User talk:Srobak

Arhive: 2009

Dance Therapy

I think you just undid my efforts to make a page adhere to Wikipedia standards. The American Dance Therapy Association, the governing body of dance therapy has a comprehensive list of dance therapists. The list on the Wikipedia page only includes one pioneer of dance therapy and then two people who I think are just self-promoting. The section should either have a link to the list from the American Dance Therapy Association or the heading "List of Dance Therapists" should not exist. It will encourage dance therapists to put themselves down on the list. 206.69.212.108 (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking common terms

Common terms can be linked in articles, but that doesn't mean they should. Linking starts getting out of hand and next thing you know, there is a sea of blue links. For example, sure, you can link the term "United States", but do you honestly think there are many English speakers that don't know what the United States is? Do many English speakers NOT know what New York City is? Linking just because we can doesn't help the article. Linking to a generic article about Miami doesn't really enhance the article about Miami Vice, especially since the majority of people already know what Miami means. But linking to an article to help someone understand what "geospatial" means does enhance an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree against making a sea of blue and links - but I really do not think that linking the first instance of Miami in that page specifically would necessarily contribute to that, nor do I think that it completely fall under the aspect of it being so common that it shouldn't be linked. Without the actual city of Miami, there would not be any MV - there is a direct correlation between the two, and Miami's significance in its role in MV is quite substantial in my opinion. If you disagree, fine - we can discuss at length - and/but also at that point I would rather move the discussion to the mv talk page to get other peoples feedback as well. I am all about consensus :) $.02 Srobak (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on user talk page

Hi Srobak, since you mentioned that you would move this to my talk page, I thought I would beat you to the jump :). Seriously, I don't know what the deal is at Skimobile, sled, snowmachine, whateveryouwanttocallit, but leaving a warning/comment at a user's talk page is fine. Once they have read it, they have every right to remove it, or archieve it or whatever.(just as you did with cb's message) To edit war over reinserting it after another editor has removed it as well is not helpful or productive and boarders on distruption. User talk pages are treated slightly differently than main space article talk pages. Anyways, please feel free to respond here since this page is now watchlisted or just...remove it after having read :) (removing it implicitly implies that you have read it fwiw) Thank you and good luck, --Tom (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

While they have every right to remove something from their own talk page - you as a 3rd party to the user talk page and the original comment poster - do not. You have been issued repeated warnings in the past about reversion wars, and more specifically reversion wars on talk pages. Yes they are treated differently - specifically in the sense that they are not generally to be reverted other than by the original author(s). An edit war warning was issued to the user in question, and as the issuer of that warning, I am well within my right to re-affirm it and keep it in place per WP guidelines, as it may be necessary to use as reference for future abuse issues.

Case in point, and to that effect: you will also notice that you have been issued an edit war warning as well, as per the three-revert rule you have conducted 3 destructive reversions in less than 24 hours to the same page. The fact that you did it as a 3rd party to a user talk page only pours salt on that wound. If this conduct does not stop, then I will be forced to open yet another WP:AN/I for you, as has been done in the past. Due to your repeated history and warnings in such matters, there will be no problem in having it enacted. Srobak (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• You were earlier advised not to continue to replace the removed warning at User talk:Pierre cb. Users may normally remove warnings from their own talk pages at their discretion. You have continued to re-add the warning: diff. Therefore, if you do so again I will block you from editing to prevent further disruption. CIreland (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CIreland - see comments above. Valid warning was issued. A 3rd party Tom took it upon themselves to conduct destructive edits to a user talk page in violation of [[1]]and also violate the three-revert rule. 3rd party edits to user talk pages do not fall within the scope of proper usage, and he has violated both of those repeatedly in the past. I trust you will agree to this and be civil about it. I have followed up with this on your talk page. Srobak (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Miami Vice

Thanks for your help, on the Miami Vice article, though I have a feeling we will both need to keep an eye out on it. _{El Greco}^(talk) 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I have a feeling this is not the last we will hear from him regarding this and other matters. I'm gonna have to be quicker to Noticeboard these things in the future vs. try to prevent random newb edits. Srobak (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I find this comment most disturbing. You should not be trying to "prevent random newb edits", because we don't bite the newcomers and also you don't WP:OWN the articles you watch. Instead, you should welcome new users, assume they are trying to help, and engage in polite discussion with them when they have concerns. Mangojuice^talk 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not the new user trainer on staff today, sorry. While your expectations might be more forgiving in letting new users arbitrarily learn and practice their edits and contributions on long-standing articles - mine are not. When I see an anonymous IP without a user account (new or otherwise) come and delete a LARGE chunk of standing, previously cited information (for years mind you), regardless if the link is dead (beyond the control of ANY editor) and replace it with un-cited information (which his first couple edits were) on a page which I contribute to and repeatedly revert it - then YES, it is gonna get my attention. Other users involved had already advised the user in question to create an account, play in the sandbox and not in live articles, cite the info, yadda yadda. At some point - the burden falls on the anonymous or new user to learn "how to help" and that is what they need to take upon themselves to do. If this entire deal wouldn't have started out that way then maybe four different standing, contributing editors to that page wouldn't have been blanketly reverting his "contributions". Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting. You removed the notice of the 24 hour block you received over your actions and even now, after it's been clearly shown by an Admin that I was both correct and provided the necessary sources which were ignored, thus creating the entire issue, as well as that there was no "vanadalism" or "sockpuppetry", you're still talking about needing to watch things and "prevent newb edits". Perhaps you need to consider first whether the "newb" is correct, and whether you have actually read the info provided as opposed to assuming you have some special dispensation to decide right and wrong. Just a suggestion which you are of course free to ignore.

Have a great day!

FMChimera (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be the single longest run-on sentence I have ever read. Yes, I removed the block notice as it no longer pertains. I am free to edit my talk page as I see fit, as are you of yours. Why that is a problem for you is beyond me. Initially, your "newb edits" were just that. As I stated above - at first your massive deletion of standing, cited material and its replacement did not substantiate your claim. I'm sorry - but a random picture of a car on a random discussion forum just doesn't hold water vs. standing, cited article contributions. As Mango addressed to you elsewhere - links to fansites are not prohibited, but using them as points of reference is not good practice.

The whole "if it is on the internet then it must be true" approach is exactly the thing that WP is trying to avoid by citing real, valid, and credible sources. If I create a web page on my server stating that grass is pink and then I cite that page in an article about grass and claim it as being factual - that doesn't exactly work, and I don't expect it to.

