Thanks for stopping by!
Here in Wikipedia, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page.
When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass.
If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere.
One last thing: Some administrators and non-admin regular joe editors are great, some are total assholes. Some administrators have had the tools way to long and some editors take themselves way too seriously. Too many of the aforementioned have totally lost the idea behind the "anyone can edit" philosophy. If at all possible, they are best to be avoided. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger's found here that might help.
Winkelvi likes this.
- 1 The Barnstar of Dilegence
- 2 Possible help
- 3 Request For an Opinion
- 4 Because you deserve it
- 5 Please Check Your Comments at WP:ANI
- 6 Edits by Enter333
- 7 Please help
- 8 Reviewer granted
- 9 Thanks for the heads up
- 10 I think I'll choose my words better if this comes up again.
- 11 Talk:Glen Campbell and WP:BLP
- 12 Robin Williams/Marin reversion
- 13 Back to Basics
- 14 The Signpost: 20 August 2014
- 15 No personal attack
- 16 Snippiness
The Barnstar of Dilegence
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|For keeping up with and reporting countless Monterrosa socks, I award you The Barnstar of Dilegence! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)|
Winkelvi, given how you've been able to keep up with all those Monterrosa socks, perhaps you could help myself, Lady Gaga articles for persistently trying to make it seem as though critics responded more positively than they actually did (i.e. changes "mixed reviews" to "positive reviews") for her album Artpop. Last week he got blocked for three days for ban evasion for trying to promote more positive reviews on Artpop (for which CheckUser confirmed a sock and the sock account was indef blocked) and afterwards just got blocked for a week for using an IP to remove negative reviews from the Artpop song "G.U.Y." (another ban evasion attempt). While bans and blocks are separate things, I'm sure you can spot either type of evasion in users. You can talk to any of the other three people I mentioned for further details. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC), , and track socks of a user named ? To give some background, Reece is a user who last month got topic-banned from
Request For an Opinion
Hi, Winkelvi. I apologize for some of the past disagreements we've had, and I'd very much like to say I value your opinion and appreciate your help. Hopefully there are no hard feelings between us. I'm dropping this message here to let you know I'd like to cite video interviews for the purpose of expanding the Sound of Contact page and its related pages. I've taken a look at Wikipedia:Video links and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I don't think video interviews are barred from being used as sources. It would be very helpful as there's a lot of information in the video interviews that does not exist in any other medium. I've left a message on the Sound of Contact talk page for further discussion of the issue.
Because you deserve it
|The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|
|I know that tracking sockpuppets and filing the appropriate reports is time consuming so your efforts with the socks of Monterossa are much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)|
- You are most welcome. Have a great week on Wiki and (more so) off. MarnetteD | Talk 19:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I may be mistaken, but it appears that another editor edited your comments at WP:ANI in which you advised him to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse. If so, the other editor was guilty of a serious talk page violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert. I did replace them with a new sig and time/date stamp. Appreciate the notification. I'm really, really tired of the drama. Would rather just talk it out on the article talk page and edit the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Edits by Enter333
Thanks for nominating the "world cinema filmographies" category as mentioned above.
User:Enter333 seems to have left a lot of other unexplained edits which need reviewing and in many cases reverting. I left questions at User talk:Enter333 but he has simply blanked the page. Someone had better look through them all. Would you be prepared to do it, please? – Fayenatic London 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, on May 8 and May 9 you correctly intervened to stop this editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:126.96.36.199) from inserting poorly sourced content that did not adopt a neutral tone into the article on Shael Polakow-Suransky. After several attempts by you and other editors the page was temporarily protected. Now it appears the same editor has returned and is using the signature Hashtag411, to insert the exact same content you removed a few weeks ago and has attempted to vandalize other parts of the page by removing large sections of sourced content. These attempts have currently been undone by other editors but someone with more experience may need to intervene again. Truthnyc (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal talk 04:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — MusikAnimal talk 04:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, MusikAnimal. I appreciate the confidence and trust you've expressed in granting this permission. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up
Thanks for the heads up about using the edit box. I have been trying to be more diligent in using it. However, I sometimes click save before I realized I have entered the information of the material I have added. :-)
I do have one question. Where did you find the info on Kevin Tighe's wife? I have not found a good source to cite that. Just curious.
I am trying to understand your logic for the edits on Kevin Tighe's page. Can you clarify as they do not make sense on some levels. We got blasted by another bot for using IMDB.. Which means we have had to use other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NDakotaCelt (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- My edits have been well explained in the edit summaries. The prose you have written is in many ways not encyclopedic in tone, there has been redundancy in content, some of it out of place, some of it extraneous, some of it just not encyclopedic at all. Some of it has been lifted from online sources (for example, "bohemian lifestyle"). I plan to further copy edit the article over the next several days, so working cooperatively on this is a must. IMDB is not a reliable source, it cannot be used. In the future, it would be best for you to question edits and rationale on the article's talk page. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say that I apologize if this edit summary comes off as rude. The actors and filmmakers project recommended avoiding "best known" for a number of reasons years ago. FWIW I am old enough to have watched Emergency! in its original run and, thus, was happy to see Kevin show up in Lost. Thanks again for all you work with the Monterrosa sock situation earlier today. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It did come off as rude, but I'll get over it. I, too, am old enough to remember Emergency in its original run. I know better than to put in "best known", and must have been asleep at the wheel. Thanks for fixing it. You're welcome for the Monterrosa dealings, and thank you for being there to help with the needed reversions. While reverting him was certainly justified, I didn't want to get dinged for edit warring ("even if you think you're right"). Best, -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll choose my words better if this comes up again.
