever Tyop Contest starts tomorrow at 0:00 UTC! The contest will be run from February 1 to March 1, 2014. Please note that there have been some changes to the scoring process to allow a system that involves almost no effort on your part submitting your typo corrections. This allows for moar time spent fixing typos,
less time submitting your fixes!
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam

Thanks[edit]

Thanks so much for your encouragement. It's quite a steep learning curve but hopefully I'm making progress. I'm still anxious to be able to remove the notability and citation shortcomings on the Philip Bounds entry. I have a long list of his articles to add yet when I have time, but can't quite figure out what more is needed on the notability. Thanks for any help. CaryB42 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I have moved your post under a new header; it makes it easier for me to find back your message. Yes, you do seem to be making progress.
  • Notability on wikipedia is mainly shown by the subject being "covered" (that is, discussed or mentioned in a more-than-trivial way) by independent reliable sources. As a rough guideline, a book or chapter written by someone else than him (or his family, his best friend, his employer, etc.) that describes or explains him or his work would count; a footnote or a listing in a book's references section would not, a short mention on a random blog certainly wouldn't. A newspaper article about him would likely count, a newspaper article that is about something else and mentions him as an aside ("similar to Bounds' interpretation", stuff like that) would not. If there are any sources or references you are uncertain if they'd count, feel free to mention them here and if I can access them, I'll take a look to see if they would.
  • Citations and references are used to show notability, to show verifiability and to attribute claims to the one who made the claim. Statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged as well as quotations from a source must have references (the sun is purple with pink polka-dots; every year, x people die of [disease]; the band was described by the New York Times as "the greatest band in modern history"; etc.), although non-controversial non-cited information often can or should use a source as well (the band's first single reached 81st place in the Billboard top 100; [name] is credited with the invention of [add something here]; etc.).
  • The formatting of references can be rather pesky here at wikipedia. If you give me the information you want to include in it, I could do it for you and show you how it works, if you want. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. I'll get back to you when I figure out what I want put in. I've discovered the toolbar and templates now for references anyway and I think I could be on the way to solving that one. I'll see!!! I'm a veteran sysop from newsgroups and the communications/talk thing here seems weird, but I'm getting there :-D CaryB42 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Communications here at wikipedia can be a bit strange, however, you seem to have a fairly good handle on it already. The only thing you seem to be forgetting is to indent your posts when responding, but in a 1-on-1 conversation like this, that hardly matters and it's something you'll probably pick up on your own soon enough. It's far more annoying when people do not sign their posts, and that's something you've already mastered. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes I didn't spot the indent. Thanks for that tip, I could easily have missed that one. Steep learning curves are a challenge, but quite enjoyable. CaryB42 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. A guide-of-thumb for indenting: always use one more indent than the comment you're replying to. To give an example, say this is a conversation:

Where can I find the notability guideline? - User A.

You may want to look at the WP:N - User B.
No, I think User A means the WP:GNG - User C.
Ah, of course. - User B.
Thank you, User C. That was exactly what I was looking for. - User A.

User A's last comment is a reply to user C, rather than User B's most recent reply. You can see this because of the indenting. Had User A. been replying to user B, they would have indented on more time. And indeed, the learning-curve is fairly steep, so if you come across issues, feel free to ask me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I get it, thanks for that! It's the way emails and replies get formatted naturally but we have to cause it to happen. Now I see the logic of it, because it makes it easier to skip through threads. Thank you, and thanks for the assistance offer. CaryB42 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to have been of help. Of course, sometimes the indenting makes things difficult to read with how far the text is pressed to the side. When that is the case, you start your reply not with indenting, but with "outdenting". All you have to do for that is type {{od}} or {{outdent}}. (The nowiki-around it in the source is just to make it display the way it should, by the way). To give an example:

Example

Reply
Reply to reply
reply to reply to reply
'nother reply
and another
and yet another

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────outdenting. As to the assistance offer, you're more than welcome. Wikipedia can be frustrating to learn how to handle if you have no one to answer your questions and give you some advice, and it's often the small things (like signing posts and learning how to indent/outdent) that get overlooked. (After all, far more people are likely to drop someone a line over something seriously problematic, like adding spam-links, tripping abuse filters and similar, than over something like how to handle indenting) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