In the end, I am glad that you finally created an account vs. remaining anonymous, dynamic IP - it gives you that much more credibility, nevermind your cites, and you will see it will go a long way to that end on all the articles you contribute to, and I am also thankful for the edits you made with the parts that are tangible, credible sources. So long as that keeps up - then there will not be many issues, with anyone on any article. Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical/director's cut

I moved the list on Miami Vice to the talk page. I hadn't see the history prior to the removal (just saw your revert of Darrenhusted (also sent him a notice on the list)), but all of the content is stored on the talk page, if anyone wants to whittle it down. I invite you to comment there for discussing what content should remain. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Piling on warnings with no additional activity as you did with User_talk:217.44.246.176 is not the way to go about dealing with vandalism. Be patient and assume good faith if the vandal has stopped editing after an initial warning. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The user continued to vandalize the page, after the other wiki user warned them against doing so. Checking the page history and the warning history will reveal this. It is obvious it is a vandalism only account, and it is safe to assume bad-faith in this instance. Please address accordingly, and block the IP. Copying to your talk page. Srobak (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP's last edit was at 19:56 [2]. The warning was placed on the IP talk page at 19:58 [3]. The warning was left 2 minutes after the IP's last edit. The IP made no edits after that time. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the vandal was scared off by the warning. I hope that you will remove the v4im message that you left because it was placed inappropriately and that type of warning is not appropriate for simple childish vandalism, but it is intended for serious and blatant vandalism. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the timestamps again, will act accordingly and update. Srobak (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed that is the case. Original user posted warn after 2 different sets of vandal reverts. Thought the warn was in between. 00ps. :) Reverted my warn Srobak (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowmobile

My edits to snowmobile were not vandalism. The last one in particular, which you undid and warned me for vandalism, removed the link to ski-doo in the See also section because it redirects to Bombardier Recreational Products, the very first link in that section. My edit summary was quite clear about this. I'm pretty sure WP:ALSO doesn't allow unnecessary duplication of links. Regardless, all my edits are in good faith.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, Bombardier Recreational Products is the second manufacturer listed in See also section.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

the existing BRP link is sufficient, though the outright deletion of standing material should be carefully considered in your future edits so as not to be considered vandalism. Please also register an account if you are going to continue participating in WP. Srobak (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton sound files

Hi, problems with their copyright status, in particular the fact that 12 are used in the article, and that there's precious little supporting description in the article text. Are you able to help with determining which ones (probably four) should stay? Tony (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Storey

Storey [4] is not the same word as story [5], even if they're spelled the same in the US. The article, as far as I can see, is in UK English. As you say, keep it consistent. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj khalifa

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at Astronaut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding your revert and warning

Thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a better place, however this revert of an automated process being ran by a bot wasn't helpful. The bot is re-categorising, and whilst the contents of that talk page were changed, no real comments made by a person were refactored, meaning this warning was un-necessary. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Editing other users talk pages is indeed bad practice despite having good intentions - per the notice given - and is also fairly pointless on individual user talk pages vs. article talk pages - where the real cleanup is in fact necessary - not to mention being rather resource intensive. A lot of this should already be apparent, and I recommend that you might give some reconsideration as to the activity and purpose of your bot - whose functionality would be much better served on article talk pages. Srobak (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Srobak, you will see that "fixing links" is listed as an appropriate edit to another user's comment. This bot is running through pages which are in a renamed category, and fixing links to the category, which is very useful. And the bot may in future be fixing categories in articles too. Regarding the resource issue, bot policy points out that performance is unlikely to be an issue, and not something to worry too much about. Also, I would not belittle the time Nja has put into this by saying that you personally feel that there are more important things to do. While there may well be, that does certainly not mean we should ignore smaller jobs. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

AKG Acoustics

Listed below is your reference.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/166676972

References go in articles - like the 7 historical notes above yours (see the superscript?). They do not go in individual user talk pages.

Can you please point me to the directions on how to add references? Thanks.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:February 2010

Ummmmm...excuse me? Yes, you are correct; it is generally prohibited to refactoring others' talk comments. I blocked DeeplnsideMioAkiyama for Disruptive Editing and Vandalism. Following that, I reverted all their recent vandalism. Their edits to your talk page were vandalism so fine, my bad. On a side note, I realize it's very difficult for you to do so, but I would like to remind you to make a conscious effort to AGF and consider the whole situation before acting rashly and immaturely. I understand you may be feeling self-righteous and angry but this but know templating with a vandalism warning is absolutely not the correct manner to address others' mistakes. Good Day. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Parts of your message above are a bit cryptic - but I will do my best to interpret and address. To start, I might suggest that you take your own advice about considering the whole situation - as viewing the edit history by DeeplnsideMioAkiyama in both AKG Acoustics and on my talk page would yield that he was obviously a new user. Granted he should have been sandboxing to learn, but I don't believe it to warrant wp:biteing and blocking - so I would request you to give some consideration to reversing the block. To that effect - his contributions to AKG were in fact valid, and other than his deletion of the K-240 - were not destructive or vandalism in nature. Regarding your reversions - it would probably do best to actually review the pages and contents individually before kicking off a blanket reversion. Not doing so is not editing in good faith or good practice on your part, nor is not realizing that you are about conduct a destructive edit on a talk page. The assumption of good faith would indeed actually require some good faith vs. sweeping, blanket edits without bothering to actually look at what those edits are. Lastly - you were not issued a vandalism warning - or any warning, but merely a General Note advising that it is in bad form to conduct such edits on talk pages, especially on user talk pages. Srobak (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

I generally don't template established users. If you have an issue with an edit I made, a discussion is more useful. PDCook (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are free to template whoever you chose - as am I, and I will - established or not. A bad edit is a bad edit. As an established user you shouldn't have to be advised not to create internal links to articles which do not exist. Redlinking is in bad form. If you wish to create an article and then link to, please feel free to do so. Srobak (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a good essay about this. See Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars. PDCook (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an even better essay as to why the regulars should be templated: WP:Do_template_the_regulars Mainly - they should know better.