I feel regretful that I wasn't more transparent at the time about where I was suggesting we consolidate discussion. I thought you had a strong case, as I said earlier, and I suspected a broader conversation would help support it. Next time I'll try to be clearer...I'll try to learn from this as well. I understand the frustrations and I think you ultimately dealt with the consequences maturely and with class.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, no worries. It was my fault for not clicking on the link rather than thinking I knew where the link went. I appreciate your support in this and a cooler head prevailing. On favor to ask: would you mind taking the identifying info for Kelly Clarkson's baby out of the Clarkson article? I fear if I do it, me removing it will be used against me later for an edit warring behavior claim by someone in particular. I imagine there are going to be some hard feelings for a while that I didn't get equal blocking treatment, if you know what I mean. Thanks again! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry for the issue with the LCMS Foundation page, I was trying to create a new article, this issue arose as I am not experienced with editing Wikipedia. I will work on the article in my sandbox and submit it once it is complete. If you have any advice I would appreciate it. Thank you, Dnewell011235 (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Glen Campbell and WP:BLP
You have taken care of the problem with the material by adding a source for the contentious material you readded to the talk page. You are wrong though in your edit summary you left when reverting my removal, "It's-talk page. Unsourced material can be placed on and talked about on a talk page." The policy on living persons is very specific that it applies to everything on any page within Wikipedia. It says in the third paragraph of the lead, "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." It goes on to say in the Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced section, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced;" That material is contentious and it was unsourced when I removed so it did not belong even on the article's talk page. GB fan 16:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I saw it as un-contentious because it was well publicized, that's why I reposted it. Finding a source for it was easy. I think the editor has a good, valid question: why isn't this in the article? Especially sine Campbell's wife says now the DUI was when she noticed something was "off" about her husband and now attributes his behavior surrounding the DUI with his current and deteriorating condition. I felt you were shutting down discussion. That's why I left the edit summary and put the content back on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Robin Williams/Marin reversion
I saw your notice regarding one of my edits. Please allow me to elaborate on my thinking: I don't know if, like myself, you are also a native of Marin County. If so, please rest assured that the following explanation is not intended to be interpreted as condescending in any way, and please count this preamble as my apology. I truly do not mean to offend or patronize.
Having grown up in Marin County, in the local vernacular that I experienced, "Marin" when used by itself, was, almost without exception, interpreted as being short for Marin County, as opposed to any other phrase. I would wager to say that many and possibly most (though of course not all by any means) Marin County natives would have assumed that a reference to "Marin" would refer to the county rather than the college. An example of this local usage can be seen in this article's headline, sub-headline (if that's what it's called?) and first couple paragraphs:
That is why I found it potentially confusing as originally written, and did the edit.
Even if "Marin" is taken to refer to the College of Marin, as indeed the wider non-native audience might, I thought that my edit also improved readability (albeit VERY slightly!) by eliminating redundancy. I realize (now) that I forgot to include that in my edit summary.
- I appreciate you coming here to express your opinion. I think, however, that because you are reading the article as a Marin County native, you are not reading it as someone completely unfamiliar with the area would. That in mind, your reading is possibly subjective rather than objective. Nonetheless, I'll take another look at how it's worded in the article. Again, thanks for your comments. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Back to Basics
The Signpost: 20 August 2014
- Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia
- Traffic report: Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero
- WikiProject report: Bats and gloves
- Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan
No personal attack
I did not make any personal attack on User:Masem. What I said was the truth. Read his comment properly. The whole comment is written in very poor English. I couldn't even understand the last part of his comment earlier. Also instead of censoring comments as you did on Talk:Robin Williams should have instead simply said that I should not make such comments. Please before removing a comment in future think properly and rationally. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes you did, KahnJohn27. What you said was your opinion, expressed in a personal attack. It doesn't matter what his comment was, it matters that yours was inappropriate and against policy. And for the record, I was thinking just fine: properly as well as rationally. Please before leaving a comment about an editor, ask yourself if it could be seen as a personal attack, then, if you answer 'yes', don't leave that comment. We are to comment on edits not editors. For more, please read WP:NPA. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- From what I'm reading here, English is obviously not your first language. It is obvious to me that the problem is not with the native English speaker's writing (the editor you insulted), but the English Language Learner (you) and limited ability to comprehend what you are reading. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh wow is that the only excuse you could think of? Well uh try to comprehend this line "It doesn't help they come from difference marriages, as it makes it complexicated to give even a simply entry." It's not my fault that I can't understand it properly. The user has himself not written it in proper English. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Would it be too much for you, Jeh, to not be rude and just ask if the discussion can go elsewhere? User:188.8.131.52 came here looking for help, and that's what I've been trying to do. We aren't really talking specifically about the article, anyway. We are talking about referencing. That spans Wikipedia entire, not just the article you two are editing. If you want to take this to the article talk page from here on out, feel free. But your tone is really unnecessary. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 9:06 pm, Today (UTC−7)