;)[edit]

Nice work so far on the Tyop Contest. As you might've seen Hasteur was kind enough to make a bot to score, and it works :) So you don't need to keep score. By the way, if I were competing, you'd have some big competition for the bonus points ;) I've fixed Ethopia->Ethiopia about 17 times. -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I had noticed Hasteur's message, yes, thankfully. I saw it just before I was going to count the points. It's why I refrained from updating anything. And ouch, huge competition, that is, yes. Especially now that I have fixed Hubner->Hübner well over 7000 times. XD (7361 by "my" (read:AWB's) current count, and still not done with that set of corrections... to find them all, I have to make AWB run through all cats and subcats (and subsubcats and subsubsubcats, etc.) of Category:Lepidoptera to find the articles with the erroneous spelling Hubner in it. That's over 65000 pages... even with 120 pages a minute (it's currently set to skip any and every page it doesn't find 'Hubner' on), a peak speed it reaches less than 5% of the time, that's going to take quite literally hours. Then rinse-and-repeat for the other names. And again. And again. And again. (Too easy to let mistakes slip through when AWB has five different names and thus several hundreds to thousand typos to correct on a page, especially as more than one of them has had a species named after them with the wrong spelling or where the correct spelling is uncertain) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This'll be fun... -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
If you trust me to verify stuff correctly, I'll check the counts of those myself. I can somewhat understand not wanting to verify 7000+ corrections. I really should write or request a bot to correct this stuff, but ugh, too many false positives and incorrect changes. I'm just letting the thing run in the background and check every minute or two if it has found another page to correct. After running through the bunch of "List of moths/butterflies/Lepidoptera of country"-lists yesterday, most of what I get now is the occasional list that wasn't in the right cat (will have to solve that later) and the species-pages. It's skipping about 500 pages for every "flag" and about 10% of what it flags shouldn't be corrected. On the other hand, it's still faster than manually searching for the stuff. Too many people named Hubner, Hübner or Huebner and wiki's search can't differentiate properly between Hubner and Hübner, so if I look for pages containing Hubner, I both get a large amount of unrelated pages and a large amount of already corrected pages. That, and on the huge-amount-of-correction-pages, my browser keeps crashing. Not much fun, that. (Though yesterday, there was one page where AWB's search and replace nearly crashed...)AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, but I'd feel much more comfortable having myself and the other judges checking the fixes. It isn't that I don't trust you, it's just that I want this to be verified to be correct by judges. -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Oh, I fully understand, just figured that I'd throw the offer out there because I have to check it myself anyway for the bonus prize. Though as I sincerely doubt anyone else is going to come anywhere near such amounts, a small margin of error is hardly going to be a problem there. Hell, AWB could be 10% off and it's probably still going to be clear-cut. (I mean, I haven't checked other people's edits that closely, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen many people with repeated AWB-summaries indicating several hundred of the same correction in one edit XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Telecom Italia[edit]

Hi, I've just fixed that page but it was reverted by the user "I bring You Spam", I noticed that you tried to set the page to my revision, what we can do? Now that page contains again peacock words.

Way he's behaving, he's heading straight towards a block soon enough. His username doesn't exactly inspire much confidence either, I dare say. Looks like his behaviour attracted a few more vandal-fighters anyway, but in any case, I'll be keeping an eye on him and the page. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of brackets[edit]

Hello there I see you are making some taxonomic changes. Please be careful here. In your correspondence (Ruigeroeland usertalk) you mention dorylas. The genus Polyommatus was erected in 1804 by Latreille .dorylas was described in 1775 and so cannot have been originally placed in Polyommatus hence the brackets (Schiffermüller, 1775). I correct the taxonomy of insect groups I do not know very well only with great caution and often seek advice.All the best Notafly (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am currently very careful, that is why I asked Ruigeroeland for some information. Most of the issues that may lead to mistakes come to exist when there is half a pair of brackets on the page. It's not always clear whether there should have been a pair of brackets or whether the one present is an accident and I may have made a few mistakes in those when I started working on Lepidoptera-related articles. I do try my best to prevent such a thing from happening and apologies for any inconvenience. All the best. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is very good news. I see the problem.Just let me know if you need help. I will then point to some reliable sources which I should really put on the project page.Thankyou for your courteous answer. I see I was blunt so I should apologise.Notafly (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you were blunt, but I don't mind. All you did was say "hey, I see you've been doing this-and-this, but you're introducing some errors like this one here. Please be careful. All the best", which looks reasonable enough to me. Now, had you said something like "Dear lord, are you blind or did your brain stop working? Can't you see you're introducing errors? Gosh, how stupid do you have to be to be so careless?", it would be something else, but you didn't. You just pointed out a problem and asked me to be careful. And sure, when I'm in doubt, I'll make sure to ask either you or Ruigeroeland for help. If you see me make any more stupid mistakes like that, feel free to point them out to me. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Stop beating me to reverts :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do, the moment you stop beating me to reverts Face-tongue.svg. Wonder if I've beaten you to as many reverts as you have beaten me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Beda References[edit]