Reversion of my addition

Please provide a reason why you reverted my link to snowmobile stud on the snowmobile article. PDCook (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

See above, as well as the edit summary for the reversion. It is also bad form to start redundant dialogue on the same page. Please stop. Srobak (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not make a redlink. The fact that the link is blue should be indicative of this. PDCook (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your previous link was to a blank page, and was a redlink. Thanks for updating it. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not a redlink after my second edit. Maybe you saw this version, in which I messed up the link, but within a minute fixed it with this edit. PDCook (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - i missed it. My apologies - sometimes quick on the trigger due to the large number of bad faith and vandal edits to snowmobile. Srobak (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Phil Collins

I still believe having 3 paragraphs dedicated to the case is putting undue weight on the issue. One paragraph could just as well sum it all up. Nymf _talk/contr. 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That I agree with a bit... I thought it to be a bit long in the tooth for this article as well, and have been mulling over how to condense it a bit more without having it lose substance. One paragraph is even a bit repetitive. Srobak (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

I have not changed the English variant on this page. I have reverted changes from UK to US English on a page about a UK person which is principally written in UK English. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy - I have reverted such changes in the opposite direction in other articles. I shall continue to revert such changes, and I shall report you for edit warring if you continue to make such changes without discussion. I might add that it is exceedingly impolite to use a template on the talk page of an established user. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make any changes. Pay attention and do not ever issue threats. That is also the only word in the entire article that is written in BE. Srobak (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You twice undid my revert of [this change]. I could only find "storey" and "honour" which were regional variants - both UK. Can you find any US English? (Other than in titles, that is?) You pay attention, please - I reverted an unnecessary change in accordance with WP:ENGVAR. I also attempted to discuss it here, but you ignored that and proceeded to add a warning template to my talk page. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a month ago, dude - and you reverted it back and I left it alone per your cite then, and has nothing to do with now. The most recent template was only a template, in efforts to get people to quit screwing with English forms per WP:Manual_of_Style. The constant flip-flopping - regardless who is doing it and to which form - is annoying un-necessary. Just because someone changed it does not mean you have to change it back - even though they did not need to change it in the first place either. If you notice - I also templated the person who changed it in the first place. Srobak (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It was you who asked for consistency, was it not? I reverted a pointless change which made the article inconsistent. I did NOT do what your template says - I have never changed anything to my preferred variation. I have reverted such changes in both directions and will continue to do so. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The O.C.

Just to let you know I have restored this edit which you had reverted of an IP. It was infact correct (see Trey Atwood). I have also removed the warning from their user page. Please be careful in future and WP:AGF. A level 4 warning for a correct edit is hardly going to encourage that user contribute constructively again. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

oops indeed - I have not had my morning coffee... was looking at one article while editing another LOL. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your message

With respect to your recent post, you should be aware of several points. Firstly, as mentioned by another editor earlier on this page, it is generally considered bad form to use templates and heavy-handed warning messages on established users. Secondly, please note that the edits in question were reverted because of new problems they introduced, problems that had previously been explained to the editor in question. I also explained the rationale for the reverts to that editor, especially how it is unrealistic to expect others to manually correct flaws in the script when it is easier to correct the script and re-process with it. (In fact, I even offered to help.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not template you. That was hand-written as your reversion introduced multiple problems to the page in question and further seemed to demonstrate potential harassment, and even advised how to better go about dealing with troublesome users rather than follow them around on WP. However, as I also mentioned in response to the earlier editor - if there is a fitting template for an infraction - it will be utilized. The establishment of an account does not negate ones ability or likelihood of their bad edits, abuse or infractions. If the shoe fits, it shall be worn. To that effect - it is equally bad form to conduct blanket reversions without fully understanding the scope of those reversions and the impact they have on articles that you do not normally contribute to or bother to review prior to executing said reversion. In addition - none of the problems that were introduced in your original discussion in his thread were in effect on the page in question, and as I stated in my original post to your existing discussion thread - your reversion actually re-introduced problems with that page. This is another reason why blanket reversions without proper, manual review are a bad thing and should be avoided. Lastly - as you had an existing thread on the topic on your page - your deletion of my post there while at the same time responding to it in your edit notes, it prompted an out-of-context response from me on your page and a subsequent out-of-context post by you on this one. This too is in bad form, and there was no need to fragment the discussion thread in the way you did. It is interesting and odd that a WP administrator needs so many of their own bad form items pointed out to them. Please use better discretion in the future on all these and other items which are listed in your talk pages as they are not conducive to the mission of WP. Srobak (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're presuming an awful lot in your posts. One, your claim that I didn't review the edits is utterly incorrect, as is your spurious claim of "following". Many of the articles in question have been on my watchlist for years, as is easily evidenced by an extensive history of contributions to television-related articles. When dozens of articles pop up on a watchlist at the same time, with edits that introduce problems, that is cause for concern. You're also completely incorrect in presuming that there was no review involved. The simple fact is that it is easier to adjust the problems with the script and re-process the articles than it is to expect other editors to manually edit each and every article to repair the newly created problems. That was clearly explained on the editor's talk page, as I'm sure you've seen. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't paying attention. I'm done. This will just have to be dealt with another way. Srobak (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U notification

Greetings. Because you have twice mentioned civility issues to User:Prestonmcconkie, I felt you might wish to know that I've opened an RFC/U about this issue. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at 86.139.197.245's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And to confirm what that Talkback says - it was me accidentally editing from a logged-out browser. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Image galleries

Hi Srobak, greetings from Aotearoa New Zealand. User:Bwmoll3 asked me to let you know of any guidelines re image galleries. The guideline is at WP:IG, also see Category:Wikipedia image galleries. In general, any large collection of unannotated pictures of a USAF base would be better as an image collection on Commons. A couple of recent deletions->transfers of pages to Commons have happened this way. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Buckshot06 and thanks for the response. I have read over the information contained in the WP:IG link, and while I understand the guidelines listed - I don't think I can completely agree with the qualification of the emblem removals on JBLM_McChord_Field as exactly falling within those guidelines. Their nature are of an encyclopedic reference as they are emblems and logos of current and past assigned squadrons at the base. They are not pictures of the base itself as implied. They more resemble the images contained within the article for the US Air Force Portal, US Military Portal, etc. - than they do of an image gallery of the base. True those images were a bit large and did not contain any annotations - but those are both circumstances which are very easily changed and would bring far more encyclopedic value to the article than even the 3 images currently contained within just the Operational History portion of the article. That being said - if indeed it is still determined that the emblems are not appropriate within the article itself, then at the very least it would be prudent to capture and move those images over to the Image Galleries or The Commons and properly referencing them to the article(s) they were removed from, prior to removing them from the article. To date, this has not been done. Srobak (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My usual practice is to exchange talkpage messages on each others' talk pages, which is why I was not aware of your response. User:Bwmoll3 gave me the impression that we were talking about pictures. However emblems are much the same. All are - often in historically different versions - accessible at the individual units' page. As a gallery, they do not illustrate directly activities on the base itself, which is the critical point. This is different from putting the historical emblem of a newly formed unit directly adjacent the section of text in which the unit first is associated with the base. The situation would be different if you had a photo of unit activities on the base which happened to show the emblem. However again in this case one would place it in text, rather than in a separate gallery.

