User talk:Mr. Berty

Shout here! Guestbooks were yesterday!

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. Berty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for your report at WP:AN/I, in future you can make those kind of reports at WP:AIV. Cheers. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Small Question...

Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between a RevDel and Oversight? It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 16:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Revision deletion is explained here. Oversight is explained here. The key difference is that oversight expunges information from any form of usual access even by administrators. WilliamH (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To go back one step - before RevDel existed, admins could delete and undelete pages. Other admins could, of course, 'see' and undelete the pages. There are about 1700 admins.

Oversight, however, allowed a very restricted number of users (less than 50) to remove a page from history completely - so that even admins could not view it.

Moving forwards in time, 'oversight' was replaced with 'suppression' - although it's still mostly called oversight. This allowed people with the oversight permission to suppress just some information from an old revision of a page - the user name, the edit summary, the content, and the log entries created. This is a relatively minor changed; the 'suppressed' information was still only accessible to the very, very few people with oversight permission.

And then, along came 'revdel' - revision deletion - which allows administrators to be selective - to be able to 'delete' (ie remove from view) parts of a page - username, edit summary, etc. The deleted revisions are, however, still viewable by administrators.

So - it's mostly about the level of restriction.

Revdel is the remit of administrators (about 1700 of them), Oversight is the remit of oversighters (about 50 of them).

Thus, revdel is simpler, and can be quicker - because there are more people who can do it; oversight is for the more 'serious' cases where extreme caution is required.

I hope that gives enough of an answer; more details are, of course, in WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT.

I must stress that, if you ever have a serious concern about an entry (legal concerns, serious threats, non-public info, and that kind of thing) then do not discuss it on wiki - instead, send an email to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org and they'll sort you out.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I have over-eaten too much info! It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Minos EMI

The edits you made are incorrect. The old LP logo that has been orphaned can be safely deleted since the page already has a faithful graphical representation of the old logo. Therefore, it is not a "new" logo as you indicated, in fact, it's very old as it's a scan off of a vinyl record. I hope the information in the article makes this clear and thanks for your interest in the article. Imperatore (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So you didn't notice there was a better, high resolution label (it was in SVG format) of that there then? It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 06:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't get the purpose behind your offensive tone. I decided to keep the SVG, making the vinyl label I had uploaded an orphan, so I must've "noticed" there was an issue there. Imperatore (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Two Phazed People

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Two Phazed People requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sven Manguard _Talk 07:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect revert

Hello Mr. Berty. The revert you made here wasn't quite appropriate. The anonymous editor had made perfectly legitimate corrections, which I have reinstated. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A. B. Simpson Alliance School

Just a heads-up... schools are exempt from CSD-A7. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you explain your rationale here: User talk:King Bowser It's not obvious how that username goes against policy. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't have that as a username, because that is rather a conflict of interst. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 12:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a situation in which naming yourself after a video game character would create a conflict of interest? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

............................................................................ It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 12:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Denis ikkos

Hello Mr. Berty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Denis ikkos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the article's claims of a memorial lecture in his name and a syndrome named for him are enough to pass A7, and Google confirms that they are real. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Live Trax Vol. 19

Hello Mr. Berty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Live Trax Vol. 19, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because: the artist's article does exist on Wikipedia. Thank you. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent anti-vandalism work

Hello Mr Berty. I noticed you've been doing some anti-vandalism work, which is good to see - you've spotted and removed quite a few problems, including some very serious ones. However, having reviewed some of your recent edits, I need to suggest that you take a bit more care, as there are some errors creeping into your work. In particular, you seem to be warning a number of users who are not engaged in vandalism (for example [1], [2], [3], [4]), as well as warning users without also removing the vandalism concerned ([5], [6]). You should also remember only to warn someone once - here you warned an IP three times, escalating the warning each time, when the IP wasn't continuing to edit, and you forgot to remove the vandalism as part of the process. As a result the IP was blocked by an admin who may well have assumed that the vandalism they had reverted was after the warnings.

At any rate, I see that you're doing some good work and reverting a lot of vandalism, which is great! However, you do need to be more careful and make sure that the edit constitutes vandalism before warning the user. - Bilby (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

article names for NRHP-listed places

I noticed and am planning to reverse several article name changes, which had moved articles about NRHP-listed places in the Oyster Bay, New York area from their NRHP listing name to some other name, in my view without justification. I commented about this at Talk:House at 103 Roslyn Avenue#article name. Could you possibly please discuss there? Thanks. Keep up the good work editing! --doncram (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to Template:uw-chat1

