Jump to content

User talk:Ipatrol: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Hugbox: new section
m Reverted edits by 174.1.191.147 to last revision by Ipatrol (HG)
Line 222: Line 222:


Click the history tab at the top and look for it. Also, go to the talk page of the user you reported and see if there's a block template.--[[User:Ipatrol|Ipatrol]] ([[User talk:Ipatrol#top|talk]]) 02:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Click the history tab at the top and look for it. Also, go to the talk page of the user you reported and see if there's a block template.--[[User:Ipatrol|Ipatrol]] ([[User talk:Ipatrol#top|talk]]) 02:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

== Hugbox ==

[[File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an '''[[WP:Edit war|edit war]]'''{{#if:Hugbox|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Hugbox]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[WP:PP|page protection]]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[Special:Contributions/174.1.191.147|174.1.191.147]] ([[User talk:174.1.191.147|talk]]) 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:01, 17 February 2010

Contributions Logs Stats Files Chat
The Thanks for randomly editing my bot's userpage and adding another pretty button barnstar.
Exactly what the star says, thanks. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Template:PD-law?

I'm thinking of TfDing {{tl:Template:PD-law}}, which you created. It's an orphan. Not sure we need this when we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#Dedications. OTOH, none of those templates are clearly for use by other than the author putting the image in the public domain. For example, PD-author says "The copyright holder grants..." (not 'has granted', so there's arguably an implicit 'hereby'.--Elvey (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I made the potato page but sure you can add to it to help me. this is my first page

No idea what you are on about

Luhanskteplovoz - you reverted my edits to my previous edits when I was signed in (I am also User:shortfatlad) - I was adding the correct russian (ukrainian) language abbreviations, as found in the rest of the article. It is not vandalism. Please be more careful before you ascribe the label of vandalism to an act. Thank you.83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you may remove the warnings, sorry about that.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, but be careful with that trigger! we're not all vandals honest :)
83.100.251.196 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

I don't appreciate how you instantly revert my edits to Interest Rates, I am only trying to make the article cleaner and more direct. Instead of just reverting articles blindly maybe you should actually make your own contributions. 24.62.114.248 (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some links to the specific revisions?--Ipatrol (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that User talk:81.154.52.65's edit here was vandalism, as you accuseon their talk page. S/he removed a duplicated heading and reflist, obviously added by mistake. You then removed their entire previous edit which had added substantial content. Please apologise to them for accusing them of vandalism, and be more careful in future. Thanks. PamD (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ipatrol&action=edit&section=153[reply]

This user, Ipatrol, likes to throw around the word vandalism with no evidence backing it. I think someone needs to be patrolling him. 24.62.114.248 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there's a saying, "mistakes will be made." Going at 3 pages per second, some things slip or look odd. It's just a simple accident, no worries.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps you should slow down: falsely accusing people of vandalism is disruptive to Wikipedia. And please apologise to that user, as I asked. PamD (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sm deeply sorry for the issue, I'll ensure it won't happen again.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So please have the courtesy to go to their user talk page and either strike out your hasty comment or apologise for it (or both). PamD (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24.62.114.248 is apparently still a vandal, but I removed the other warning.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the problem with IP's that they can change to other people. That vandalism was not from me. I'm not sure if your were awear of that. I just moved into the city.I only edits subject relevent to me and my MBA at harvard But still your hasty acquisitions dont help wikipedia. actually bringing them a step back. why dont you once consider actually bringing someone thing valuable to wikipedia and make your own edits. instead of reverting everyone elses. it's a lot of fun. but you can still apologize. 24.62.114.248 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes

This "fix" went awry. BTW, shouldn't the dot be in front of the references tag? Debresser (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess AWB went a little awry, I'll file a bug report.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you, for taking care of the follow-up. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rev 5595 update ref fixes to remove empty <ref>...</ref> tags. Rjwilmsi 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Your recent AWB edit of Bell D-292 ACAP made a mess of the reference section. I appreciate it was done in good faith and I brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#References and the suggestion is that you may be using an old version of AWB. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Shooting

I believe that you reverted my edit on the Fort Hood Shooting in error. The number of perps was listed as 3, but the sources cited on the page all say 2. For that reason I removed the citation for the number 3 and requested a citation with that number. I also put this explanation in my edit summary.67.232.231.18 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deleting references, please use {{Verify source}} to indicate that something's wrong with the source.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I didn't insult any user. I made a comment about someone's mother. Where is this verboten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.86.2 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is is marked as forbidden here. Tl;dr: Don't insult or joke about others. And this says don't go messing around with pages if you aren't improving them in some way, degrading them is strictly verboten.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, there is no policy against commenting incisively on users' mothers. I have no doubt, for example, that yours smell likes a month old can of open tuna fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.86.2 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now you've crossed the line; if you won't take it from me, I will have others tell it to you. Also, see WP:CIVIL.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my user page because...

At the very end, your user page is linked to it. It's a questionable honor. --I dream of horses @ 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

AHH! Go [1] --I dream of horses @ 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ipatrol. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - I notice you changed this template (admittedly 8 months ago, so apologies if you can't recall) to create internal links when used on the primary wikipedia site, otherwise external links. I've noticed a few problems with (seeingly technically incompetent) mirrors since then, and wanted to ask if you'd mind my changing it back. I know this makes srlink-links not show up on 'what links here' - were there any other reasons for the change ? - TB (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues that you describe can probably be fixed by adding ParserFunctions to the MediaWiki program. Most mirrors I've seen already have it, those that don't need to get their heads out of their butts and install it at many templates need it to display properly.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:Habnabit/ipatroll

Hello Ipatrol, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Habnabit/ipatroll - a page you tagged - because: Not blatantly an attack page or negative BLP. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vacation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why an Orphan?