This is why I argue that unit emblem galleries in the base articles are inappropriate. The proper place, as the policies indicate, is on Commons, well tied into the article by links. I agree this changeover should not be done precipitously. But if the emblem (or image) gallery has been deleted, why reinsert the gallery temporarily just to make a WP:POINT? If the images are now inaccessible to you, I'll place any version you would like to name in your userspace preparatory to a move to Commons, and if you want other help, please don't hesitate to ask. (Admin rights have got to be useful for something!!)

I'm quite happy to have this particular discussion on your talkpage. But please again add a header on my talkpage to say you've replied. Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody re-inserted anything, or made a WP:POINT. As I said - I think that such emblems serve a purpose in the articles - so long as properly sized and annotated... nothing more was said and no other action was taken. I do think that the emblems and images in question should certainly be moved over to Commons if they are not going to go back into the article, as at the moment they are completely lost unless someone wants to go back in the history and find them... but this is only one of a few military related articles that I follow. If this is the type of editing that he and/or others have been doing - then there is the potential for hundreds if not thousands of lost images. Again - I think it would be prudent of the editors who are removing those images, like User:Bwmoll3 to place them in the Commons so they are not lost. They clearly do have significant value to the bases they relate to, the articles, and wiki in general. Srobak (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• One of the good things about Wikipedia is that nothing is really "lost", as the image gallery being discussed is easily found in a previous version of the article. Unless the images are deleted; which is something that was not done. I have mixed thoughts on this issue also, as unit emblems are part of the history as well as a symbol of the current units assigned to the bases. Now, while we don't want to have a large gallery of emblems on the page, a small < 5 gallery of images I DO think is appropriate. However, the present guidelines discourage that.. and I believe that should be revised. Now, with regards to historical emblems; it's not difficult to create an image gallery over on Commons.. and also that is where all of the graphics should be placed. PNG format with transparent backgrounds. I've spent a great deal of time moving many graphics over there and converting to that format. Having a gallery on commons for a base, can include all sorts of emblems; photos, or anything else, and can be linked to the page easily.. Those are my thoughts on this.. Regards.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bwmoll3 - I agree with most of your thoughts. The only real thing I have issue with I guess is the "it is never lost cause it is in the article history" approach. Most non-editors/contributors do not go back and look in the history of the article(s). As time goes by - those edits that link to the images will be buried - essentially "lost" to the common end-user of WP. This is one reason why I think they should be moved and associated asap. Just my $.02 Srobak (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Attacking Editors

Hi Srobak! I got your warning about attacking editors, but I'm not sure if it was warranted. Was it me accusing someone of being a random IP? I would like a bit of clarity. :) Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops - that was supposed to go on their talk page... not yours. My bad. LOL... deleting in a moment Srobak (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advices!

Nice to feel not alone on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Spoddle (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Phil Collins IS filming a show at ITV studios in London on 28th June I was e-mailed by the official Phil Collins fan club to pre-register for tickets and this information is also being promoted on the Official Genesis Website.

http://www.genesis-news.com/news-Phil-Collins-Registration-for-London-TVSpecial-now-open-n164.html http://links.mkt1397.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MzQ5NzE5NDQS1&r=NDkwMDk1MzQ4NwS2&j=NzU0NjE5MDIS1&mt=1&rt=0

I have amended my original post but I think the information is valid in the 2009-Preent section as it is the only live appearance by Phil Collins in the UK this year to be announced.

"Register now for tickets to attend the Phil Collins ITV special: One Night Only

Phil Collins returns to London to host a one-off music spectacular for ITV, Phil Collins: One Night Only. The show will be recorded at The ITV London Studios on Monday 28th June. Doors open at 6:30pm.

If you would like to be informed when booking opens, then register your interest now.

Special ticket allocation for fans SRO audiences have reserved a special allocation of tickets for Phil Collins fans.

To access this allocation, state "Two Hearts" in the "Comments & Information" field on the application.

To unsubscribe from future Phil Collin's updates, click here" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw uk (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You continue to cite UN official, one-off sources and/or fansites for your material. The link provided above is not the official site. Please check your sources, and also see WP:FANSITE. I will be reverting any edits which do not have official word from the official site of either PC or Genesis momentarily. Srobak (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU INSIST ON BEING THIS PEDANTIC ABOUT REMOVING INFORMATION SENT FROM THE OFFICIAL PHIL COLLINS WEBSITE THEN YOU NEED TO RUSH OVER TO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Back_(Phil_Collins_album) AND REMOVE THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SHOW FROM THERE AS WELL. WHY IS IT ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED THERE BUT YOU KEEP DELETING IT FROM A PAGE PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY COME TO TO SEE WHAT PHIL IS DOING THIS YEAR IN THE UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.91.159 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not monitoring that page. Perhaps I should start. However - as explained above, and in the edit summaries - the reasons for reversion are as follows:

1> Cited references are not the official websites for either the solo artist or the group, despite being referenced as such in the article text.

2> Cited references appear to be either one-off sites with no association to official artist sites, possibly being used for information harvesting, or are fan sites. Please see WP:FANSITE and WP:OR regarding their usability as reliable sources.

3> A thorough investigation of both artist official websites 1 2 yields absolutely no mention of the event in question, despite claims in the added text to that effect.

