|This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Winkelvi.|
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 Syndrome found here that might help.
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 If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.
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.
- 1 Difference between categories, sections, and headings
- 2 Thank you so much
- 3 revert
- 4 albert jacob page
- 5 Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in
- 6 Daniel Bryan edits
- 7 Canvas warning
- 8 All About That Bass
- 9 YGM
- 10 A cupcake for you!
- 11 A kitten for you!
- 12 From NE Ent
- 13 Saipan
- 14 Mike Tyson
- 15 Stop Inventing Allegations
Difference between categories, sections, and headings
These edit summaries were initially confusing. A section begins with a heading. A subsection begins with a subheading, but calling it a heading will be fully understood. Categories are used to help organize the vast collection of articles in Wikipedia and are something else entirely, but are hierarchical, so there is such a thing as a subcategory, but it has very little to do with the content of an article. I usually expect edit summaries that mention "categories" to be for edits that add/remove/change one or more [[Category:]] links on the page. This is intended as friendly advice to help with future editing; please don't take it wrongly if I've worded it poorly. I'm trying to keep the overall amount of confusion around the Donna Douglas article to a minimum. (I'll watch this page for a while for a reply.) Pathore (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are never perfect, they often are confusing - that's why we have diffs to look at what actually happened. I never go solely on an edit summary. That's said, I'll try to be more precise in the areas you've pointed out, but honestly, I'm not going to take great pains to get an edit summary perfect. I figure that as long as someone isn't using an edit summary for the wrong reasons and is at least using the edit summary to begoin with, perfection in edit summary nomenclature is at the bottom of the priority list. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- One more thing, Pathore: Recognizing that I cleaned up a totally screwed up article would have been a better thing, a nicer thing to come here with before pointing out that you think I made your editing there more difficult. Again, priorities. No matter if I didn't produce edit summaries up to your standards, the article is in much better shape now than it was 24 hours ago because I took the time and effort to get it that way. In my opinion, there's a plethora of negative criticism in Wikipedia when there should be a plethora of thanks given to the volunteer editors who make te 'pedia a better online resource. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, you didn't make my editing more difficult and thanks for cleaning up the article. I had thought that thanks for your contributions went without saying. I intended for this to be entirely constructive criticism and advice for the future, on an assumption that you may have been unaware of that distinction. I apologize if I have caused offense. Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Only minimally offensive, and not enough for me to want to you think that I'm unhappy with your commets here, Pathore. I think you hit me at a bad moment when I was contemplating how I've never seen another organzation depending on volunteer workers that is in general less appreciative of those volunteers on a day-to-day, and sometimes moment-to-moment basis. So, all that in mind, please don't take my comments personal or to mean that I'm not interested in working with you cooperatively. Like I said: your message came at a bad moment. Thanks, and Happy New Year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much
You are very kind. --talk→ 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- So are you, WPPilot. Keep moving forward, keep contributing, and try not to look back at bad editor behavior. It will eat you up if you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- DONE - thanks again! --talk→ 20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
albert jacob page
what was it I wrote that constituted vandalism? I know this person personally and I did not mean any harm or ill-intent. I wouldnt even dream of writing negativity I only wish this person well. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- IP 126.96.36.199, if you note the comments from me on your talk page, the wording states your edits looked like vandalism, not that they were definitely being classified as vandalism. Taking a look at what you did way back in May, your edits did look suspicious because there were some obvious errors made and not corrected. After making the errors you blanked a section without putting back in what you removed. As well, you did not use the edit summary indicating why you were making the edits you did. Further, when you blanked the section, a warning tag appeared noting "Section blanking". All of that together combined with these edits being done by someone who hasn't created a user account says "possible vandalism" to editors who have been here a while. I hope your edits were truly made in good faith and that you truly didn't mean harm. Coming here and asking what the deal was is a good faith effort on your part and it's appreciated. If you'd like to edit articles in Wikipedia in a productive manner, you're welcome to do that. I'd advise creating an account first. If you choose not to do that, please be sure to use edit summaries to explain your edits, that will help other editors to know better your intentions. I will put a welcome message on your talk page that has helpful information and advice about editing Wikipedia - please read it for better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi winkelvi
