This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Welcome to my talk page. If you wish to contact me just press the "Start a new talk topic" link below. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
I see it as relevant because while I don't disagree with your judgement on my comment, what you seem to be implying (and maybe I have this wrong) is that you DO NOT consider him using false claims to justify his actions as an Admin (or Editor?) and being snide, sarcastic, and dismissive uncivil. That does't gel. Especially when, if you read the history of posts, you may (and hopefully will) see that his doing so is because he refuses to acknowledge that what I've explained to him multiple times in multiple ways is true and that he can go and verify everything by just clicking on and reading the articles (however contrary that information is to his personal beliefs).
And I'm not sure how far back you can see but I was civil at first and tried to explain multiple times when making the edits (as he very quickly deleted them, seemingly without reading them - although apparently he did later) that everything was true and accurate - and I asked multiple times for him to please not delete my edits as they began a much needed work in progress (i.e. the mission statement of Wikipedia) - but no. That's where my lack of civility began with the edit war which ended with a block and my first post on his talk page (which again, I must admit did not help my goal of getting him to see reason, but that doesn't mean he had to sink to my level rather than considering what I had explained). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:878:FB28:1340:85BD (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose i should have elaborated a bit further on this question - writing a response right before calling it a day helps keep things brief but this may have ended up being a little too brief to serve as an answer. Some context first: My main activity around the Wiki is vandalism patrol, which pretty much equals looking at diffs to determine if an edit is productive or not. If something is productive that's great, if something is not it is reverted and if something is an edge case it warrants another look, manual intervention or assumption of good faith followed by a move to the next edit. Since i solemnly look at diffs all i see is the information the editor added or changed and a note if they were warned for unproductive edits before. Technically more information is on the screen (meta data about the editor) but i tend to ignore it fully in order to judge an edit on its own merit so to prevent a self-fulfilling prophecy (Edits by IP editors and new accounts tend to cause more trouble, but if one keeps looking whether an editor is new it may just be a reason to doubt their edits more often as well).
While busy around the wiki i ended up looking at the edit i linked earlier. The edit itself is a no-go as it contains nothing beyond a personal attack aimed at another person. At that point i really don't care who made edit nor do i care if the edit was a response to previous incivility: If you see a lit powder keg you throw a bucket of water over it in order to defuse it - arguing who actually lit the keg and would thus be responsible for defusing it wouldn't solve the fuse being on fire.
Now, at this stage this type of problem usually shifts into the question who is to blame for this. Of course I could spend the next hour sifting through all the interaction between the both of you before writing a wall of text explaining:
If the reverts were warranted
And if that should warrant further action being taken.
Or if the reverted were good but perhaps too heavy-handed.
If you were block evading
And if this was or wasn't intentional
And if that should have consequences
If your edits were uncivil
If that occurred before and thus should be frowned at at.
And.....
Now, I hope that list looks about as silly to you as it looks to me. From my point of view the both of you were busy trying to do something productive, ran into each other, got entangled and somehow managed to roll downhill in the process. The best way to solve that is getting untangled, having a laugh about it and then walking back up the hill again. Failing that its always possible to exchange and angry glare about the entire thing before dropping the matter. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)19:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... Sadly this is still relevant because the post he deleted also explained my next move which is going to be to write up corrections and explanations for those corrections, and citations for those corrections, for both the Low Fantasy and High Fantasy pages in order to fix the information on both which is currently wrong and/or misleading. I believe this Admin fully intends to continue being dismissive and disruptive to this process as he has deleted my comments and posts multiple times and has explained multiple times to me that he refuses to acknowledge the facts of what I've presented to him (multiple times).
He has already deleted my comments, lied, and falsely accused me and then taken measures as an Admin to punish me for those false accusations - and I will not have him continue to undermine the quality of these articles, especially after submitting this write up which I will do to both his talk page and the talk pages of both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:D104:5961:E8B3:3902 (talk • contribs)
Ok, there are a few things i should point out here:
MelbourneStar is not an admin and neither did he block you. The block was issued by Drmies for what I believe to be a combination of the personal attacks in the edits and edit summaries, and the edit war on the article.