As you can see - there is more than sufficient ground to exclude the information in the edits. Once a WP:RELIABLE, official source can be cited - the content will be permitted to stay, as in accordance with WP:MOS

IS THE DAILY MAIL OFFICIAL ENOUGH FOR YOU? TOO LATE FOR MOST GENUINE PHIL COLLINS FANS TO REGISTER NOW WITH SRO TO GET TICKETS THEY WILL BE ALL GONE, WELL DONE, A GREAT SERVICE YOU HAVE PERFORMED. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/prmts/article-1269740/Free-Phil-Collins-CD-Mail-Sunday.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adw uk (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that WP is an Encyclopedic Reference. It is not a source of promotion for musicians or their up-coming tours and shows. WP is also not a source for Real Time Information - a task that is much better suited to official websites, news sites, and fan-based websites, the last of which should not be used per WP:FANSITE. While the news article you cite above would have been more proper than twice mentioning "Official Site" while linking to a one-off, non-official site - by the same token if news releases were cited every time a musician was to have a performance, it would generate excessive detail on the page and result in a lot of clutter. Items like that are better added to secondary lists which can then be linked back into the original article. I hope this clears up some of the confusion for you, and again I refer you to WP:MOS and their associated links plus those contained in this discussion thread. Thanks Srobak (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Please don't leave warning templates on the pages of longtime Wikipedia editors, as you did on mine. The edit I removed from another editor's user page was obviously a edit [6]from a vandal or sock, who was then indef blocked twelve minutes later after making other strange edits [7] and threats [8]. If you have a question about my edits, please feel free to leave me an actual message on my talk page. In any case, an actual message (rather than a template) is preferable when you're dealing with an editor who has been here long enough to understand Wikipedia's policies. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Regulars absolutely should understand WP policies, especially and including the ones regarding editing items on other users talk pages which they did not contribute there originally - regardless why. The policy text specifically states that, and you can read more regarding this in the link left in the template on your page and you can refer to it there. Also - contrary to the belief of some mis-informed users - regulars who should indeed understand WP policies absolutely should be templated when they blatently violate them, as they too are in fact bound by them. You can read more about templating the regulars here: WP:Do template the regulars

Both of those are essays, and not policies. I was trying to be polite to you and explain how an experienced editor sees a template, especially one left by someone who hasn't taken the time to actually look at the edits in question. I understand the policy, and I explained above. Vandalism on a user's page should be reverted. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up on one of the discussion boards for clarification.

Templates are generic messages best left for people who haven't edited Wikipedia very often, and may not be aware of the policies here. It's always best to use a personal message, which I did for you. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The link I referenced you to in the initial notification was WP:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments and is not an essay. It is a guideline and policy page regarding the editing of other users talk pages. You referenced WP:DTTR in response, which is an essay about not templating regulars. Consequently I replied with yet another which demonstrates exactly why regulars should be templated. I was trying to be polite to you and explain how an experienced editor sees guideline and policy violations when conducted by other supposed experienced editors. I did look at the edit before reverting it and notifying you not to re-factor other people's talk pages. The edit in question - while certainly an obscure image - did not constitute vandalism, and may have had some degree of meaning between the two users to which you are not privy. As it was not blatant vandalism - it is up to the owner of the user talk page to determine validity - not you, per the TPG cited above. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up on one of the discussion boards for clarification.

Templates are generic messages best suited for users who do not adhere to the policies here - regardless if they anonymous, regulars or infrequent editors or not. The fact that a regular, established user ignores policy and guidelines reinforces the need to in fact template them and refresh their memory of the guidelines and stress the importance of their adherence to them. It is always best to adhere to WP policies and guidelines. Please see to it that you do in the future. Thanks Srobak (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I always do. I guess we'll just agree to disagree, then. Dayewalker (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Why do you keep reverting an edit by a bot? If you have a problem with the edits Yobot bring it up with the owner. It won't stop if you keep undoing it. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

See the edit summary for rv justification. Didn't notice or care that it was a bot... doesn't change the reason. Eventually they stop and/or are set up to move on to other things. Srobak (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

*Ahem*

Admins leaving messages on users' talk pages warning them of potential liability for a block if certain behaviour isn't ceased is an entirely permissible use of a talkpage. Indeed, I can't see a better use for the page. This is the second time you have been reproached for unnecessary templating. Please take this friendly warning seriously. It is disruptive to waste other editors' time with this nonsense and, if you don't start to show more selectivity in who you template, you are going to piss off an awful lot of other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Your leaving him the warning was not the issue. Your edit was destructive and removed content the talk page user placed there. Please see your edit and notice the content you arbitrarily deleted. I restored the content which you re-factored, and restored your own, intact and in proper formatting, as per WP:TPO. As far as templating - as I have mentioned before - just because someone is a regular - or even an admin - doesn't mean that they get to arbitrarily bend or break the rules, polices, and guidelines. If a regular user - who should obviously know better - does do something stupid, they can and should be templated for it. See WP:TTR. I am also going to take this opportunity and tell you to take seriously the advice to mind your tone when leaving messages and take more of a civil approach, as well as better care when you execute your edits. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)In which case that is what you need to tell me. I was completely none the wiser after your warning. I also see that you rolledback edits by myself and Rlevse with twinkle. Just to be very clear, Rollback is only to be used to revert vandalism. If you persistantly rollback good faith edits you will lose the right to use twinkle. I firmly suggest you stop the templating and actually write custom messages because you were wasting my and your time with obscurities. Also, I think Rlevse was rolling back an edit from a banned user. That is permissible under policy and I would venture that rolling back an editor who is an admin, 'crat and arbiter was not the wisest move you could have made. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC). Striking misread log who was rolled back Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Making sure you are aware of the edits which you conduct is not my job. It is just as easy for you to go back and take a closer look at the edit history to see where/why you were advised concerning a WP:TPO violation as it is for me to identify them for you. The initial wasting of time was conducted as a result of carelessness and arbitrary editing, without paying attention to what is being edited. If you genuinely feel that errors on others parts warrants a loss of editing or usage of TW for me - then do what you must, but understand that I will follow it up and go the full 9. As for rolling back banned user comment - please see my response below, as at the time of even this posting the user in question is not banned. Srobak (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are being a dick now. The editor was blocked by Rlevse as a sock this morning, not this evening so this is just BS from you to try and justify your behaving foolishly. Cease. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already requested that you conduct yourself in a civil manner when you interact with me. I do not ask a second time. You clearly are incapable of conducting yourself in a mature method. Consequently, you no longer have anything to say that is worth reading and any future childish outbursts like this will result in thorough pursuit in administrative complaint and sanction. Good day. Srobak (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re - Redvers': I think that you would be correct if the timeline was different. As it was, obvious sock posted on DC's talk page and ANI, and was then blocked and reverted per WP:RBI. That DC may have wanted to reply to the sock isn't a concern to Redvers, since DC could him/herself have reverted and replied had you not. Syrthiss (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That is almost in-consequential. At the time of the original post and rv - and even now - the user in question User:Under_a_Million_Sunfish has not been blocked or otherwise identified as a SP without one having to do in-depth research. The posting question is also clearly not vandalism. Once/if they are blocked, then their post(s) could be removed if necessary... despite clearly not being vandalism. Srobak (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Rlevse is a checkuser. Even admins are slow to undo the work of checkusers without checking because they genuinely know more then we do about likely socks. Your action was foolhardy and after checking the page history it appears that your rollback of Rlevse was partly to blame for the edit conflict that lead to my inadvertently removing DC's comment. Pull your horns in, you are new and there is a lot to learn here. You are better heeding well intentioned advice rather then arguing the toss. Does it occur to you that two long standing editors might actually have some feedback that is worth your time listening too? striking as I misread the log who was reverted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1st, I'm not new. 2nd - any editor - noob, long-standing editor, or even admin - who repeatedly posts messages of incivility has absolutely nothing worth listening to. If they can't be civil - they need to shut up, no matter who they think they are. As such - it appears only one of the long standing editors has anything worthwhile to say here, and has been responded to below. Srobak (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be blocked to my viewing of their block log: (del/undel) 08:52, 22 June 2010 Redvers (talk | contribs | block) blocked Under a Million Sunfish (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Obvious sock is obvious) (unblock | change block). Redvers' revert was also at 08:52, so I would assume the revert was done then. Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted - however there is no notice on the user page... that might be of some benefit. Expecting one to check logs prior to every edit just in case the user is blocked is a bit much. Either way - thanks for pointing it out, and stand corrected in that regard. Srobak (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but when leaping into someone else's edit history with templated warning messages a-blazin', it's best to take a look around at the history of events. In regards to my section above, you left me a templated warning message more than eight hours after the vandal whose edit I reverted was indef blocked. I can appreciate you wanting to help enforce policy here at Wikipedia, but please look at the contributions and edit history of other editors before assuming bad faith. Dayewalker (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I will go comment to Redvers about failing to place a block notice. No, I don't expect one to check logs prior to every edit, but I do hope that one would WP:AGF (which is an actual policy, not an essay like WP:TTR or even my WP:RBI) and assume that Redvers had a good reason to revert a note of thanks on another user's talk page before reverting and templating. Thanks for the discussion. :) Syrthiss (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories on Air Force pages