Dear lpatrol,

You recently marked my article about the California Fire Safe Council as an orphan. I don't understand. It is referenced by my companion article on Fire Safe Councils. Is there a minimum number of references that are required before an article is no longer considered an orphan? If so, what is it so I can try to create enough references that my article is no longer considered an orphan.

Thank you,

oneroomschool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneroomschool (talkcontribs) 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was added by ther program AWB, you can ask them what herustic AWB applies for adding orphan tags.--Ipatrol (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as with The burke society just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Them crooked vultures page

i don't see how providing a source for a piece of otherwise unsourced information is unconstructive. surely leaving it there without anything to back it up is stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.152.99 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton

I have provided an explanation and a link. Please read, before accusing of vandalism.Jibbyjaba (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I see the link?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==Mediation cabal case on Golan Heights++

Hi theres, a mediation cabal case was recently opened on the Golan heights Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-01-22/Golan_Heights -as you took part in the RFC i wondered if you would like to help participate here?Ajbpearce (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only took 4 months...

User:X!/ECAPI. (X! · talk)  · @097  ·  01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what prompted you to tell me?--Ipatrol (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind [2].-- Ipatrol (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

What vandalism? I was just trying to help people understand how fascism works. 70.3.55.12 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing games. Apparently a bunch of admins are. I'm just trying to further explain the topics, and I'm being met with rude attacks! 70.3.55.12 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

size

64.223.235.47 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)the killer whale also know as an Orca is over 8 times the size of a 6 foot tall man. look at the top picture for evidence. look teacher haha[reply]

Thanks

Um, is this really the Appreciation section? Seems like the kind of appreciation I get from my Mother in law. Anyhow, maybe this should be a separate section, but I just wanted to let you know that I FINALLY credited you on my user page. Sorry it took me a very long time to figure out what a talk page was, let alone how to shape up my user page so it wasn't a total rip off. THANK YOU for your help. Only now I want to steal your to-do box. THAT IS SO COOL! Cheers.Riwo (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commenting at afd

just so you know, we do not use symbols next to our !votes, just keep to delete or whatever, in bold. We have the symbols available because some other Wikipedias use then, and we use some of them for some other purposes, such as WP:SPI. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this innumerable times, I use these pictures in my votes to make them stand out a bit. Please stop complaining.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is why I am complaining. Your !vote should stand out exactly the same as everyone else's. Why should it stand out more? DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my personal choice and I'm not the on;y one who does it. Just like you decided to make your signature bold.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened a discussion at [3]. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Notabilty guidelines are met remove speedydeletion from Barbara Hannah  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the creator of an article blanks the page, the proper resonse is to add {{db-author}}. The improper response is to revert and warn the editor about vandalism. You've been told about this before. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BodyBuilding on a Luna Calender

Hello, this is 8newsky and I'm here to tell you that the article i have created BodyBuilding on a Luna Calender was made by me and has been put up on the website i used as a source. I wanted to spread that article so i posted it up on wikipedia to help. 8newsky (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the proble, you're not supposed to use Wikipedia to do that. We have a purpose and we aren't anyone's free web host.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wolfgang Katzian

Hello Ipatrol, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Wolfgang Katzian - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to tag an article for speedy delete as a song, you should be sure that the article is actually about a song and not, oh, a character from a kids cartoon that dates back over 20 years. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiridia

You recently presented my contribution to delition. This was my answer on the discussion:

You mean that all what you saw... was wrote by a guy with my name? Sure. Because, as you might imagine, I'm the author of Hiridia. It's 100% true and well written (as far as my english knowledge goes).

Take a second look third reference point. There you can see the short story the text talks about —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevanShan (talkcontribs) 21:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lisner Auditorium

Hello Ipatrol. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lisner Auditorium, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tithonian page edit and new section on discussion your page.

First of all the edit to the Tithonian page can not be considered vandalism as it is a legitimate addition to the paleontology section. As such, I do not see your justification for reverting it. Please explain this.

Secondly, when I tried to mention this to you the first time on this page, you replied that this too was vandalism -despite the fact that this was a talk page and not a dictionary entry that could be vandalized in the first place. I would like to know your reason for referring to an attempt at discussing this as "vandalism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; look, things are kinda hectic right now. Some idiots are screwing with us.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Sorry if I jumped to any conclusions too hastily. You wouldn't mind then if I reverted the Tithonian page edits?

Fine. Could you go to Special:RecentChanges, open any suspicious edits, and undo them? Thanks.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.148.158 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covino and Rich page

I don't understand why my edit to the Covino & Rich page would be commented on when I was simply reverting the page back to what it previously said. Someone changed the page to state the fanbase was in the tens of millions when it is beleived by SiriusXM that the fanbase is in the tens of thousands.

You will notice a large amount of vandalism recently, I am simply reverting changes back to original data. JoshinWinnipeg (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry. I have been zooming through so many edits it's hard to tell. Could you please add a citation next time? Thanks.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reports

Perhaps you can help me. How do I view the status of a vandalism report I've made? JoshinWinnipeg (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that here. - Zhang He (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the post I made is gone how do I see what was done? (Sorry, trying to be more diligent and help where I can) JoshinWinnipeg (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click the history tab at the top and look for it. Also, go to the talk page of the user you reported and see if there's a block template.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]