User talk:Excirial

Excirial

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

 

Talk

Chewing gum accusation Chewing gum? Hey Mate... A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. You accused me of doing something to a chewing gum article/page? By IP address? My user name is Misterweiss. I don't do any changes/edits without it. I use Verizon Wireless Broadband via a USB modem for internet access - I have a different IP address every time I connect, like dial-up used to be. The only thing I can figure is someone else on Verizon did those changes, and today I happen to be on that IP address. If you check my history, you'll probably see a million different IP addresses in the last 5 years. I understand you're using bots and such to check for vandalism, but it's quite obvious that it doesn't always work. You can't assume that someone always has the same IP address and accuse people of things. I have no bloody interest in chewing gum anyway! Thanks Bill Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterweiss (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I guess you connected to Wikipedia today, and immediately noticed the orange bar stating that you had new messages (Prior to logging in)? In that case the situation you are seeing is normal. If someone places a message on an IP users talk page any user connecting as that IP will receive the new message bar until the talk page is actually visited. In this case the IP who vandalized the chewing gum page two months ago didn't visit the talk wand thus you ended up seeing the new message bar even though the original IP editor was already long gone. The good news? As soon as you are logged into your account you are recognized as a named editor instead of an IP user, and thus you won't see the the message popups for an IP address at all. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Glitch? Could this be a glitch? I don't recall declining this particular article. Please have a look at this post. Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The AFC script uses the name of the page where the script tab was clicked in order to determine the article that has to be tagged. Unless there is a really oddball glitch somewhere i doubt that the script is even capable of tagging incorrect pages like this. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Might be an Eternal Sunshine moment FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Articles for creation/Elly Kenner Hello Excirial, This Article have been declined by you. Changes have been made to improve the referencing, I would appreciate it if you will review it again. Thank you! 194.90.169.2 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I have added the page to the review queue for you, so as soon as it reaches the front of the queue it will be reviewed again. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Virut (Original message placed on Piotrus's talk page) Thank you for creating the Virut botnet article! Article's describing specific botnets tend to attract very few editors so it is quite nice to see someone other than me interested in starting an article on them. Especially if they are so well referenced and written that i really don't have anything to add to it after discovering them. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC) My pleasure. It was an interesting Poland-themed newspiece that didn't have a Wikipeda article, but as you say, botnets are notable. Glad you found it interesting :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Gilbert Luis R. Centina III Hi, I deleted the article on Gilbert Luis Centina III since it was a duplication. There's another article with complete information one which adheres to the WiKi editing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierceram@gmail.com (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC) There is a difference between blanking an article (removing its content) and deleting an article (Actually removing the page). Blanking an article will result in an empty page that can still be found trough a search or by navigating to the page directly (Showing the reader a blank page). If an article should be removed entirely it should be deleted instead. As for the page being a duplicate - what page is a copy of this one? Duplicate pages are often forked from the same source, which would result in copyright related issues if the original page were to be deleted. This is due to the copyright licenses Wikipedia uses for its content - the license requires every edit to be traceable and deleting would cause a share of the edits to be lost. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for being a vandal fighter. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Edit You said that you removed a link that I put on the Poultry Farming page. What are you talking about?Lee Tru. (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Well, this specific edit Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Oh, sorry about that, I was trying to do something else.Lee Tru. (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You've been Quite vandalised today! Bugger... FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I can't help but think it is rather amusing that vandals start aiming for me instead of articles. And besides that - its more efficient! A hit on the Lightning rod is vastly preferable over actually hitting the building after all Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC) MHO about a declined edit I think you made a mistake regarding the Pork Barrel entry in Wikipedia, simply because there is no discussion page whatsoever on Facebook with that name, and participating in the Wiki writeup is essentially the only place to put some content that IS constructive, because Wiki sits at the top of results from almost every search engine. Oh, well. I think you refer to this edit? If so, that is hardly constructive content. Its an opinion, and besides this, all caps additions are never a good idea because people interpret it like this Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 2A02:25A9:0:9463:0:0:0:1 2A02:25A9:0:9463:0:0:0:1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hello. You indefinitely blocked this, but it is an IPv6 address, not an account, so the block should be temporary. With that said, though, the address is an open proxy, so the block should still be long (just not indefinite).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Now that is definitely interesting. That was intended to be a regular 24 hour block, but it seems that Huggle assumed that this was a registered user and defaulted to Indef over 24 hours. Thanks for mentioning it, reblocked as 72 hours instead. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Mark Dice Well in my editing I changed the authors name cause I will show you that the real authors name is Mark Allen Shouldice and not Mark Dice These two links shows exactly that the author Mark Dice is really Mark Shouldice aka Mark Allen Shouldice The author also in 'your' edited version tells that Mark Dice wrote these two books which clearly estates in these links that the authors name is Mark Allen Shouldice. Mark Dice is just his username and not biographical name. http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/fbn/search.aspx?FBNNum=2005022762 http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/fbn/search.aspx?FBNNum=2008010467 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneLonelyDesert (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, but this is where WP:COMMONNAME comes into play. Simply put an article should be located at the most common title for the subject. For example, the rapper Snoop Dogg is located at that title and not at "Calvin Cordozar Broadus" (his real name). Though it depends on the context in which the name was used, pages often refer to the subject using the most known name. However, the edit has another issue. It seems you used Find&replace to edit any instance of the word "Dice" which introduced multiple errors. For example, [this youtube video reference] has is title "Danny Bonaduce on Oreilly Factor talking about Mark Dice confrontation". Yet after your change the title was mentioned to be "Danny Bonaduce on the O'Reilly Factor Talking about Mark Allen Shouldice confrontation" which is incorrect. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Forgiveness Please forgive what may have been an attempt at spam. My intention was to add some additional insight into the articles, but yes, admittedly looking for some web traffic. I do not want to be labeled a spammer as I attempt to only operate in ethical ways in web marketing. Again, If I went outside of the guidelines forgive me and it will never happen again. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesman70 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) 5/6/7 This user has been on Wikipedia or 5 years, 6 months, and 7 days eh? I bet you haven't seen a woman naked for that long either.