Hello. I like the bold changes you made to {{uw-chat1}}! However since the template no longer fits the harmonized scheme (as per WP:UW), I wanted to let you know that I reverted the warning back to its previous, standardized state. As a matter of reference, all of the level-1 warnings at WP:UTM assume good faith an include a "welcome to Wikipedia" in the beginning. Regards, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, another user was unhappy about the template saying "Welcome to Wikipedia!", because he thought it was rather patronising. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Abuse response report

Actually, all you had to do was the first section (comments), but thanks for the rest! We'll look into it soon. Thank you. Netalarm^talk 21:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Abuse Response Filing

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 209.62.173.195. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Abuse response/209.62.173.195 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings. AndrewN ^talk 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

hey bro

My edits to Tony Eveready were not defamatory. I demand an apology or I will report you to the wikipedia police. You are out of control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.128.243 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll contact an admin to overlook your edits, because it was tagged as a possible BLP issue by an automated edit filer. Also it was reverted by Alansohn (talk · contribs · logs) as well. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 15:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

118, your edits were very poorly sourced; please review our sourcing policy. Wikipedia does not report the truth, it reports what reliable sources have said about the subject. You may not add that to the article again. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

if u want to revert my edits thats fine. I probably wouldnt have complained if you gave me a warning for being unconstructive, but I was not being defamatory in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.88.215 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for reverting your revert. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, my friend. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, but good job on your first day using Huggle so far. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

“ THIS IS GROUND CONTROL TO MAJOR TOM...WE HAVE LIFT OFF! ”

Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does that quote come from and who said that? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me...David Bowie song. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but what you put on my talk page along with that talkback template is pretty amusing. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I need to go to Broadmoor Hospital! All I can think of today is two words...Jungle Jim. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You definitely deserve a cookie for your amusing edits.

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Noel Edmonds

Please do not accuse me of attacking a person who has deleted my edit for invalid reasons. What he did was the real attack. By way of adjudicatory observation, for example, your action is focused in such a way as to continue to deny the reader access to this fact about Noel Edmonds (ie the Grab a Grand feature). Please do not patronise either. I have won awards for literature and am frankly unimpressed by yours. It is not bad, but neither would it win any prizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.225.145 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what went on behind the scenes, so I just saw your message on huggle and reverted it. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Noel Edmonds

How interested are you in anthropology? Regarding my "Ug ug" comment, I would like to relate to an administrator that this site is riddled with territorial monkeys who experience a Major Constitutional Crisis every time someone invades "their" page. Whatever you write, however superior to their contributiions, they will delete it. This is a root cause of the venom I have been seen to display, as my very good standard writing is edited out by `the resident monkey`. How do we stop thisÉ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.225.145 (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You can stop it by citing sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol! I am definitely going bonkers; but nobody ain't no resident monkey. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Please :(

Dear whom it may concern:

I also understand that I have no an account to edit this page, but I have been update so long to this, for the asian games result. T_T Been so tired if you would undo all of that

So could you please ask me to do anything like create an account or anything? I would definitely do in order to get back my last edition

Please

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.215.48 (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Go on then, create one! You could have more oppitunity with an account! Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 21:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mr. Berty

A tag has been placed on Mr. Berty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bilby (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Special Cases for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bilby (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mr. Berty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

May I just a second post something on the SPI?

Decline reason:

That does not seem to be a good reason to unblock this account. Checkuser has confirmed you using this account to avoid your block; if you'd like to say something about that, you can do it here. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Mr. Berty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

All I want to do know is have a clean start, everybody forget this, and use this account in good faith. Just look at my record on this account! If you don't think this is a good excuse, then I suggest you start a ban discussion on AN/I. Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=All I want to do know is have a clean start, everybody forget this, and use this account in good faith. Just look at my record on this account! If you don't think this is a good excuse, then I suggest you start a '''ban''' discussion on [[AN/I]]. <big>[[User:Mr. Berty|<span style="font-family:Mistral;color:Green">Mr. Berty</span>]]</big> <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Berty|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Berty|stalk]]</sub> 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=All I want to do know is have a clean start, everybody forget this, and use this account in good faith. Just look at my record on this account! If you don't think this is a good excuse, then I suggest you start a '''ban''' discussion on [[AN/I]]. <big>[[User:Mr. Berty|<span style="font-family:Mistral;color:Green">Mr. Berty</span>]]</big> <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Berty|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Berty|stalk]]</sub> 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=All I want to do know is have a clean start, everybody forget this, and use this account in good faith. Just look at my record on this account! If you don't think this is a good excuse, then I suggest you start a '''ban''' discussion on [[AN/I]]. <big>[[User:Mr. Berty|<span style="font-family:Mistral;color:Green">Mr. Berty</span>]]</big> <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Berty|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Mr. Berty|stalk]]</sub> 15:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}