User talk:Besieged

Have you remembered to sign your message

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Cords of Billroth Dolon (mythology) Tenes Monocytic leukemia Monoblast Dirty rice Atomizer nozzle Universal Laboratories Building Rice and curry Myelopoiesis CCL8 CXCL2 Phocus Los Colorados (music group) Jatjuk Cơm rượu Pierre Morel Clytus (mythology) Monocytosis

Cleanup Acute monocytic leukemia We Die Young The Story of Ferdinand Merge Bleed the Freak Salted bomb Alice N' Chains Add Sources Agranulocyte Red beans and rice Ergoline Wikify Commercial vehicle Stephen McColl Bremen University of Applied Sciences Expand Armoured fighting vehicle Ivar the Boneless Lymphocyte

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ckspoiler SPI report — more info needed ASAP

Hi. I'm one of the clerks at the sockpuppet investigation (SPI) page. Just a heads-up regarding your recent SPI request regarding Ckspoiler and his suspected sockpuppet Spaghettispaceship — you need to go back to the request page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ckspoiler) and supply specific diffs supporting your case. If you don't do this in a timely manner, your SPI request will most likely be closed without any action being taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Sorry about that! Looks like I was trying to juggle one too many things at a time! besieged^talk 08:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

kevin clifton

hello 'besieged' you seem extremely interested in my entry. unfortunately I do not have evidence of Kevin's infidelity and I hope you can appreciate that this is almost impossible to refer to on the internet. he has done his best to cover up most of his previous marriage to Clare. however you can still find photos of them together if you put in their names on google images this is the best I can do. What I have written is absolutely true. I am also someone who tries to do the right thing and feel this information should be public. Dirtylittlesecret99 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unecyclopedic entries involving negative, unsourced information to biographies of living persons is not acceptable, and will always be reverted. Edits to pages regarding living persons must conform to WP:BLP. Please also see WP:NOTSCANDAL. Thank you. besieged^talk 20:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting because when I look at the pages of other famous figures it seems there are many many negative references to their lifestyle choices and life decisions they seem to be left there quite happily. I also don't 'suffer fools' so ill bid you good day and I hope that you find a more interesting way to spend your Thursday nights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtylittlesecret99 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the key phrase "unsourced": try reading the policies linked above. besieged^talk 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Locust Grove Virginia

Besieged,

I deleted the info on the Locust Grove, King and Queen County page because there is NO Locust Grove in King and Queen County. The only Locust Grove in the state of Virginia is located in Orange County...I know, I live there. I entered this information when I attempted to delete the page of the fictitious town. Additionally parts of Wikipedia confuse the towns of Locust Grove and Locust Dale which are both in Orange county about 25 miles away from each other, but that's another story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyReb67 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I do understand and greatly appreciate your desire to help keep the Wikipedia factual and accurate, however there is a process for deleting articles that must be followed, as blanking of content - especially in otherwise long established articles - will always be viewed as vandalism. If the article in question truly is inaccurate or inappropriate, please use the established mechanisms available with either WP:AFD or WP:PROD (whichever is most appropriate). You can also nominate it as a candidate for speedy deletion if appropriate. Once again, thank you for your efforts and contributions! besieged^talk 22:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing this, I decided to investigate, and I've come to the same conclusion as JohnnyReb67 did. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locust Grove, King and Queen County, Virginia, if you're at all interested in participating. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Protecting your userpage

Perhaps you've already seen: your userpage got semiprotected because the software doesn't have the ability to put PC on userspace pages. I just now tried putting PC on a mainspace page and moving it to userspace, but the PC magically disappeared! Meanwhile, note that you could have the page fully protected in a way that you could still edit it: you could put your entire userpage code into a .js page (since only admins can edit another user's .js pages), transclude it onto the userpage, and then request full protection for the userpage. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly! Sorry if trying to PC the userpage was at all frustrating, but hey, we both learned something, right? :) That's a great idea though about transcluding a .js page, I'll have to research that a little later and see if I can make it work. Your efforts and thoroughness are greatly appreciated! besieged^talk 17:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits

What's wrong with my edits?98.169.63.91 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're not an Administrator (which you either are not, or you need a reminder about editing when not logged in), you don't have permission to remove maintenance templates, period. besieged^talk 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

write by some one

hey you have edit me some time but i thing my english is maibe a little hard to understand for naroww mind native english but maibe some one can make that one understanding for naroww mind people and so i thing it better to do not erase jusqua some one make a true edit and make that undestanding ( maibe is one forum of wiki can make stock of that and some people who reade can discut about how make the diference betwent understang by some to understanding by a lot and maibe discut about translate some part of french article in english because a lot is say who is dont in the english one but not me my englis is stil a hard but if no body wand i make and even if it is in bad english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.102.171 (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the thinly veiled insult, I haven't the faintest clue what you're trying to say, except "please stop undoing my unintelligible edits": if you can't compose and write in clear, readily understood English, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. besieged^talk 21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