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Resident Mario

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, I really, really shoulda thought of that. Darn. ResMar 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the both of you need to review Wikipedia:Do_template_the_regulars. If a template is warranted - experienced or not - a user gets one. An experienced user should know better than to breach something that would normally warrant a template. Tsk tsk! Srobak (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've ran into trouble with users in the past, for the exact same reason, so I'll leave you be, for now. A word of advice: a non-template comment on another user's page goes a long way. Slathering people with pre-fabricated messages isn't good form. *ahem* ResMar 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Before one goes handing out advice, it would be prudent for them to conduct themselves in a manner which wouldn't necessitate templating. Just because you might be regulars does not mean that you don't have to play by the same rules as new or anonymous users. In fact - regulars especially - should lead by example. Not doing so is not in good form, and is becoming a widespread problem on WP. As I advised earlier, give a read to Wikipedia:Do_template_the_regulars. It has as much validity as anything else you might reference. Sorry if you guys disagree with this, but there is a large number of regulars who do, and it is perfectly legitimate. You are welcome to bring it up as a TFD should you choose. Yes - there is some trouble of regulars doing things which they shouldn't and then getting bent out of shape about it when caught. Srobak (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Srobak, if we need a nanny, we'll be sure to let you know. Don't template the regulars again. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas - you inserted yourself into a situation which had nothing to do with you. That is your first mistake, and consequently you have no one to lambast for the results other than yourself. I am sure that Mario is quite capable of engaging in civil discussion on his own. The second is issuing a veiled order/threat to me, which borders on incivility. Let's not make a third error in judgement by continuing down this path, alright? Srobak (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Back off. I'm not going there. ResMar 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: C I Host

If you feel the page can be cleaned up to more than a ledger of controversies, I'm perfectly willing to trust your ability to do that. I've restored the page, with a few tags for specific areas of major concern. Thanks for "stepping up to bat" on this one. - Vianello (Talk) 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Vianello. I will take a look at it today and work on it this coming week. Appreciate the opportunity to do so. As far as them being controversies - I again have to say that there was little in the original article which was embellished or not a statement of fact and even legal record. I had the misfortune of working there for a period of time, in addition to being a customer - and I had heard all the rumors and whatnot beforehand. The treatment of both customers and employees and the events that transpired were simply mind boggling. Srobak (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welp - so much for that. The article got whacked again before I could even get an opportunity to look at it much less clean it up... and once again without being tagged for afd as it should have, all due to the input of people who clearly don't know what they are talking about. The awesome trends continue at WP, each time numbering its days more and more. Will they ever figure it out? Place your bets. Srobak (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's more a matter to discuss with the deleting admin, not me. I'm not sure why you mention the article not being tagged for AfD. The posting of the AfD notice on the article is there in the page history. "1:41, August 6, 2010... (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C I Host. (TW))" A notification also went to the article's originator. The others you mentioned being able to participate to keep it around were given their chance to do so, even beyond the usual timespan. Also, people shouldn't have to "know the history" to evaluate an article. If they don't know it's notable, it's generally because the article hasn't demonstrated its subject is. If there is a history of notability (as defined by WP:CORP in this case; significant independent coverage by reliable sources), the article needs to show that.

At any rate, the imminent end of Wikipedia, because somebody deleted an article, has been being foretold for about nine years now. Do you have a timeframe available? It's terribly inconvenient not knowing what calendar date to mark, and I've always loved the sound of those deadlines whizzing by. Considering your stated abundant disdain for the company, I would also encourage you to seriously ask yourself about your personal stake in this article. I won't presume to tell you what that is or isn't. That's between you and yourself. - Vianello (Talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Hanna

I deleted the link to the character article because it's superfluous. Have you read the article? It's awful, poorly referenced, and unnecessary. I would say its chances of being deleted are very good, which will mean the link will have to be removed later. But, I would like to know what you think on the matter. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The O.C.