- I remeber now that your reminded me. I did delete info and didn't know how to get it back. It was the first time I attempted to edit Wikipedia and I bit off more than I could chew. I'm learning now and just made an edit on the VW polo sections his week without breaking anything (I hope) :-). I'll consider an account. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Meghan Trainor. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Bryan edits
The edits made were to highlight the fact that him joining and then leaving the Wyatt Family changed him to villain and hero, respectively. Also, he is a former member of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The edits had no sources to support them, you didn't use the edit summary to explain the edits, they didn't seem encyclopedic in tone, and the wording really didn't make sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing. I have no doubt you will take it in the spirit in which it was given: as a warning, sure, but more as a bit of advice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
All About That Bass
Even if it isn't WP:UNANIMOUS, You have been reverted by 3 editors in the last 24 hours. That is temporary consensus. Also, if an editor is a musician's fan, it doesn't make there comments automatically void. In fact, most of Good and Featured music articles are written by fans.-- Marano fan 01:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- And you've been reverted by someone with much more experience and clout. So, there you go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I sent you an email when you get a second. -- Calidum 08:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I will have to wait until morning to take a look, but will get back to you. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|Just sending a bit of Wikilove your way through cupcakes! livelikemusic my talk page! 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)|
- So glad I could do that for you! Keep your head up and keep on keepin' on! (: livelikemusic my talk page! 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
I'm sorry about all the crap going on at ANI right now. I'm not completely aware of what's going on at all the articles being discussed, but I know that the Meghan Trainor editors are completely out of line with their harassment, baiting, and bringing up irrelevant personal details. Keep your head up! :)
- (talk page stalker) You definitely got too much shit there, Winkelvi. I really hope that doesn't happen again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
From NE Ent
- First of all, EdJohnston made a mistake here  in engaging in counting exercises with Winkelvi. WP:3RR is an upper limit, not a good idea (see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Winkelvi, you want do no more than one revert on a single topic issue; if it doesn't stick you go to the article talk page, and as soon as that becomes a one on one back and forth you request help from exactly one of the the "Articles and content" boards in the list below.
- Secondly, the number and length of time an editor's name appears on noticeboards is not a reliable metric for disruption; the consensus closing statement, if present, or the actual content of the allegations needs at least be skimmed. NE Ent 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The period when Saipan was controlled by the Spanish is called the Spanish colonial period. The period when Saipan was controlled by the Germans is called the German colonial period. The period when Saipan was controlled by the Japanese is called the Japanese colonial period.
The period when Saipan was controlled by the US is NOT called the US colonial period.
Is uniformity of descriptions not a goal of Wikipedia?
- Looks like POV and original research to me. Do you have a reliable source to support referring to that period of time as the "US colonial period", IP user 220.127.116.11? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You reverted my edits, claiming that the edits were "dubious". The edits are in the referenced source, which comprises video interviews. The source is available at several places on the web, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_0KUt-wGQ (see the first 40 minutes). 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop Inventing Allegations
Another editor did say that you are a bad editor. I didn't say that. No one has said that you are a bad person. You do run the risk of becoming a problematical editor if you continue to attribute opinions to people not in evidence. You also do run the risk of becoming a problematical editor if you chronically complain about Wikipedia policies and their application. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, you are incorrect. There are people who have said I am a bad editor -- one of those people is the person on whose talk page you posted on about me. Now, since you made the accusation, please do provide a diff that shows me complaining about Wikipedia policies and their application? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your talk page begins: "If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry or trolling posts are subject to immediate deletion." Heed your own words. You were whining, complaining, and expressing anger. Editors who assert their rights to express negative feelings but cannot tolerate the negative feelings of other editors are disliked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)