You removed my edits and brought back old values on goals for Pedro Beda article. You said my references are wrong, but I don't see any references for the data you put or a user who put them before you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.40.143 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that the information I reverted back to is also unsourced (not originally my edit that I reverted back to, though), I did not say your references are wrong, just that your change does not seem to have any. Un-sourced changing of information like that (the amount of goals made, or someone's age, length, weight, etc.) is often, though of course not quite always, a signal of subtle vandalism. It is of course possible that your information is correct and the information already there is wrong. Unfortunately, without a source saying one or the other, it's near-impossible to tell for me which is the correct version. In practice, when that's the case, the proof of evidence tends to fall on the person making the change.
As there was a lot of nasty vandalism going on at the time I reverted your edit, I did not have the time to look for sources myself. I'm currently not as busy, so I'll look and see if I can dig up information one way or the other, but I would appreciate if you tried to do the same. In the mean time, if you're certain of your information, feel free to add it back in, though without sources, there's a fair chance someone else will come along and revert it again. It might help somewhat to leave an edit summary explaining what you're changing and why. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not skilled to add this citation.

Here is the reliable source for number of games and number of goals this guy scored: http://www.transfermarkt.de/de/pedro-beda/leistungsdaten-detail/spieler_75610.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.40.143 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for hunting down a reference. Face-smile.svg
I've added it in. I can only find the information for the goals (or lack of goals) made for Emmen and Heerenveen, the amount of appearances for Emmen, the amount of appearances for Heerenveen (though that doesn't match what's in the article in either version, so I've changed it to match the ref) and the fact that he currently plays for Olympique Khouribga (OCK)(fixed the wikilink for you). It gives no information on Corinthians or Bahia, though I'll trust you that you've got it right there in absence of proof otherwise. The source disagrees with you on the number of goals scored for OCK (the source gives 0 goals, 1 assist; your edit said 1 goal), so I've changed that to 0.
The source also disagrees with what already was in the article on the number of games of OCK he played in, so I've changed that too.
The article also claimed him to still be a free agent, while he's currently with OCK. I have edited the infobox and the lead, but someone will have to write a section for OCK under Professional Career. Don't know enough about it to do it myself. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Continued From Teahouse[edit]

Thanks for replying!  :) And you were tactful, not blunt. Below are what I believe to be the principles whereby you edited:

1 Notice logical nuances, especially when representing non-neutral viewpoints. 1a When describing non-neutral viewpoints' conclusions, use "would" instead of "should" because the latter declares fact. 2 Notice set-theory naunces 2a Check sets for accidents after changing them. 3 No more "lest"

Are these correct? I ask because I intend to apply them.

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 01:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the rest of this conversation, as well as my newest reply, to User talk:AddWittyNameHere/Duxwing AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tyop Contest Conclusion![edit]