As far as I know (and I've been here longer than you have), it's pretty common practice to put either a space or an asterisk for the main article in a category. I don't see what the problem is that you felt the need to put a warning on my talk page.--little Alex (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Despite length of time here being insignificant when it comes to editing tests and errors on live articles - the placing of a vertical pipe in the category name does not accomplish anything. Srobak (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A vertical pipe doesn't, but if you had actually been paying attention, you'd see that I added a vertical pipe *and* a space, which does move it up to top position within the category.--little Alex (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It was already at the top. Srobak (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Say what?

You must have left that message on the wrong talk page. MascotGuy has been a pain in the ass for more than eight years, but I'd never move to delete the archive page. I did no such thing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

no idea why TW put that mark on your page - unless you created the original sock page way back when, and then TW notified you as a result of the RSD for the current incarnation which had no basis (socking user:WhatGuy for having a name ending in "guy"). Apologies if indeed that is the case. Srobak (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That must have been it. I used to do a lot of CUs on this matter before they created the filter. He's much easier to tag and bag now. No worries; I figured it was some sort of glitch.  :) Have a great weekend! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't instigate

wow [9] now mind your business and stay away from my page--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

While his comment is out of line, it is not grounds for you to retaliate. He is my business, and now you just earned yourself a warn and are also my business. Mind your civility on here, do no issue personal attacks, and do not post threats on talk pages - or we can go the route of getting an admin involved. Srobak (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Hey Srobak. I'm a bit confused by the warning. I thought you weren't supposed to revert warnings on your edit page, why else was the template I posted made? Could you clarify? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Users can edit their own talk page however they feel - for instance the message I left you - you are free to delete. But reverting/restoring etc on a user's talk page is generally frowned upon. There is a policy article regarding it - gimme a little bit and I will try and track it down for you. Trust me - I wish that warnings would stick to users pages like glue, but WP considers it part of the users own space I guess. Srobak (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Dig that up for me so I can use it. I'm just curious why we have Template:OwnTalkPage then if these things happen? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ambiguity

The etiquette book is ambiguous on one point: is it good practice for another user to edit the comments I made on their talk page? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than deleting it outright, I would say no. Srobak (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the good practice for me if another editor makes edits on my comments on their talk page? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhiji

I've had a look at Mhiji (talk · contribs) and your reversions of his edits. Firstly I think calling them vandalism was unwarranted they seem to have been done in good faith WP:AGF. Further his edits actually seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Syntax and the documentation in {{Infobox musical artist}}. Of course the way the user interacted with you completely ignoring the talk page notices was out of order. --Salix (talk): 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

However, the rudeness we may perceive in is blanking is not a punishable offense; Mhiji has the right to delete (most) things from his Talkpage, per WP:BLANKING. There's no reason to expect (or tell him/her) that blanking alone will lead to a loss of editing privileges. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make the template or the policy. Srobak (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Srobak, your response confuses me somewhat, as I don't know what you're trying to get at. Who made the template (I guess you mean {{Infobox musical artist}}) isn't in question here. And as for "the policy", your edit to Mhiji's Talk suggests that you are making a policy, or trying to, even if it's a brand-new one of your own. Mhiji is allowed to "continue to blank [his] talk page", despite your warnings. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. This one. Template:OwnTalkPage Srobak (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunh. Never saw that one before. Seems to be in direct conflict with WP:BLANKING. Now my head hurts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now listed said template at TFD here.--Salix (talk): 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"You're not helping"

Hi. If you want to say something spell it out. I can't be bothered decoding things. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear in my followup, but I'll go ahead and spell it out for you: On at least 3 occasions you have posted edits that are in no way related to the issue at hand which I initiated discussion about. In fact - at least 2 of the edits appear to be quite erratic and rather scatterbrained. In short - it is only hurting my position and point of discussion - which I don't really appreciate, and honestly should be on its own thread. I'm trying to go after malformed URLs in the infoboxes per the template... and it is unclear what it is that you are going after. Understand that I am not asking you to explain - cause honestly as it has nothing to do with my point - I'm not really interested. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor back

This IP person [10] is back again on the same page [11]. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just what we need. I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at Kumioko's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Why?

Why are you harassing this IP (134.253.26.6‎)? In WP:Blanking it states that "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred". So, that would mean the IP is allowed to remove comments from his/her own talk page. The only restriction is SharedIP notices. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not harassing any users. As the IP is anonymous, it is more than likely being used by more than one user, especially as it appears to be registered to a government entity and is most likely a firewall, plus being used to access WP in violation of their AUP. There is no guarantee that the user who is removing the comments is the one responsible for the edit(s) which prompted notifications on the talk page by multiple users. As such, notices should remain prominent so all users of the anonymous IP can view them. Srobak (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The AUP for Sandia National Laboratories is for Sandia National Laboratories to decide, not us, in my opinion. I am quite certain that they are monitoring all network traffic. WP has no policy which prohibits the removal of messages, so long as the SharedIP message notice is left intact. If you would like to change the policy, then I would suggest starting a thread at WP:VPP. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Srobak (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo (F07)

Why did you tag this title and its talk page for A10 speedy deletion? Neither redirects nor talk pages may be A10 deleted, and they're quite useful as well. Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning is posted on the talk page for the article. Continue any further discussion on the issue there. ThanksSrobak (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at Manishearth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at Manishearth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

US Army & AirForce Exchange Logo

Hi, Srobak. I received a message where you stated that I "added inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to Army and Air Force Exchange Service; it is considered vandalism". Well, I don´t consider that is an "inappropiate" image so it is the current logo which has been recently updated as can seen on Exchange website [12] and others. What I did make wrong was to indicate that it was a copyrighted logo (as I supposed) instead of a public domain image.

I never had the intention of commiting vandalism so I have uploaded a lot of logos of different companies before (as well as many articles) and never received a warning about those images. But I´ll keep in mind anyway.
Regards, Fma12 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Limitation of the template. I forgot to alter the wording. However - you keep resizing to a variety of different sizes unnecessarily. Srobak (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I resized the logo once or twice, just because I had seen it unnecessarily big on the page (just an esthetic change). But this IS NOT an edition related to vandalism. Fma12 (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Phil Collins

Hello, Srobak. You have new messages at MrMarmite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please explain your tags

Hello, regarding this edit, could you please exaplain in detail how and from where the article is closely paraphrased? You shouldn't drop that tag on an article without explaining. Also, I have addressed your notability concerns on the talkpage, so would appreciate it if you could read that and remove the notability tag. Finally, what on earth made you tag it as a "new and unreviewed article"? --BelovedFreak 09:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not conduct that edit, however I did the one prior to that. Close paraphrasing from this and is self-explanatory. The article is new (13:43, February 6, 2011 Belovedfreak (talk | contribs) (2,221 bytes) (start article)) and has not been reviewed. I will check out the talk page shortly and followup there on the notability. Srobak (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris-Craft

The above referenced article about a boat builder based in the United States is located in Category:American boat builders, however, you reverted my edit and returned it to parent Category:Boats. Not arguing, but would sincerely appreciate an explanation for the exception being taken to Wikipedia/Categorization/Subcategorization/Diffusion. Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a member of both categories. It's inclusion in Boats should be should be self-explanatory. Srobak (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand. Generally speaking, if articles are not placed in the lowest level category applicable, then what is the function of categorization? Can you quote a Wiki policy to support what you are saying? Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is placed in the lowest cat, and other applicable cats. Srobak (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Srobak, the relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization, which says in part in the "Categorizing pages" section Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. So looking at the article Chris-Craft, it is already in Category:American boat builders, which is itself in Category:Boat builders which in turn is in Category:Boats. The article is already in its most specific category (American boat builders) and so does not have to be in the parent (Boat builders) or grandparent (Boats) categories. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to execute the same for the parent/child categories of Category:All articles with dead external links to Category:Articles with dead external links from October 2010 and Category:Articles to be merged from February 2010 to Category:All articles to be merged, all of which the article is categorized in. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - those categories are added by the {{Merge}} template and the {{Dead link}} template and I am not sure how to change them. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the question why these templates put articles into two categories at both Template talk:Merge and Template talk:Dead link. Since these are hidden categories, I suspect most people do not ever see them (unless they have view hidden cats turned on in their preferences). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Overly aggressive vandalism templating?

Hi, could you please explain this warning? To me it seems a excessive looking at the vandalism in question. Also, why did you not revert the vandalism itself? Yoenit (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Obvious, blatant, vandalism. Someone else had already reverted, but forgot to issue warn. Srobak (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yet your warning was placed 4 minutes before the vandalism was reverted. Are you also aware that "only" warnings are supposed to be restricted to serious vandalism? You are handing them out like candy. From example for [this obvious good faith edit] you handed out another lvl 4 warning. Yoenit (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

1st - you need to check your watch and then apologize. 2nd - if you think that un-referenced, DFE edit was in "good faith" - then you seriously need to review your criteria. Good day. Srobak (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you need to review them as well. http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/09/24/phil-collins-interview-three-ex-wives-42m-alimony-no-wonder-he-s-in-no-hurry-to-get-married-again-115875-22584237/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL - The Mirror is not a WP:RS. As I indicated earlier - the DFE was also unrefed at the time of the contribution. Srobak (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yoenit (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This was yet another error in judgement on your part. Srobak (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A note

Thanks for listening to peoples' concerns about your vandalism warnings at ANI and accepting the problem, I was impressed by your response once you understood what you'd done wrong - I hope it doesn't now descend into a big fight.

I hope in the future you'll remember to assume good faith more from newbies and IPs. For the ones who aren't being willfully destructive, a friendly note explaining how to improve generally helps change their behaviour better than an automated warning. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Best advice I can give you...

...respond to ANI. But very slowly. Give it 12 hours at least between replies. And if no one else contributes to the thread, don't say anything at all. Otherwise this is going to end badly. Egg Centric (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

appreciate the feedback egg, but I am curious - very often I see action taken out of ANI well under 12 hours from original complaint, and often without the person targeted being able to put in any sort of response. I'm not the type to just "let what happens happen"... while some things have certainly been pointed out to me about my use of vandl templates that I need to re-evaluate - the pigeon-holing and borderline witch-hunt it has turned into isn't something I can just up and ignore and let action be taken against when I feel I have a very sound reason for things. How can I just sit there and let that happen without at least trying to show the justification/reasoning for what's going on? A couple people seem hellbent on revoking my abilities, or intent on vilifying my efforts because of a couple of isolated incidents stemming from frusteration (which I have owned up to, less the templating the regulars bit), and ignoring the positive impact I have tried to keep on the quality of the articles. If that's how they want it - not much I can do about it is there? I'm not to just roll over and die - but if the end results are going to be "bad" as you say... then I will simply walk away from it all. I don't know how to do things half-way. I'm either here to improve the quality of the articles and keep the vandals at bay - or I'm out. It's not worth the stress and other associated bullshit otherwise. Srobak (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing - you can do something. You don't have to accept their complaints have any merit; you merely have to profess to them that you will do what you were going to anyway; just in the way that they want to hear. It is social niceties garbage, but it doesn't make you a liar or someone giving up on your principles to say things how they want to hear it - you need to think of it as a different language, basically. Translate hard facts to fuzzy feelings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See - that's not me though. I do not do fuzzy. I do very, crystal clear. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. THere's no reading between the lines, and I do not know how to... "pad" things for the benefit of others. Even if I did know how - it isn't who I am, and I wouldn't be able to do that in good faith. Hence why I would rather just 'walk away'... if I can't be true to myself and my principles - then there isn't a point. It's not being a diva, as Belean suggested... it's being me. I don't do things half way - I'm in 110%, or I'm not in at all. Maybe it will be my undoing here - if so... so be it. Part of the price, I guess. Srobak (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

re: Musician template image formatting

The 220 note is standard and is intended for uploads whose pixel width is less than that number. IE, if someone uploads a portrait that is only 100px wide. And then adds it to the template...WITHOUT specifying that the width is only 100px....then the template will default the pic to 220 and the result will be a low quality grainy image. That is for "portrait" format only. For all landscape (or wide) formatted images....the field for landscape must be set to yes and the image width set to 250. Otherwise the result will be a box that is WAY too wide. The IP edit setting the Clapton image width to 250 was valid as it was setting the image to the proper width for landscape images. All musician templates which contain a wide format image should be corrected to the values found in the Clapton template for consistency. So if you notice any super-wide musician infoboxes....they aren't formatted properly and should be corrected. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I see... thanks! :) Srobak (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The O.C. - Prominent Guest Stars

Hello, I saw that you reverted some of my recent edits to The O.C. page. I've brought up the reasoning for my edits here. Your opinion would be very much appreciated to get the dialogue started. Ryanlively (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)