I am fairly certain MelbourneStar has no specific interest in the article beyond happening to be there while on vandalism patrol. The revert itself was likely triggered by the commentary in the edit, eg: "Everything below is incorrect but I will leave the decision of whether to edit/delete any of it to someone else" and not the rest of the text on its own. Looking at the next edit it quite plainly states "By all means, edit the article", with some added pointers as to what was deemed problematic. I'd say that clearly states "Go ahead with what you're doing, just keep these things in mind".
As for the reverted edit you mention: I interpret Melbourne's "seeing as we're past the insults" line as "I'm glad there is no more calling people a dick or asswipe so lets talk about the article (Eg:"happy to engage with you on this topic")". Now reread your own response after that: more than half of it is another barrage of attacks. If anything this reminds me of my own edit note on top of this page: "Keep it friendly. Treat me as you would like to be treated yourself. If your desire is to be treated impolitely, I won't respond at all.". And yes, I see this as one of those "I won't respond at all" comments.
We're now four days past this incident occurred so really, stop charging at the windmills thinking they are giants. We can argue to eternity who was at fault and it won't benefit any involved party or Wikipedia as a whole. In my eyes this is clearly a situation where two random editors happened to slam into each other, and not a conspiracy to prevent anyone from editing an article. So if nothing else drop the grudge and agree to disagree on the matter, but don't keep harping over it. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)22:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining all of that; everything makes a lot more sense now. The divisions of responsibility here are very complex to someone (me) who is taking this much interest in editing on Wikipedia for the first time so I very much appreciate the objectivity. I see that MelbourneStar is responsible for much less than I attributed to him at first and apologize for the misunderstanding that caused. I will continue my efforts now on the actual write up for the talk pages.
That being said, if MelbourneStar had been an admin doing of all that it would seem to me to be a major conflict of interest so re-reading my deleted post I still think it's pretty damn funny (thanks for keeping it archived). Also, isn't a more modern idiom "feeding trolls"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1402:3E60:3D40:EC06:C2F7:6330 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I updated a little bit the topic "Professional Organizing". There are other associations like NAPO out there. I listed the professional organizers in Canada and also the IFPOA where all the others associations around the world are listed. This info would be very helpful for someone else living outside of North America.
Also, I have shared a blog "KW Professional Organizers" because they share a lot of great content with before and after photos and videos of real client's stories. These stories will help others understand what professional organizing is about.
First of, thanks for the additions! However, i have to point to Wikipedia's policy on external links which governs what should, and what shouldn't be added to an article. Generally taken an article on a generic topic shouldn't provide links to companies or groups in that line of work. For example, the Butcher topic shouldn't be linking to a butchery shop near you. Generally taken external links to organizations are only added if there is a specific reason to do so (Eg: The article is about the organisation itself). Blogs are generally taken a no-go as well, no matter how informative they may be. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)19:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Excirial--One of our employees made some changes to the UC Davis School of Education page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_School_of_Education and they were removed as vandalism. Just wanted you to know that it this was indeed the School of Education trying to make edits to the page, not a vandal. We're going to do more of our edits offline and then come back to apply them to our page when they're completely vetted and notated. Hope we won't have any problem then.
Ucdsoewiki (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there are a few things i should mention here:
If you are editing on behalf of a company or group you have a so called conflict of interest - an interest in the article beyond writing a neutral and non promotional piece. If you are also compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests - that is, you are a paid employee editing on behalf of a company - this is considered paid editing which is strongly discouraged. If you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Hannah.survilas. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Hannah.survilas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.
