User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)[edit]

Thanks for your edits to I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That). You clearly have some useful and interesting ideas for improving the article, and I thank you for that. Some of your edit summaries could be perceived as a little adversarial, which some might consider to be marginally against WP:NPA. Wikipedia is an inclusive community (not a battleground) of volunteers... politeness is often the better option. Best, The JPStalk to me 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Further more, you will notice from WP:COPYPASTE, since you highlighted that page, that direct quotations are indeed allowed within the boundaries of fair use. The JPStalk to me 21:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Johan Cruyff has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  • ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
  • For help, take a look at the introduction.
  • The following is the log entry regarding this message: Johan Cruyff was changed by (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.898584 on 2014-01-19T17:39:36+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The change was constructive. Your edit summary, however, said "rm copied and pasted material", an odd way of saying "direct quote". Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane Keith and welcome![edit]

My revert wasn't for no reason. Your edit summary said "say what it was before saying what it did", but that the project long ago agreed not to start articles that way. Call my edit summary "fuckwitted" if you want, but I stand by it. The opener was boring the way you changed it, and right now, it doesn't help anyone who reads the article. Obviously Hurricane Keith was a hurricane in a hurricane season. There have been hundreds of other tropical storms or hurricanes in various seasons. That means nothing. The important part, and the reason the storm has an article, as the damage in Central America.

That being said, I do feel like we got off on the wrong foot, and if that's the case, I apologize. I worked on the Hurricane Keith article earlier this year, and am proud of the work. It seems you are interested in tropical cyclones and have a decent knowledge of Wikipedia. Have you considered joining Wikipedia and creating an account? There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject tropical cyclones that has a bunch of tropical cyclone editors maintaining all of those articles throughout Wiki, and we are always looking for new writers! Let me know if you're interested, I could help you out. I really don't want our current series of interactions to push you away from the project. I truly feel the best way to advance from any situation is proper dialogue, and I apologize for not talking with you immediately, instead of quickly reverting you. I hope you consider joining, and I look forward to seeing you around! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. WP:BEGIN, which you refereed to in your edit summary, says that "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." This is the case in Keith, based on the title, we assume the readers know that this is a hurricane. If not, it's their problem :P YE Pacific Hurricane 11:28 am, Today (UTC−8
An encyclopaedia article has to start with a basic definition of the subject - see WP:BEGIN - and the project is wrong if it thinks otherwise. I wrote an alternative first sentence which still boringly follows the defined conventions of the encyclopaedia but perhaps you'll find it a little less soporific. Not starting this way is very unhelpful to the reader. Analogous to your approach would be to talk about the films an actor has appeared in (which obviously are the reason they have an article) before stating that they are an actor. The fundamental definition of the subject is the most important thing.
I am not interested in creating an account, and I only edited this particular storm article because I was in Central America when Keith passed over. But thanks for your message. Most wikipedia editors these days consider any IP edit they don't like to be vandalism, and so I appreciate you not levelling false accusations at me as so many other editors have done. I thought your edit summary was simply a lame attack on an IP edit rather than an actual statement of what you believed. (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, I have to disagree with your main point. I think it is utterly redundant to say "Hurricane Keith was a hurricane". That's obvious from the title. That's completely different from listing works before saying a person was an author/actor. Simply saying the storm's position in the year doesn't make the storm any different from another, whereas the current version says why it's important, which is much more useful. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)×
Read what I said above, which your removed by accident (I assume). WP:BEGIN says that "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." YE Pacific Hurricane 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
You have to say what year it happened and where it struck in the first sentence. These are just basic fundamentals of encyclopaedia writing, and if you find them boring, why are you writing an encyclopaedia? The version you were prepared to edit war for did not say when it occurred, and I really don't think you know what's "useful" if you don't think that's essential to state in the first sentence.
"Yellow Evan", why are you quoting guidelines about the article title appearing verbatim? That's not what's being discussed here. Don't argue if you don't understand the premise of the argument. Also, your edit summary comments like "We've been doing this for years" and "FWIW, this article is A class for a reason, listen, we know what we're doing" are laughable. You (singular) clearly don't know what you're doing, and no article is immune from being improved. (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

User:The Rambling Man has applied a block to gain the upper hand in a content dispute (see [1]), in contravention of WP:BP which clearly states that "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute".

Accept reason:

I am not prepared to assume bad faith to the extent of assuming that the block was placed for the purpose of gaining "the upper hand" in a content dispute, and I certainly hope it wasn't. However, I certainly agree that it was a mistake to block you while involved in a content dispute with you, clearly in violation of WP:INVOLVED. I also think that, while your personal attack in an edit summary was unacceptable, it was at a level that would justify a warning, rather than an immediate. Please consider yourself hereby warned that any further personal attack may result in a block without further notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of accidents and disasters by death toll. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fucking stupid edit filter[edit]

I have made the change that the edit filters wouldn't let you make for you. You may like to consider creating an account, which would help to avoid such problems in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

  • Hey, if you are less critical in your edit summaries some people will be less critical of you. Jus' saying. Otherwise, keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

A conversation in the AN/I archive, regarding User:, has been extended[edit]

"Rather than reiterating I'll go ahead and direct to [the] thread so he can catch up respond reflect on the conversation."

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)