tyop

typo
The Tyop Contest is over! Great job, everyone! Of the fourteen entrants, twelve fixed typos! The judges are very behind with the judging, but it will get done! Another note similar to this one will be sent out when the judging is complete to announce the winners. Check back again next January for the (hopeful) second running of the Tyop Contest, as this one went swell Face-smile.svg
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Just because you do not seem to have ever been welcomed. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yum, strawberries! I appreciate the gesture, though I have been welcomed at some point (July 22nd, 2013). I hope you don't mind I ate the strawberries anyway? Face-blush.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ha! —and now someone else has followed my lead! Just like waiting for a bus ... Face-wink.svg
Hope you sprinkled a little castor sugar over them—a while before eating them—that helps bring out the flavour! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I did, though I think they would've been tasty enough on their own. Face-grin.svg Yup, a wiki-friend of mine saw your message and felt "well, everyone deserves to be welcomed no matter how late". (P.S. Hope you don't mind that I changed your accidental mash-template to mdash? XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, no. It is your page and I apologise for my carelessness.
(Aside) "I used to love watching the show."
Have a great week! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No big deal. Sure, it's my page, but it's still polite to at least tell people what you've changed and ask if that's fine (even if you already know it is), yes? And don't worry about it. Happens to the best of us and this is, as far as accidents go, quite harmless. Certainly better than the time I filed a SPI and mistyped a username, the time I forgot to sign while explaining signing your posts to someone or the time (about 10 minutes later) I missed an indent while teaching said someone about indenting. Same to you, same to you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, AddWittyNameHere! Thank you for your contributions. I am Newyorkadam and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! And now you've been welcomed!! Face-smile.svg Newyorkadam (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP address profanity[edit]

Thanks for mentioning it, I've never revdeleted edit summaries before- now done. That guy needs to be on some meds or something, they've got some serious issues. Sorry you had to put up with that. --PresN 03:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Really Need Help[edit]

Dear AddWittyNameHere,

I apologize for my not having replied and want to continue talking about my editing. Will you please reply?

Duxwing (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh.  :( Poor dear. *gives you some hot chicken soup, salted crackers, a thermos of hot water, pillow, an electric blanket, and a tissue-box* I hope you quickly convalesce.

Duxwing (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I hope to soon resume editing, which I frustratingly have not since 17 February.

Duxwing (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Ready to Learn![edit]

Dear Add,

Let's go! :)

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that all of the information that I edited was completely true. Please change it back so customers will get correct information. I am not a child playing on your site, and I find it rude that you would doubt my knowing. Thank you for your time. Anna McShea 415 836 4826 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabanana54321 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

AN/I[edit]

I mentioned you on AN/I under "Please Temp Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions". I cited you as an example of someone from whom I sought help.

Duxwing (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

IP-hopping genre warrior[edit]

I blocked the IP for a month. From reading the AN/I, it seems it may be time we contact the ISP, which in the case of that IP at least is Sky Broadband. They may be helpful, particularly if approached by Wikimedia UK rather than just Some Guy From the Internet.

I will suggest that there. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we community-ban an IP, even a stable one? There's nothing wrong with your motives, but I'm not sure people will see it as possible or even want to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I sort of thought there was one case where we had done that. Good luck; let me know when you post it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts film vandal[edit]