Again, editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged due to neutrality concern. Just ask yourself: If UC Davis were to hit the news tomorrow regarding some high profile fraud case, would you be busy adding that information to the page next time you edit it? Or is it more likely you'd be interested in toning down or removing any mention of it? Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)19:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am a representative of El Camino High School. We would like to change the content on our wikipedia page. We don't feel that the info under the 'Media Attention' tab is relevant and makes our school look bad. We instead would like to talk about our school traditions and our annual Homecoming Show. Please let me know if we are able to do this.
@Hannah.survilas: Reading the above commentaru there are a few things i should mention here.
Before anything else: If you are editing an article you are closely related to or have an interest or stake in you have a so called conflict of interest - an interest in the article beyond writing a neutral and non promotional piece. If you are also compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests - that is, you are a paid employee editing on behalf of a company - this is considered paid editing which is strongly discouraged. If you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Hannah.survilas. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Hannah.survilas|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.
Having gotten the more procedural matters are out of the way we can focus on the article itself. Based on the amount of coverage the incident received i would say it warrants a mention in the article, but it definitely does not warrant an entire multi-line section devoted to it. As of such i cut the section down from a multi-line explanation of the incident to a single-line with accompanying references. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)20:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm from El Camino High School. Thank you for changing our page. If we want to add stuff to our page, like our Alma Mater and our annual Homecoming show with pictures. How does that work??
I reverted farther back on this page; IP edits (and one user, who is probably the same) added multiple names of people, I'm guessing as an attack on them. Thinking they possibly should be erased. Home Lander (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Home Lander: Yep, though i already noticed the new message popup in Huggle itself. The chat functionality in Huggle is effectively an IRC channel - two bird with one stone i suppose, since huggle fetches edits over IRC as well. Seeing your edit i am half tempted to joke its your cache now but no, that was actually a gaffe on my side. It tends to help if one selects the "Set" radiobutton instead of the "Unset" radiobutton when marking something as hidden. All i did on the first attempt was making the already visible edits visible.... Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My change was not constructive? It was my intention to correct the typo error (missing blank between 47 and mm like it should be between nearly every number an corresponding measurment unit [except °]) to improve wikipedia.
If you want to keep the wrong spelling, feel free to do so. I am not that attached to my sporadic contributions and do not want to argue about them.
I'm actually a bit surprised seeing this revert - and that generally isn't a good thing from a quality perspective. I can see that you added two HTML encoded spaces to the article; I suppose might have opted to change these to two regular spaces but I wouldn't see myself reverting an edit over it, let alone revert while leaving a warning. My best guess is that this edit got caught in the middle of three other clear vandalism revert i issued in the same minute (Mayhap i hit the revert key a bit to enthusiastically and reverted two edits instead of one).
Either way, regardless of the reason the revert and the warning are nonsensical - sorry for that and thanks for pointing out for me. I reinstated your previous edit, which also allowed me to replace the HTML encoded spaces with regular ones. Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't be thanking me for what is essentially cleaning up my own mistake - if anything I owe you an apology for the nonsensical warning and revert. This is a case where the original edit is neither highly suggestive and thus easy to interpret incorrectly, nor a case where the revert was caused by a technical issue such as me hitting the wrong button or accidentally reverting two consecutive edits instead of one. Instead I remember this revert and I completely misread the text being added - I'm not entirely sure what I thought I read any more but I am pretty sure it hadn't anything to do with a day of traffic chaos caused by switching driving lanes.
So again, sorry for this one. Guess I'll be pouring myself a cup of coffee (Or better even: Two) and see if that wakes me up sufficiently to return to reverting vandalism. Misfiring on suggestive edits or accidentally hitting the wrong key is something that can happen, but flat out "What on earth was i thinking?" reverts I'd like to keep to an absolute minimum . Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)21:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't warn me at all. I only noticed because (current) wasn't on my contributions page on the Flash Cut line. I guess you get a lot of complaints by vandals when you're fighting vandals, so I was thankful that you didn't treat my message as a baseless complaint, and also thank you for the nice response after that. 208.95.51.115 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