i dont want to make "Beyond the thinly veiled insult" but maibe my vocabulari is bad so i will speack in my first language and you use a friend or a machine for translation Je vais ésaié d'être très clair; je posède des information prècice dans ma langue maternelle je les ai transmit à wikipédia il sont éventuelement un peu dure à comprendre car écrit dans un mauvais anglais mais si vous faîte un petit effort de compréhention vous pouvez les comprendre certe difficilement donc j'ai uninilatéralement décidé de les metre pour qu'un jour éventuelement vous ou une autre persone puisse les comprendre , les aprendre les retransmetre dans une langue anglaise correct et accécible à tous. Certe il serait plus intérèsant de les metre à un endroit de discution par exemble un forum qui servirait à polimique sur ce qui doit être modiffié pour le rendre compréhensible à la majorité;mais avec les connaissance que je possède sur wikipédia actuelement soit je ne c connîs pas ce lieu soit ce lieu n'existe pas et donc deux posibilité soit j'éxige de votre part de me montrez cela soit je vous demande d'en transmetre la demande aux administrateur pour qu'il le crée cela étant dit je rapelle que porté une accussation de faire une menace voilé sur des mot écrite dans votre langue par un étranger relativement peu à l'aise dans votre langue est siource de calomnisation car si un étranger est capable de faire une menace voilé dans une langue étrangère qui je vous le rappel est très difficile ne peut signifié que deux chose soit il vous trompe et vous fait croire à son incapacité soit vous vous trompé la premiers est plus probable mais l'importance de nos propre jugement est tel que la majorité absolue choici de sous évaluéc les probalité de la premiers voir de niez l'éxistance de la seconde qui vus ma faibilité n'être que la deuxieme et entrainez ainsi l'existence de la possible troisieme mais surtous cela me démontre un fait vous ête abitué a parlez anglais et que les étranger fasse tous pour parlez anglais cela est un défaut courent chez les americain et entre amis je pense le pire de tous pour vous en guérire je vous propose d'envisagé un possible voyage dans un pays étranger ou vous tenterez de ne jamais parlez la langue anglaise pour vous rentre compte de la grande diversité des langue et ainsi comprendre plus facilement ce que je dissai et dit et dirai. bien petit expliquation finis you can anwers in english if you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.194.102.171 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Guy Pearce Edit

Hello, Besieged. I see that you have edited the Guy Pearce page back to before. Unfortunately, I think this is a mistake. It hasn't been recalled that Guy Pearce appeared in the movie The Ghost and the Darkness along with the upcoming Poltergeist film. Can you explain your edit? 98.195.166.129 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I reverted your edit because no explanation was provided in the edit summary, and so, from an IP-only account, it appeared as if it might be vandalism. I did just now check and do not in fact see any immediate references to him appearing in those movies, so, speaking for myself, would not revert another removal of that content, but you do need to be sure you provide a factual edit summary when making such changes. My sincere apologies for any trouble it might have caused you, however an anti-vandalism patroller (like myself) can revert as many as hundreds of edits in just an hour or two, depending on how heavy vandalism is at that time, and we do not generally have time for fact-checking, etc., but rather leave that to other editors, usually those who are actively invested in the content of a specific article: in cases like this one, all I saw was that content that had been in the article for some days (besides the addition of a source, the last prior edit was on the 28th, and is thus probably already sourced for validity) is removed by an IP-only account with no explanation. Thank you, though, for your efforts and contributions! We hope you'll decide to stick around and continue to contribute! besieged^talk 23:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize for not putting an explanation on it. 98.195.166.129 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Some trolls who can't restrain themselves

I see you live in USA so obviously have no idea what real fish and chips are all about. stcik to editing Wikis about hot dogs'n'suds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.16.147 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DIA

Are you out of your mind? I received a constructive criticism from one of the editors and I merely added an additional source to more closely match the article's wording. That is NOT vandalism. You're acting like a disoriented bot.Please reinstate my changes.--Sdverv (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, thanks to your poor attitude, I will do no such thing. You can calm down and slow your roll for a second, consider the fact that I reverted your edit because, at a glance, in the midst of heavy vandalism, I thought your edit looked like a defacement similar to what others had been doing in other articles, and made an error. If you had been able to relax and approach what was fairly clearly an honest mistake like an adult, instead of having and a fit and hurling insults like a child, I would have been inclined to do just as you have asked, would have being the operative phrase. besieged^talk 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you turn off your half-witted anti-vandalism application and reinstate my edits.--Sdverv (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And I suggest you revert your attitude and get over yourself. besieged^talk 20:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote the first message, I had no idea everything was done by a software. And I hope you will forgive me if I'm not catering enough to your ego. In case you have not noticed, I have been dying cleaning up and updating that article for weeks - pleasing you is the least of my concerns as I try to keep an eye on anonymous IPs that have a history making erroneous edits while the article is featured on the main page (also thanks to me).--Sdverv (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Shows what you know, then, as everything is NOT done via software. Likewise, pleasing an editor with a poor attitude who seems to think he owns an article is the least of my concerns. You edit one article space/topic/theme, I fix several dozen - or even hundreds - of instances of vandalism a day, and have no time for hot-heads who fly off the handle at the drop of a hat because their precious edit was accidentally reverted, which they could fix themselves with a single click, and could have explained adequately here in a single sentence not filled with vitriol. besieged^talk 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I could fix it with a single click but given my previous reverts, that would constitute edit warring - the kind of lack of civility I tend to avoid despite your arguments to the contrary. That is the only reason I asked you to correct your mistake yourself. Lastly, I am familiar with WP:OWN and I don't think promptly updating a paragraph with reliable sources counts as that. I may figure prominently in the article's edit history but that is less due to my ownership of it, than due to the fact that very few people have taken interest in making contributions aside from changing around semantics.--Sdverv (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Still... I admit was too eager to criticize you - apologies.--Sdverv (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apology, and offer my own sincerely for my error. besieged^talk

Maybe we need to talk.

I reverted your reversion on The Washington Post. What specifically was not constructive? Reverting multiple good faith edits in whole is not appropriate behaviour on WP - it means that every single change I made was "not constructive", a position you couldn't possibly support. If one or two things are not to your liking, just revert only those few things. I'm opening a talk page entry so you and I can discuss what specifically you are objecting to. Thanks 65.102.187.47 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, apologies, my fault! I looked at the edit, and saw some misplaced capitalization as well as what looked like mangling of ref links (like this one: "ref name=fahri2013a") and reverted what seemed to be vandalism. I had actually been in the process of reviewing *my* edit to see if I was correct when I noted you edited the article again. After a more thorough review, I determined my marking of the edit as un-constructive was clearly incorrect and was going to look for your talk page when I noticed you had sent me a message here. No hard feelings I hope, I'm just patrolling for vandals more than anything else, and when they come streaming in as fast as they do sometimes, back to back, it occasionally happens that a complex edit isn't analyzed quite as thoroughly as it perhaps ought to be. Sorry, only human! besieged^talk 03:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a closer look and replying. Definitely no hard feelings, but please take the time to carefully look at each edit and I'll commit to not to mangling things. Just out of curiousity, what misplaced capitalization? If I need to improve something, let me know. Thanks. (Edit: The system is going haywire and put your signature here in place of mine, so I'll try one more time to sign it.)65.102.187.47 (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries, as with the rest, I was incorrect, I saw "Step Down As Editor" and didn't immediately note it was a reference title... it was more the seemingly mangled reflinks (again, my mistake in pattern recognition) that tripped me to hit the revert button than anything else, on top of the massive wall of changed text. Again, my apologies, sorry if I caused you any headache, and thanks for being a patient good sport! besieged^talk 03:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand, its not a problem. Thanks again. 65.102.187.47 (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

About blanking by page creators

Hi there. I noticed that you warned User:Raerai for removing the speedy deletion tag on his/her article. I did the same thing the other day, and another editor tipped me off that page blanking by the sole creator means something different than blanking by anyone else. It's apparently a recognized way of saying, "Okay, go on and delete my page." If you see this, you're then free to add the db-g7 speedy deletion template to the blanked page. Thought I'd pass it on. Thanks for doing RC patrol! DoorsAjar (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahah, thanks for the heads up! I knew that a page creator was allowed to blank their own page (if not too many others have contributed valid content), but not so much that they could blank a page AND the speedy deletion template. Thank you, too, for your RC patrol efforts, I've come up on many edits I was about to revert, only to find you beat me to the punch :) The more eyes, the better, that's for sure! besieged^talk 20:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And you've beaten me to the punch at least as many times. <g> As for the "blanking by creator" thing, there are times when I wish I could go to Wikipedia School, because there are so many subtleties of implementation that I don't pick up from scanning policy pages. DoorsAjar (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I hear you on that! Sometimes I find myself scanning policy to check on what I want to or think I should do, and start wondering when someone will get around to creating a Wikipeda Bar Exam for aspiring WikiLawyers and WikiCops. besieged^talk 21:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

Why did you revert my edit[1]? The source contained the information needed to support the two sentences that have had citation needed requests since April. Did you read the source or just automatically revert a change made by an anonymous user? I am sure of the change, I reviewed the source and will remake my edit. Please review the source before again reverting my edit. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source verbatim (emphasis added by me that supports the unattributed sentences):

Abstract
Geneticists' view of ‘population isolates’ as bearing special utility for research often translates into the targeting of such groups as study popuations. This paper aims to outline the prevalence and structure of reference to one such group—that of the Jews—in genetic research publications. The paper uses three prevalence scores, calculated on the basis of a search of the PubMed database, conducted in September–October 2002. A systematic comparison to other population groups shows that in relation to the population size and in relation to the general bioscientific reference to this group, Jews are over-represented in human genetic literature, particularly in mutation-related contexts. This pattern is interpreted as representing geneticists' interest in Jewish communities, which are comparatively endogamous yet sizeable. It is also attributed to geneticists' access to Jewish communities, which is facilitated by the participation of Jewish scientists that alleviates ethical concerns as well. The geographical proximity of the largest Jewish communities to major research centers, and previous acquaintance with the genetic paradigm that many Jewish persons possess, further enhance this trend. The paper ends by pointing at potential extra-medical implications of this increased prevalence. © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.