Thank you for assisting with the martial arts vandal and taking the time to seek further solutions. It's easy to feel overwhelmed and overworked when you're dealing with such a dedicated vandal. Hopefully, this proposed LTA report will make it easier to get prompt attention and lengthy blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, the edits aren't blatant enough for everyone--including those not familiar with them--to recognize them as vandalism, and the long-term patterns make it seem as though it's "just" a slow-burning edit war. Xir's not among the better-known repeaters either, so relatively few people recognize them on sight. In fact, I spend a fair bit of time reverting vandalism, but the only reason I even recognized them is as a result of last week's ANI thread.
Doesn't help that enwiki sees a lot of genre-warriors daily, both vandal and non-vandal disruptive editors. Unless changes are outrageous enough that I immediately notice it (for example, when folks start adding "queercore" to death metal or deathcore bands, or when someone adds metal-genres to singers like Rihanna or P!nk) or I am extremely familiar with the article's subject, I usually let it go for someone else who knows more of it to avoid collateral damage, getting involved into edit-wars or removing edits as vandalism when they're actually vandalism-reversion. Unfortunately, a lot of people do so, and as a result, repeat vandals in the genre-area that stick to lesser-known corners tend to remain fairly unknown.
With a bit of luck, an LTA may result in more people noticing them on sight. Even if not, having an LTA-case to refer to in edit-summaries makes it more easy for people to recognize repeats after that as being said vandal, and being able to link to such a case certainly should make it easier to get them blocked sooner (and with a more lengthy block than a day to a week).
I will be starting a draft for the LTA soon. However, you, @Soangry:, @Dl2000: and @Sturmgewehr88: seem to have been dealing with this one for a fair bit longer than I have. As such, most of the information I have will be based on my observations of 'em today, the ANI you both participated in last week, information I can gather from the old SPI and whatever information I can gather from looking into their old IPs. However, any information or patterns that have never been put into text by someone, but that are obvious to someone who has been dealing with them for a long time will likely be missed. As such, I'd highly appreciate any insight on them the four of you could give me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This vandal is very tricky, as most of their vandalism is subliminal. When I first encountered them at Karate Kid, all they did was add a few categories that seemed right to me[1]. Even this was hard to pick up on, and I just reverted because I realized that the IP was a vandal. The patterns I see are that they like to fool around with article categories (but nothing blatant to the average joe) and make some minor changes to the article text. And just looking at the volume of his latest IP's contributions, I could probably label him an Anti-Wikipedian. It's a shame that vandals like him make it hard to trust IP edit, but it seems we have no choice but to revert on sight if an IP makes an unexplained edit to these articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The edits are indeed very subtle. Most of the time, it's genre warring in Hong Kong films, and the vandal may use Allmovie as reference in HTML comments,[2] as if Rovi Corporation is the final word on genre. When presented with dissenting reliable sources, the vandal might back down, but there are certain categories that are non-negotiable. In particular, the vandal targets action-related categories for removal, such as category:Hong Kong action films and category:2010s action films. Although these categories may need to be diffused to subcategories, the vandal will occasionally disagree with their inclusion under any circumstances and edit war over subgenres, such as category:Hong Kong martial arts films or category:Hong Kong action comedy films. The vandal also targets American action films, especially Dolph Lundgren films. There isn't any particularly obvious pattern on these films, but the vandal will often edit war over ridiculously minor details and try to force in details sourced from the IMDb,[3] which is not a reliable source. On any article, the vandal will make unilateral edits to change style, layout, and/or formatting. This includes adding actor names to the plot summary, stripping out whitespace, modifying infoboxes, and changing section titles.[4] The vandal may also engage in contentious rewrites of the lead that strip out or change credits.[5] After a while, the vandal may give up on certain edits or continue to push them for over a month. It seems entirely random, but adding reliable sources does sometimes end certain aspects of the edit warring. Other aspects will be continually reverted no matter what. I've never seen the vandal use an edit summary, respond to a talk page message, or otherwise engage in any form of communication. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but he fits the bill. I haven't reverted his edits, and wanted to give you guys a heads up. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It certainly looks possible, though the IP seems to have a slightly broader area of article subjects--Football- and BBC News-related articles aren't something I have seen come by on the contrib lists of the other IPs I've checked. On the other hand, most edits from mid0June onwards certainly are in the "known" areas, and it wouldn't be unthinkable that someone else was assigned said IP before--especially as the edits previous to that don't seem to share much in common with those of the past month. It would, however, be a wholly new IP-address range for them. So far, their discovered addresses seem to primarily have been in the 90.-, 2.- and 94.- category. This one also seems a bit more focused on Bruce Lai than the addresses I've seen. So, going by behaviour, I'd say it's possible, but can't tell for sure. Perhaps one of the others can say more, though. Also, hope you don't mind, but I'm currently working on the draft offline first, preventing tipping them off unnecessarily until I'm at a point where it can be implemented as LTA reasonably soon after. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An offline draft is probably not necessary; it's not like this person cares about administrative sanctions or hiding behavioral idiosyncrasies. I have no problem with an offline draft, though. The new IP highlighted here geolocates to Singapore, which makes me a bit reluctant to label it as anything more than a possibility. All the others are BSkyB in England. There's no reason why our vandal couldn't suddenly start to use open proxies, but this would definitely be new behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, the new IP was just blocked for a year. And I agree that there's really no point in keeping the LTA draft a secret from the vandal, but write it however you wish. Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just looked into it deeper and I'm becoming very suspicious. New IP has been blocked as a proxy before. In 2010-2011, when our guy was known to have been active already. Just about the only overlap I could find, editing-time-wise, with a known IP, is from December 2011 and a very small part on June 6th, 2012. Otherwise, new-IP, labeled for simplicity's sake as "proxy" from here on:

  • active the whole gap from Jan '12 to mid-June '12, where no known IPs can be found on the SPI-log except for one on 7 June. Said known IP edited from 2-7 June, but:
    • IP made a lot of edits on June 2nd, proxy only three, all three before the IP got active.
    • IP made only six edits on June 3rd, all of them after the likely-proxy stopped editing for the day.
    • IP was active on June 4th, proxy wasn't.
    • Proxy was active on June 5th, IP wasn't.
    • Proxy made 6 edits on June 6th, 3 of which before the IP got active and 3 which overlap with the timespan IP was active. IP in the mean time made a LOT of edits on June 6th.
    • Proxy made only one edit on June 7, IP a LOT. Then IP got blocked.
  • Proxy goes inactive from mid-June (due to a month-long block, but there just "happens" to be an IP which edited for most of July) to August 7, where they made two edits. That's another time where we don't have a known IP.
  • A new IP popped up on August 15--and the proxy was inactive by then. Then we have a long streak without edits OR known IPs.
  • Suddenly, almost a year later, the proxy becomes active again mid-2013 for a short while. Gap, then a fair few known IPs in Oct-Nov 2013, but an inactive proxy.
  • Proxy remains inactive until February 2014--where we have no IPs. Gets blocked for a month, then stays idle for a while after.
  • Edits again in May, almost perfectly filling the gap from the 21st to the 28th/29th from the IPs we know.
  • A few edits again on 1-2 June, where we have no known IP.
  • Nothing on the 4th, where we do have a known IP. Active (but with few edits) during 5-7 June, but miraculously no overlap with the editing times of our known IP for that timespan.
  • Inactive while 90.197.98.22 is editing, three edits on the 11th but during a break in 90.205.208.98's editing.
  • One edit on the 13th, but that's after aforementioned IP was done for the day. Next IP on the list seems to either have no edits or had them all deleted, so can't tell there.
  • 90.205.210.134 was active on 23-24 June, proxy wasn't.
  • IP then wasn't active on the 25th-26th; proxy was. Proxy was active on the 27th, but before the IP started. Then on the 28th, IP active, proxy not. No IPs known for the 30th; proxy was active. Gap on any knowledge from 1st to 3rd of July.
  • Proxy appears again on the 4th--no known IPs.
  • Proxy absent on the 5th as 90.196.3.222 was editing; IP absent on the 6th as proxy made two edits; proxy only made one edit on the 7th, well before the IP started again; proxy absent on 8th as IP was active. Both absent on the 9th.
  • Proxy then nicely fills in the time-span from 10th to 15th as IP was blocked, but disappearing a few hours before the IP gets off block on the 15th.
  • IP re-blocked on the 15th; proxy "suddenly" reappears on the 16th-17th.

Might be me, but that's more than a bit suspicious to me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So I was right? This brings up a scary thought though: they're also using proxies (and most likely more than one), which means that any IP edits that match the MAF Vandal's style has to be questioned. If it weren't for the sheer volume of articles he targets I would propose semi-protection. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well... it's possible that they're the same person, but I'm still skeptical. For example, this new IP editor uses edit summaries, edits outside of the interest area of the martial arts vandal, and seems interested in filmographies instead of categories. In fact, I don't see any category-related disruption at all. As far as page protection goes, I've tried that and had varied success. I think it will be easier once the LTA case is filed, but we'll still have to prioritize which articles we want protected. So far, I've only tried to protect the articles that got significant amounts of disruption beyond the usual genre warring, such as changes to sourced text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

New spider in Tasmania![edit]

Hi AddWittyNameHere (may I call you "Add" for short?)
We were indeed reading the same article Face-smile.svg. I write a lot of little stubs about things I read about in the news, and this is one of them (and I really did say woo-hoo-hoo! when I read about it). Please do jump in and improve it.
While I only lived in Tasmania for ten years, I'm still very interested in the place. It has quite a connection to the Netherlands, both historically and currently, due to the numbers of people from the Netherlands that migrated there in the 1950s and 1960s. (A friend from my Tas Uni days - let's call her Trudy van der Notherrealname - decided she wanted to improve her Dutch and did some voluntary work at an retirement home for Dutch folks. Much to her annoyance, every time she came into a room the residents would politely switch from speaking in Dutch to speaking in - perfect, of course - English.)
Piet AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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

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

See also: