User talk:AddWittyNameHere

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


Links for personal reference[edit]

Subpage Index for non-archive subpages

Thanks for the assist on the AFD[edit]

He's not quite taking the hint, is he? I don't know whether he isn't reading the notice, simply doesn't care, or... but he's perilously close to making it a moot point, at least for himself. It's unfortunate really. DonIago (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed he isn't. I don't know if he's reading the messages on his talk-page, but the speed at which he re-reverts seems to make it somewhat likely that he at least looks at it (or at his watchlist) to notice the template has been added back on. I've tried to point him in the right direction by also adding an explanation of what he should do instead in the edit summary, rather than a brief "restoring AfD template" as I'd usually would, but he doesn't seem to read that any more than the messages. Next revert is, in my opinion, a report to the admins. Either he doesn't read or doesn't want to read what we're saying. A block might grab his attention long enough to direct it at the proper procedure. Unfortunate, but restoring the same template on the same article six times in less than two hours is at least as unfortunate, if not worse. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd say thanks again, but since we're evidently the same editor anyway, I see no need to thank myself. :p DonIago (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Honestly, that guy is so ridiculous that he's funny. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I feel rather bad for him myself, but I can't figure out whether he's being willfully ignorant, doesn't speak English natively, simply doesn't care, actually doesn't understand what we're saying, or some combination of the above. And now I'm having a conversation with myself. :p DonIago (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Either he doesn't want to know (which is very well possible) or doesn't care about the rules because he feels he is Right and everyone else is Wrong (also possible) or his understanding of English is so lacking that he just doesn't get it. My bet is on the first or second, because he figured out really quick which part he had to delete to get rid of the AfD-template, figured out how to place a Today's Article For Improvement template on the page, knew about page-protection, manages to use edit summaries like "I object deleting of this article !It contains information about Pomodoro technique software timers (not links only , but platform and functionality specific). And because practicing pomodoro technique is impossible without timer,this page is helpful" which is not quite perfect English, but certainly of high enough level that he ought to be capable of understanding "Don't delete that template/notice". AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe he just doesn't know what the word "don't" means? But that was a cheap shot... I was rather surprised to see someone else try for a speedy on the article (I don't think I've ever seen a speedy requested on an article that was already at AFD), but can't say I'd be opposed. I'd also be fine with the "soft delete" that another editor suggested at AFD.
He may know about the various options, but certainly managed to make a mess of his own Talk page...
For my part it didn't help that I'm also involved in a DRN situation with someone who considered my removal of their unsourced information an attack upon them, and now I've got someone who doesn't seem to understand that wikias aren't RS and aren't sufficient to establish significance for an item being added to a list article. They always come in threes... :p DonIago (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This may interest you, and I won't even begin to comment on the irony. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, if it's him (which seems likely to me, as per my edit to the investigation), then he can't claim he was unaware of the rules after that nice little temper tantrum he threw earlier. Regarding troubles coming in threes (or more...), don't I know it? Beyond our lovely template-remover, I also dealt with a vandal that kept inserting "cult", "WE ARE A CULT", links to a cult-awareness site and other unhelpful behaviour on Magnificat Meal Movement - about 22 such edits to the same article in a span of 1h17 if I include two edits by an IP that undid the reverts; a vandalizing IP that added some pretty inappropriate content to the Sadducees page amongst other pages, several blatant promotions in userspace, a sock of an user who changed templates on their previous socks' pages to read as though they were socks of the admin that blocked them... pretty busy yesterday. After a while, I just started keeping an eye on the User Creation Log (and the other on the AIV) and checked them out once their contribs link turned blue. About 75% of those edits were problematic one way or another. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I really wanted to believe that it was another editor who had somehow stumbled onto that article, but the fact that it's the only place they've edited and the sheer number of coincidences... that's hard to swallow. Guess Alex will be looking at a rather longer block then, which is ironic as he's basically undermining his own ability to save the article he apparently cares about so deeply.
Sounds like we're both having a fun time on Dramapedia. :p If you ever need a non-canvassy assist feel free to give me a poke, chatting with you's being both entertaining and probably a bit therapeutic. My friends can't for the life of them figure out why I do this beyond "I have nothing better to do during downtime at work...and...goddammit...I think I actually believe in the place." :p DonIago (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to believe it as well, but it was getting pretty clear to me that either he's not here to help the wiki or he's at the moment not competent enough to help the wiki, sad to say.
Will do for case where I could use a helping hand where there is no risk of canvassing or it being seen as canvassing (which basically means stuff like helping revert a page that's targeted by one or more persistent vandals, etc. I'm glad I've had help on several pages yesterday (or jumped to help people in some cases), because a couple of those would've been difficult to keep pace with if reverting on my own) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the list o' software just became a moot point. I'll be curious to see whether he tries to create a new copy though. DonIago (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your assistance and guidance on WP:ANI. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. User:Anna Frodesiak, the admin that blocked them, promised to keep an eye on the page, so that might help in case he decides he's up for a second round. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Goedenavond AddWittyNameHere, Can you give this edit a look when you have little time? It quotes a reference but adds a negative sense to the article. I have left the page as it is. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I assume you mean the edits by Medbak? You linked to the difference between Materialscientist's edit and the current edit, which had already received several updates by another user. If so, the point is now moot as the edits have been mostly reverted. As to the edits themselves, they do not seem to be bad faith edits to me, but are problematic in the way placed and formulated. The ref does exist, as does criticism on globalization; however, the placement in the lead and especially the later edits by Medbak which placed it at the start of the lead, does seem to give the point undue weight. One source is not enough to state the process is "a highly contentious phenomenon [...] widely open to different, sometimes conflicting, interpretations", especially not as definition given in the lead. The use of the reference in the etymology part, where it is one of two sources used to reference the claim that "Since its inception, [...] has inspired competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire [...] from the 15th century onwards." seems correct to me. Furthermore, had the negative statement been added under "Support and criticism", it would likely have been correct with a few adaptations. All in all, I agree that there were some issues with the edit, which have since been solved. The edits could quite possibly have been good faith, but do seem to have their share of issues regarding WP:WEIGHT; WP:POV and quite possibly WP:COI, because said user seems intent on adding that specific source to different articles regarding economics and there is similarity between the username and the author's name (Medbak72 vs. Mohamed El-Kamel Bakari). It does however seem highly possible that the user is unaware of the specific guidelines and is acting in good faith; he is not adding his book (assuming he is indeed Mohamed El-Kamel Bakari) to all sorts of articles, just those that seem to be actually related to his book. Sustainability, Sustainable development, Ecologically sustainable development, Environmentalism, Globalization and Anti-globalization movement. I believe that this editor could easily turn problematic, but that if it is properly explained to him what he should and should not do regarding wikipedia, he might also become a constructive editor. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello AddWittyNameHere, Yes, the link I posted was with reference to current edit and hence the confusion. Since the page has already gone extensive edits and several editors have reviewed it, should we leave it in as is condition? Right now, I am busy fighting vandalism on my own talk page (some of which was reverted by you - thanks). Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
AKS.9955: Leave it in for now as is. The part that was most problematic got stripped out; I have approached said user on their talk-page, asked an admin. Advice for now is wait and see if they respond on talkpage and/or if they keep contributing this way. If not, no need for action at the moment. Regarding the IP-hopper, report new incarnations directly to User:Favonian, so long Favonian is online, if you would, at least if you're reasonably sure it's the same one. They're up-to-date on the issue atm. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help again[edit]

Hello AddWittyNameHere, I wrote an article just now (Poddutoori Ganga Reddy). I can see a photo of this politician here, very tempted to put it on the article but don't know the right way of going about it since copyright issues might be involved. Can you teach me how to do it? FYI, I have already uploaded some pics on Wikipedia; they all were my work, taken by me using my camera - so no issues. But in this case, I am clueless. Thanks again in advance. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That depends.
  • If the picture is released under a specific license, and that license is compatible with wikipedia, you could upload it to Commons ([] - see here for a list of acceptable licenses). Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any licenses provided with the image, nor any information about the owner of the copyright on the image;
  • If not, an option would be fair use, which would be notoriously hard in case of a living person, because fair use of an image essentially says that the image fulfils a role that cannot be fulfilled by any free material, whether already existing or to be created. That is a point that can in some cases be made for persons that have deceased, provided no relevant free use images exist, but far more difficult in case of living people, because it is in most cases considered (at least theoretically) possible for a free-use image to be made. See here for the rules on non-free content.
  • If not possible, one more option would be to approach the copyright holder of the image and ask them to release the image under one of the licenses compatible with wikipedia.

All in all, I see no way for you to be able to use this image, because neither license information nor copyright holder information is released (making options one and three impossible) and it would be pretty much impossible to make a case for fair use. Sorry. =( AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A very big Thank-you, AddWittyNameHere![edit]

dear AddWittyNameHere, Thank you so much for your help. I really find the explanation you gave me very helpful. It's so kind of you to help newbies like me because honestly this is a whole new world to me! I hope that I'm not bothering you with my messages. I'll do my best to follow all the necessary steps if I want to contribute to Wikipedia again. Your guidance and help are really appreciated AddWittyNameHere. Have a nice day! Med ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medbak72 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


Hell Witty, Congratulations on the rollback rights. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, dear. Made my first two edits with Huggle earlier. Still trying to figure out how it works exactly. I know the theory, but getting used to it will probably take a few days. Once I'm used to it and have a few more edits in mainspace to my name, I might look into AutoWikiBrowser as well. For now, Twinkle and Huggle will suffice, though. I see you recently got approved for using STiki? Good job! Keep up the good work and keep fighting the good fight as well. Cheers to you as well! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)



i am just trying to update the beers at ringwood wiki which is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Tyop Contest![edit]


Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder that the first ever Tyop Contest starts tomorrow at 0:00 UTC! The contest will be run from February 1 to March 1, 2014. Please note that there have been some changes to the scoring process to allow a system that involves almost no effort on your part submitting your typo corrections. This allows for moar time spent fixing typos,
less time submitting your fixes!
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam


Thanks so much for your encouragement. It's quite a steep learning curve but hopefully I'm making progress. I'm still anxious to be able to remove the notability and citation shortcomings on the Philip Bounds entry. I have a long list of his articles to add yet when I have time, but can't quite figure out what more is needed on the notability. Thanks for any help. CaryB42 (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I have moved your post under a new header; it makes it easier for me to find back your message. Yes, you do seem to be making progress.
  • Notability on wikipedia is mainly shown by the subject being "covered" (that is, discussed or mentioned in a more-than-trivial way) by independent reliable sources. As a rough guideline, a book or chapter written by someone else than him (or his family, his best friend, his employer, etc.) that describes or explains him or his work would count; a footnote or a listing in a book's references section would not, a short mention on a random blog certainly wouldn't. A newspaper article about him would likely count, a newspaper article that is about something else and mentions him as an aside ("similar to Bounds' interpretation", stuff like that) would not. If there are any sources or references you are uncertain if they'd count, feel free to mention them here and if I can access them, I'll take a look to see if they would.
  • Citations and references are used to show notability, to show verifiability and to attribute claims to the one who made the claim. Statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged as well as quotations from a source must have references (the sun is purple with pink polka-dots; every year, x people die of [disease]; the band was described by the New York Times as "the greatest band in modern history"; etc.), although non-controversial non-cited information often can or should use a source as well (the band's first single reached 81st place in the Billboard top 100; [name] is credited with the invention of [add something here]; etc.).
  • The formatting of references can be rather pesky here at wikipedia. If you give me the information you want to include in it, I could do it for you and show you how it works, if you want. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. I'll get back to you when I figure out what I want put in. I've discovered the toolbar and templates now for references anyway and I think I could be on the way to solving that one. I'll see!!! I'm a veteran sysop from newsgroups and the communications/talk thing here seems weird, but I'm getting there :-D CaryB42 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Communications here at wikipedia can be a bit strange, however, you seem to have a fairly good handle on it already. The only thing you seem to be forgetting is to indent your posts when responding, but in a 1-on-1 conversation like this, that hardly matters and it's something you'll probably pick up on your own soon enough. It's far more annoying when people do not sign their posts, and that's something you've already mastered. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes I didn't spot the indent. Thanks for that tip, I could easily have missed that one. Steep learning curves are a challenge, but quite enjoyable. CaryB42 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. A guide-of-thumb for indenting: always use one more indent than the comment you're replying to. To give an example, say this is a conversation:

Where can I find the notability guideline? - User A.

You may want to look at the WP:N - User B.
No, I think User A means the WP:GNG - User C.
Ah, of course. - User B.
Thank you, User C. That was exactly what I was looking for. - User A.

User A's last comment is a reply to user C, rather than User B's most recent reply. You can see this because of the indenting. Had User A. been replying to user B, they would have indented on more time. And indeed, the learning-curve is fairly steep, so if you come across issues, feel free to ask me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I get it, thanks for that! It's the way emails and replies get formatted naturally but we have to cause it to happen. Now I see the logic of it, because it makes it easier to skip through threads. Thank you, and thanks for the assistance offer. CaryB42 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad to have been of help. Of course, sometimes the indenting makes things difficult to read with how far the text is pressed to the side. When that is the case, you start your reply not with indenting, but with "outdenting". All you have to do for that is type {{od}} or {{outdent}}. (The nowiki-around it in the source is just to make it display the way it should, by the way). To give an example:


Reply to reply
reply to reply to reply
'nother reply
and another
and yet another

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────outdenting. As to the assistance offer, you're more than welcome. Wikipedia can be frustrating to learn how to handle if you have no one to answer your questions and give you some advice, and it's often the small things (like signing posts and learning how to indent/outdent) that get overlooked. (After all, far more people are likely to drop someone a line over something seriously problematic, like adding spam-links, tripping abuse filters and similar, than over something like how to handle indenting) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


Nice work so far on the Tyop Contest. As you might've seen Hasteur was kind enough to make a bot to score, and it works :) So you don't need to keep score. By the way, if I were competing, you'd have some big competition for the bonus points ;) I've fixed Ethopia->Ethiopia about 17 times. -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I had noticed Hasteur's message, yes, thankfully. I saw it just before I was going to count the points. It's why I refrained from updating anything. And ouch, huge competition, that is, yes. Especially now that I have fixed Hubner->Hübner well over 7000 times. XD (7361 by "my" (read:AWB's) current count, and still not done with that set of corrections... to find them all, I have to make AWB run through all cats and subcats (and subsubcats and subsubsubcats, etc.) of Category:Lepidoptera to find the articles with the erroneous spelling Hubner in it. That's over 65000 pages... even with 120 pages a minute (it's currently set to skip any and every page it doesn't find 'Hubner' on), a peak speed it reaches less than 5% of the time, that's going to take quite literally hours. Then rinse-and-repeat for the other names. And again. And again. And again. (Too easy to let mistakes slip through when AWB has five different names and thus several hundreds to thousand typos to correct on a page, especially as more than one of them has had a species named after them with the wrong spelling or where the correct spelling is uncertain) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
This'll be fun... -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
If you trust me to verify stuff correctly, I'll check the counts of those myself. I can somewhat understand not wanting to verify 7000+ corrections. I really should write or request a bot to correct this stuff, but ugh, too many false positives and incorrect changes. I'm just letting the thing run in the background and check every minute or two if it has found another page to correct. After running through the bunch of "List of moths/butterflies/Lepidoptera of country"-lists yesterday, most of what I get now is the occasional list that wasn't in the right cat (will have to solve that later) and the species-pages. It's skipping about 500 pages for every "flag" and about 10% of what it flags shouldn't be corrected. On the other hand, it's still faster than manually searching for the stuff. Too many people named Hubner, Hübner or Huebner and wiki's search can't differentiate properly between Hubner and Hübner, so if I look for pages containing Hubner, I both get a large amount of unrelated pages and a large amount of already corrected pages. That, and on the huge-amount-of-correction-pages, my browser keeps crashing. Not much fun, that. (Though yesterday, there was one page where AWB's search and replace nearly crashed...)AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, but I'd feel much more comfortable having myself and the other judges checking the fixes. It isn't that I don't trust you, it's just that I want this to be verified to be correct by judges. -Newyorkadam (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Oh, I fully understand, just figured that I'd throw the offer out there because I have to check it myself anyway for the bonus prize. Though as I sincerely doubt anyone else is going to come anywhere near such amounts, a small margin of error is hardly going to be a problem there. Hell, AWB could be 10% off and it's probably still going to be clear-cut. (I mean, I haven't checked other people's edits that closely, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen many people with repeated AWB-summaries indicating several hundred of the same correction in one edit XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Telecom Italia[edit]

Hi, I've just fixed that page but it was reverted by the user "I bring You Spam", I noticed that you tried to set the page to my revision, what we can do? Now that page contains again peacock words.

Way he's behaving, he's heading straight towards a block soon enough. His username doesn't exactly inspire much confidence either, I dare say. Looks like his behaviour attracted a few more vandal-fighters anyway, but in any case, I'll be keeping an eye on him and the page. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of brackets[edit]

Hello there I see you are making some taxonomic changes. Please be careful here. In your correspondence (Ruigeroeland usertalk) you mention dorylas. The genus Polyommatus was erected in 1804 by Latreille .dorylas was described in 1775 and so cannot have been originally placed in Polyommatus hence the brackets (Schiffermüller, 1775). I correct the taxonomy of insect groups I do not know very well only with great caution and often seek advice.All the best Notafly (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I am currently very careful, that is why I asked Ruigeroeland for some information. Most of the issues that may lead to mistakes come to exist when there is half a pair of brackets on the page. It's not always clear whether there should have been a pair of brackets or whether the one present is an accident and I may have made a few mistakes in those when I started working on Lepidoptera-related articles. I do try my best to prevent such a thing from happening and apologies for any inconvenience. All the best. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That is very good news. I see the problem.Just let me know if you need help. I will then point to some reliable sources which I should really put on the project page.Thankyou for your courteous answer. I see I was blunt so I should apologise.Notafly (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you were blunt, but I don't mind. All you did was say "hey, I see you've been doing this-and-this, but you're introducing some errors like this one here. Please be careful. All the best", which looks reasonable enough to me. Now, had you said something like "Dear lord, are you blind or did your brain stop working? Can't you see you're introducing errors? Gosh, how stupid do you have to be to be so careless?", it would be something else, but you didn't. You just pointed out a problem and asked me to be careful. And sure, when I'm in doubt, I'll make sure to ask either you or Ruigeroeland for help. If you see me make any more stupid mistakes like that, feel free to point them out to me. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Stop beating me to reverts :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 20:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do, the moment you stop beating me to reverts Face-tongue.svg. Wonder if I've beaten you to as many reverts as you have beaten me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Beda References[edit]

You removed my edits and brought back old values on goals for Pedro Beda article. You said my references are wrong, but I don't see any references for the data you put or a user who put them before you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

While it is true that the information I reverted back to is also unsourced (not originally my edit that I reverted back to, though), I did not say your references are wrong, just that your change does not seem to have any. Un-sourced changing of information like that (the amount of goals made, or someone's age, length, weight, etc.) is often, though of course not quite always, a signal of subtle vandalism. It is of course possible that your information is correct and the information already there is wrong. Unfortunately, without a source saying one or the other, it's near-impossible to tell for me which is the correct version. In practice, when that's the case, the proof of evidence tends to fall on the person making the change.
As there was a lot of nasty vandalism going on at the time I reverted your edit, I did not have the time to look for sources myself. I'm currently not as busy, so I'll look and see if I can dig up information one way or the other, but I would appreciate if you tried to do the same. In the mean time, if you're certain of your information, feel free to add it back in, though without sources, there's a fair chance someone else will come along and revert it again. It might help somewhat to leave an edit summary explaining what you're changing and why. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not skilled to add this citation.

Here is the reliable source for number of games and number of goals this guy scored: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you for hunting down a reference. Face-smile.svg
I've added it in. I can only find the information for the goals (or lack of goals) made for Emmen and Heerenveen, the amount of appearances for Emmen, the amount of appearances for Heerenveen (though that doesn't match what's in the article in either version, so I've changed it to match the ref) and the fact that he currently plays for Olympique Khouribga (OCK)(fixed the wikilink for you). It gives no information on Corinthians or Bahia, though I'll trust you that you've got it right there in absence of proof otherwise. The source disagrees with you on the number of goals scored for OCK (the source gives 0 goals, 1 assist; your edit said 1 goal), so I've changed that to 0.
The source also disagrees with what already was in the article on the number of games of OCK he played in, so I've changed that too.
The article also claimed him to still be a free agent, while he's currently with OCK. I have edited the infobox and the lead, but someone will have to write a section for OCK under Professional Career. Don't know enough about it to do it myself. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

Continued From Teahouse[edit]

Thanks for replying!  :) And you were tactful, not blunt. Below are what I believe to be the principles whereby you edited:

1 Notice logical nuances, especially when representing non-neutral viewpoints. 1a When describing non-neutral viewpoints' conclusions, use "would" instead of "should" because the latter declares fact. 2 Notice set-theory naunces 2a Check sets for accidents after changing them. 3 No more "lest"

Are these correct? I ask because I intend to apply them.

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 01:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the rest of this conversation, as well as my newest reply, to User talk:AddWittyNameHere/Duxwing AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tyop Contest Conclusion![edit]


The Tyop Contest is over! Great job, everyone! Of the fourteen entrants, twelve fixed typos! The judges are very behind with the judging, but it will get done! Another note similar to this one will be sent out when the judging is complete to announce the winners. Check back again next January for the (hopeful) second running of the Tyop Contest, as this one went swell Face-smile.svg
Your judges, Jeffrd10 and Newyorkadam

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Just because you do not seem to have ever been welcomed. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Yum, strawberries! I appreciate the gesture, though I have been welcomed at some point (July 22nd, 2013). I hope you don't mind I ate the strawberries anyway? Face-blush.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ha! —and now someone else has followed my lead! Just like waiting for a bus ... Face-wink.svg
Hope you sprinkled a little castor sugar over them—a while before eating them—that helps bring out the flavour! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I did, though I think they would've been tasty enough on their own. Face-grin.svg Yup, a wiki-friend of mine saw your message and felt "well, everyone deserves to be welcomed no matter how late". (P.S. Hope you don't mind that I changed your accidental mash-template to mdash? XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh, no. It is your page and I apologise for my carelessness.
(Aside) "I used to love watching the show."
Have a great week! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No big deal. Sure, it's my page, but it's still polite to at least tell people what you've changed and ask if that's fine (even if you already know it is), yes? And don't worry about it. Happens to the best of us and this is, as far as accidents go, quite harmless. Certainly better than the time I filed a SPI and mistyped a username, the time I forgot to sign while explaining signing your posts to someone or the time (about 10 minutes later) I missed an indent while teaching said someone about indenting. Same to you, same to you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Some cookies to welcome you! Face-smile.svg

Welcome to Wikipedia, AddWittyNameHere! Thank you for your contributions. I am Newyorkadam and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! And now you've been welcomed!! Face-smile.svg Newyorkadam (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP address profanity[edit]

Thanks for mentioning it, I've never revdeleted edit summaries before- now done. That guy needs to be on some meds or something, they've got some serious issues. Sorry you had to put up with that. --PresN 03:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

Really Need Help[edit]

Dear AddWittyNameHere,

I apologize for my not having replied and want to continue talking about my editing. Will you please reply?

Duxwing (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh.  :( Poor dear. *gives you some hot chicken soup, salted crackers, a thermos of hot water, pillow, an electric blanket, and a tissue-box* I hope you quickly convalesce.

Duxwing (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I hope to soon resume editing, which I frustratingly have not since 17 February.

Duxwing (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

Ready to Learn![edit]

Dear Add,

Let's go! :)

-Duxwing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talkcontribs) 13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

Hello. I would like to inform you that all of the information that I edited was completely true. Please change it back so customers will get correct information. I am not a child playing on your site, and I find it rude that you would doubt my knowing. Thank you for your time. Anna McShea 415 836 4826 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabanana54321 (talkcontribs) 19:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]


I mentioned you on AN/I under "Please Temp Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions". I cited you as an example of someone from whom I sought help.

Duxwing (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

IP-hopping genre warrior[edit]

I blocked the IP for a month. From reading the AN/I, it seems it may be time we contact the ISP, which in the case of that IP at least is Sky Broadband. They may be helpful, particularly if approached by Wikimedia UK rather than just Some Guy From the Internet.

I will suggest that there. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we community-ban an IP, even a stable one? There's nothing wrong with your motives, but I'm not sure people will see it as possible or even want to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I sort of thought there was one case where we had done that. Good luck; let me know when you post it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts film vandal[edit]

Thank you for assisting with the martial arts vandal and taking the time to seek further solutions. It's easy to feel overwhelmed and overworked when you're dealing with such a dedicated vandal. Hopefully, this proposed LTA report will make it easier to get prompt attention and lengthy blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, the edits aren't blatant enough for everyone--including those not familiar with them--to recognize them as vandalism, and the long-term patterns make it seem as though it's "just" a slow-burning edit war. Xir's not among the better-known repeaters either, so relatively few people recognize them on sight. In fact, I spend a fair bit of time reverting vandalism, but the only reason I even recognized them is as a result of last week's ANI thread.
Doesn't help that enwiki sees a lot of genre-warriors daily, both vandal and non-vandal disruptive editors. Unless changes are outrageous enough that I immediately notice it (for example, when folks start adding "queercore" to death metal or deathcore bands, or when someone adds metal-genres to singers like Rihanna or P!nk) or I am extremely familiar with the article's subject, I usually let it go for someone else who knows more of it to avoid collateral damage, getting involved into edit-wars or removing edits as vandalism when they're actually vandalism-reversion. Unfortunately, a lot of people do so, and as a result, repeat vandals in the genre-area that stick to lesser-known corners tend to remain fairly unknown.
With a bit of luck, an LTA may result in more people noticing them on sight. Even if not, having an LTA-case to refer to in edit-summaries makes it more easy for people to recognize repeats after that as being said vandal, and being able to link to such a case certainly should make it easier to get them blocked sooner (and with a more lengthy block than a day to a week).
I will be starting a draft for the LTA soon. However, you, @Soangry:, @Dl2000: and @Sturmgewehr88: seem to have been dealing with this one for a fair bit longer than I have. As such, most of the information I have will be based on my observations of 'em today, the ANI you both participated in last week, information I can gather from the old SPI and whatever information I can gather from looking into their old IPs. However, any information or patterns that have never been put into text by someone, but that are obvious to someone who has been dealing with them for a long time will likely be missed. As such, I'd highly appreciate any insight on them the four of you could give me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This vandal is very tricky, as most of their vandalism is subliminal. When I first encountered them at Karate Kid, all they did was add a few categories that seemed right to me[1]. Even this was hard to pick up on, and I just reverted because I realized that the IP was a vandal. The patterns I see are that they like to fool around with article categories (but nothing blatant to the average joe) and make some minor changes to the article text. And just looking at the volume of his latest IP's contributions, I could probably label him an Anti-Wikipedian. It's a shame that vandals like him make it hard to trust IP edit, but it seems we have no choice but to revert on sight if an IP makes an unexplained edit to these articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The edits are indeed very subtle. Most of the time, it's genre warring in Hong Kong films, and the vandal may use Allmovie as reference in HTML comments,[2] as if Rovi Corporation is the final word on genre. When presented with dissenting reliable sources, the vandal might back down, but there are certain categories that are non-negotiable. In particular, the vandal targets action-related categories for removal, such as category:Hong Kong action films and category:2010s action films. Although these categories may need to be diffused to subcategories, the vandal will occasionally disagree with their inclusion under any circumstances and edit war over subgenres, such as category:Hong Kong martial arts films or category:Hong Kong action comedy films. The vandal also targets American action films, especially Dolph Lundgren films. There isn't any particularly obvious pattern on these films, but the vandal will often edit war over ridiculously minor details and try to force in details sourced from the IMDb,[3] which is not a reliable source. On any article, the vandal will make unilateral edits to change style, layout, and/or formatting. This includes adding actor names to the plot summary, stripping out whitespace, modifying infoboxes, and changing section titles.[4] The vandal may also engage in contentious rewrites of the lead that strip out or change credits.[5] After a while, the vandal may give up on certain edits or continue to push them for over a month. It seems entirely random, but adding reliable sources does sometimes end certain aspects of the edit warring. Other aspects will be continually reverted no matter what. I've never seen the vandal use an edit summary, respond to a talk page message, or otherwise engage in any form of communication. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but he fits the bill. I haven't reverted his edits, and wanted to give you guys a heads up. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It certainly looks possible, though the IP seems to have a slightly broader area of article subjects--Football- and BBC News-related articles aren't something I have seen come by on the contrib lists of the other IPs I've checked. On the other hand, most edits from mid0June onwards certainly are in the "known" areas, and it wouldn't be unthinkable that someone else was assigned said IP before--especially as the edits previous to that don't seem to share much in common with those of the past month. It would, however, be a wholly new IP-address range for them. So far, their discovered addresses seem to primarily have been in the 90.-, 2.- and 94.- category. This one also seems a bit more focused on Bruce Lai than the addresses I've seen. So, going by behaviour, I'd say it's possible, but can't tell for sure. Perhaps one of the others can say more, though. Also, hope you don't mind, but I'm currently working on the draft offline first, preventing tipping them off unnecessarily until I'm at a point where it can be implemented as LTA reasonably soon after. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An offline draft is probably not necessary; it's not like this person cares about administrative sanctions or hiding behavioral idiosyncrasies. I have no problem with an offline draft, though. The new IP highlighted here geolocates to Singapore, which makes me a bit reluctant to label it as anything more than a possibility. All the others are BSkyB in England. There's no reason why our vandal couldn't suddenly start to use open proxies, but this would definitely be new behavior. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, the new IP was just blocked for a year. And I agree that there's really no point in keeping the LTA draft a secret from the vandal, but write it however you wish. Cheers~ ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just looked into it deeper and I'm becoming very suspicious. New IP has been blocked as a proxy before. In 2010-2011, when our guy was known to have been active already. Just about the only overlap I could find, editing-time-wise, with a known IP, is from December 2011 and a very small part on June 6th, 2012. Otherwise, new-IP, labeled for simplicity's sake as "proxy" from here on:

  • active the whole gap from Jan '12 to mid-June '12, where no known IPs can be found on the SPI-log except for one on 7 June. Said known IP edited from 2-7 June, but:
    • IP made a lot of edits on June 2nd, proxy only three, all three before the IP got active.
    • IP made only six edits on June 3rd, all of them after the likely-proxy stopped editing for the day.
    • IP was active on June 4th, proxy wasn't.
    • Proxy was active on June 5th, IP wasn't.
    • Proxy made 6 edits on June 6th, 3 of which before the IP got active and 3 which overlap with the timespan IP was active. IP in the mean time made a LOT of edits on June 6th.
    • Proxy made only one edit on June 7, IP a LOT. Then IP got blocked.
  • Proxy goes inactive from mid-June (due to a month-long block, but there just "happens" to be an IP which edited for most of July) to August 7, where they made two edits. That's another time where we don't have a known IP.
  • A new IP popped up on August 15--and the proxy was inactive by then. Then we have a long streak without edits OR known IPs.
  • Suddenly, almost a year later, the proxy becomes active again mid-2013 for a short while. Gap, then a fair few known IPs in Oct-Nov 2013, but an inactive proxy.
  • Proxy remains inactive until February 2014--where we have no IPs. Gets blocked for a month, then stays idle for a while after.
  • Edits again in May, almost perfectly filling the gap from the 21st to the 28th/29th from the IPs we know.
  • A few edits again on 1-2 June, where we have no known IP.
  • Nothing on the 4th, where we do have a known IP. Active (but with few edits) during 5-7 June, but miraculously no overlap with the editing times of our known IP for that timespan.
  • Inactive while is editing, three edits on the 11th but during a break in's editing.
  • One edit on the 13th, but that's after aforementioned IP was done for the day. Next IP on the list seems to either have no edits or had them all deleted, so can't tell there.
  • was active on 23-24 June, proxy wasn't.
  • IP then wasn't active on the 25th-26th; proxy was. Proxy was active on the 27th, but before the IP started. Then on the 28th, IP active, proxy not. No IPs known for the 30th; proxy was active. Gap on any knowledge from 1st to 3rd of July.
  • Proxy appears again on the 4th--no known IPs.
  • Proxy absent on the 5th as was editing; IP absent on the 6th as proxy made two edits; proxy only made one edit on the 7th, well before the IP started again; proxy absent on 8th as IP was active. Both absent on the 9th.
  • Proxy then nicely fills in the time-span from 10th to 15th as IP was blocked, but disappearing a few hours before the IP gets off block on the 15th.
  • IP re-blocked on the 15th; proxy "suddenly" reappears on the 16th-17th.

Might be me, but that's more than a bit suspicious to me. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So I was right? This brings up a scary thought though: they're also using proxies (and most likely more than one), which means that any IP edits that match the MAF Vandal's style has to be questioned. If it weren't for the sheer volume of articles he targets I would propose semi-protection. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well... it's possible that they're the same person, but I'm still skeptical. For example, this new IP editor uses edit summaries, edits outside of the interest area of the martial arts vandal, and seems interested in filmographies instead of categories. In fact, I don't see any category-related disruption at all. As far as page protection goes, I've tried that and had varied success. I think it will be easier once the LTA case is filed, but we'll still have to prioritize which articles we want protected. So far, I've only tried to protect the articles that got significant amounts of disruption beyond the usual genre warring, such as changes to sourced text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

New spider in Tasmania![edit]

Hi AddWittyNameHere (may I call you "Add" for short?)
We were indeed reading the same article Face-smile.svg. I write a lot of little stubs about things I read about in the news, and this is one of them (and I really did say woo-hoo-hoo! when I read about it). Please do jump in and improve it.
While I only lived in Tasmania for ten years, I'm still very interested in the place. It has quite a connection to the Netherlands, both historically and currently, due to the numbers of people from the Netherlands that migrated there in the 1950s and 1960s. (A friend from my Tas Uni days - let's call her Trudy van der Notherrealname - decided she wanted to improve her Dutch and did some voluntary work at an retirement home for Dutch folks. Much to her annoyance, every time she came into a room the residents would politely switch from speaking in Dutch to speaking in - perfect, of course - English.)
Piet AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Holding pen[edit]

Not at all. Go ahead. I think the only advantage an admin would have doing that is blocking anyone who has edited since the report was moved to the HP. But of course you can always get someone else to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Martial arts vandal back again?[edit]

Looks like it. (talk · contribs · WHOIS). All the hallmarks, all the vandalism, and BSkyB IP address in the typical range. And I thought maybe the person finally gave up. What a pain in the ass. It looks like we're going to need to file that long-term abuse case after all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted his contributions vandalism. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to it, Sturmgewehr88 and NinjaRobotPirate. I held filing off the report a bit longer than I intended to, mostly due to the user not immediately reappearing, luring me into a false calm; the checking of information to include which took a bit longer than suspected—and the subsequent reappearance of, amongst others, JarlaxleArtemis and Brightify (AKA Fanforclarl AKA Unorginal AKA Banclark) as well as other pests did admittedly not help in keeping the LTA at the high priority it should have had. Expect one to be filed in the upcoming 24 hours. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely understandable, and thank you for taking up writing the LTA report. Just ping us when it's ready ;) ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sturmgewehr88 As you probably noticed, it's taking slightly longer than expected. Due to heavy thunderstorms in the area, I have had limited internet access and a ridiculously slow internet connection when I had access for a good part of the past day and a half. Thunderstorm has cleared up and I am now working on filing the report; however, the exact form I am expected to fill in does not work too well with the way in which I had organized my information (and it's clearly predominantly oriented at named users and hasn't been updated for a while, still auto-filling the form with categories that were renamed in March of this year, etc.), so it's probably going to take another few hours before the thing's up. (Well, make that about eight to twelve hours. I'm ever so slightly tipsy at the moment. Not enough to really hamper my behaviour, but enough that I know better than to try and file a frustrating LTA during it. I'd rather not spend several errors tomorrow fixing stupid transclusion mistakes, typos, sentences that are from a grammatical point of view absolute nonsense, and so on). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Weather can be such a pain. Well, I'll be looking forward to it. I've been trying to compile a complete list of his IPs, but I'm sure I've missed some. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That it can. For a while, our town's water-drainage system couldn't keep up with the rainfall. Thankfully, it drained the water properly the moment the heavy rainfall stopped, but for a while (about two hours, I think, maybe three?), the streets were covered in about about 3 inches of water or so. Yeah, I've personally found well over a dozen of IPs not on the SPI or ANI thread so far, but there undoubtedly are many more. My current estimate is that he's made use of about 50-100 or so IPs spread over several ranges. I've got at least 40 IPs noted down (probably closer to 45, but there might still be a few duplicates I haven't eliminated yet). Still need to figure out the exact ranges in several cases, though. Will take a look at your list to see which ones—if any—I haven't found yet. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh I know that well, used to live in a town in the desert where there really wasn't a drainage system.. Anyhow, it's not surprising that he's gone through so many IPs, but I'm glad you've gone out and found a lot of them. I think it's essential for the LTA to list all of his IPs. But yeah I'm sure your list is superior to mine, and I'll probably be copying off yours. It's really annoying trying to sort out a bunch of things that all look the same, wouldn't you agree? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That it is, that it is. I hope to just figure out the exact ranges and merely make a list of ranges he operates from, where I only list sole IPs if they're the only IP in a range that has been used by them, or if they've frequently and repeatedly been used by him. When in doubt if an IP belongs, I mainly look at the contribs, the edit summaries of the users reverting them and block reason. If they've been "acknowledged" as him (say, block evasion as reason for the block, or reverting user that reverts them with "sock" in the edit summary), I don't even look in-depth at his edits, just take a look to see if the articles edited match with what we know. If they have never been blocked but frequently reverted, that's when I go and look at their contribs a bit deeper to see if it's them.
What you could help me with, if you want, is make a list of articles he really frequently targets. Say, over thirty edits and over five separate IPs or so, and especially if they're articles one wouldn't necessarily immediately associate with martial arts films. It's simply not worth it to list every article they hit (that would be a list of several hundred articles, I think), but those they keep returning to frequently should be listed and I want to make sure I haven't missed some. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'm taking an extended Wikibreak at the end of the week, but I can start a list for you and post it on the LTA talk page for you guys to add to until it's satisfactory. And thanks for the effort you've put into this. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Most edited articles
Article Edits IPs Notes
Yes, Madam 30 10 disruption going back to August 2011
Don't Give a Damn 30 9 article is only 2 months old
Double Impact 33 11 disruption going back to April 2011
Project A Part II 37 24 disruption going back to November 2011
Ninja in the Dragon's Den 40 22 disruption going back to February 2011
Rob-B-Hood 44 26 disruption going back to October 2010
Legacy of Rage 46 10 disruption going back to August 2011
Heart of Dragon 53 24 disruption going back to April 2011
No Retreat, No Surrender 2 55 17 disruption going back to October 2011
SPL: Sha Po Lang 85 24 disruption going back to October 2010
No Retreat, No Surrender 95 35 disruption going back to October 2010
Crime Story (film) 125 20 disruption going back to October 2010

Edits is number of obvious edits by this vandal. IPs is number of individual IP addresses used. A small number of IP addresses means constant edit warring in a short period of time. One of the biggest hallmarks is massive edit wars against Soangry that last months, sometimes even years. Really, any film starring JCVD, Dolph Lundgren, Cuba Gooding Jr., Cynthia Rothrock, Sammo Hung, or Jackie Chan is at high risk. There are probably more, but I'm too tired to do more detective work right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then, that just puts my list to shame (where I just bullet-listed any article I saw come up a few times in his 30-something contrib lists). But wow, so much effort into this from him. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a pain, but it kept me from getting further annoyed by a series of debates that weren't going anywhere productive. I added a few new articles, including one that looks like a favorite target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

Martial arts film vandal and LTA[edit]

NinjaRobotPirate, Sturmgewehr88, thank you for the help and information. Currently incorporating it within my own (some of the articles I already had on my own list, many I did not) and then the LTA can finally, finally go live. After about three dozen delays, I'm aware. My apologies for that. Thank you both for your patience. As you both probably noticed, I haven't been around for the past week. Unfortunately, one of the real life health issues that I've been experiencing on and off over the past few months (repeated ulnar nerve entrapment at the elbow and minor sustained damage to said nerve as a result—also one of the causes for my March-July absence and one of the earlier delays) made a reappearance and the doctor this time outright told me that if I did not take rest and refrain from making repetitive motions (including using the computer) more than absolutely necessary, the "minor damage" would likely end up serious enough to require surgery. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody wants you to injure yourself, and you certainly don't owe us anything. If you need a break, then you should definitely take it. Things have been relatively quiet around here. If you want help, you can just paste what you've got into your sandbox, and one of us will complete it for you. Or, if you prefer, you can e-mail to someone. You don't have to do it all alone. Take care of yourself and don't let Wikipedia interfere with your recuperation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Just doing a quick check-in during my Wikibreak, but came across his latest IP: (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 10:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the update. I'd give you an estimate for when the LTA will be up, but as we have seen, I don't seem to be capable of keeping my own deadlines. All I can say is "soon". I'd estimate that the thing's about 90-95% done. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
And here's another one: (talk · contribs · WHOIS). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 14:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the watchlists were ringing off the hook with this new IP's batch of rapid serial edits. Some attempts at cleanup were made. Dl2000 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Status Quo (band)[edit]

Thank you for your intervention. Some IPs do not seem to understand simple instructions, or rather they do, and think it somehow 'clever' to continue anyway.

I must say that the comment on your user page of "feel free to poke me" did make me laugh. I am sure some English speaking person will enlighten you, if you do not quite comprehend your unintentional double entendre. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I come across a few of those daily, mostly ENGVAR or MOS:IDENTITY-related. Aye, I do comprehend the unintentional double entendre (in fact, I noticed it myself a while back), but I can't really be bothered to care enough to change it. People know what I mean, and it keeps some people amused, anyway—and harmless amusement is something we all could use more of here at Wikipedia, in my opinion. That, and people who do want to make use of whatever is on my userpage to annoy me tend to more frequently go for the route of thinking it 'clever' to take my username literal and replace it with a witty name. Which I wouldn't mind, were the names they add ever actually witty. (Alright, who am I kidding? I don't mind anyway, though I will reverse it. If I can't be bothered to get more than very slightly annoyed over someone adding a painting of a man having intercourse with a goat or links to scat-porn sites on my userpage, or calling me names on 4chan, then the rest pretty much pales in comparison, no? Makes my wikipedian life as vandal fighter a lot easier, though, I can tell you) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that there are too many Wikipedians, or at least those, perhaps fewer in number that nevertheless make the most noise, who are intentionally humourless and stridently abrasive. Quoting this guideline or another to make a worthless point, when a little light heartedness would go a long way. I try to avoid too much connection with vandals using the do not feed the trolls modus. However, I except that some editors are more prone to such interaction. Actually if someone added "a painting of a man having intercourse with a goat or links to scat-porn sites on my userpage" it might make me laugh. Or realise, not for the first time, that my userpage is 'as dull as ditch water'. What the hell.
Keep up the good work. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. True enough, though I suppose that's in part because there is another vocal crowd that gets offended at the drop of a hat and considers nearly anything an attack on their person, even if that was not at all the intent of the "offensive" user. Makes people a bit wary. That, and some people just take themselves too serious around here. Doesn't help that humour doesn't always translate well in pure-text.
As to vandals, yeah, I wholeheartedly agree that avoiding connection with them where possible is a smart idea (at least when it comes to not starting discussions with them and such, as you say, no feeding the trolls), but someone has to clean up their messes and there are those folks that feel a reversion of their vandalism and/or a warning template on their talkpage means they ought to vandalize that user's talk- or userpage. That, and banned users unhappy I discovered their newest sock, 4chan raids and all that rot. Their response can basically be anything ranging from replacing "AddWittyNameHere" with a name they think is witty to changing the languages I mention on my userpage to the abovementioned cases to someone feeling it's acceptable to repeat "KILL YOURSELF!" about 250 times in a single edit on my talkpage (247 times, if I remember correctly)—and everything in between. Some of it is sort-of funny, some of it is mainly annoying, all of it gets reverted by someone, most of it is only discovered by me out of idle curiosity what vandalism to my pages was reverted by a fellow vandal fighter this time. Face-tongue.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism from user[edit]

Hello, This user ( is purposely adding erroneous information or is badly misinformed ... as you did I had to undo several of his/her modifications.

i dont think the kind warning you gave him/her will be heard and i believe we will have more undoings to do in the future from this guy

thank you for your help with this though :)

regards Souheil — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere Men (comic) DYK[edit]

Hi, I'm Supernerd11, and I nominated Nowhere Men (comic) for a Did You Know...?. There's a few hooks that I put out there, perhaps you'd like to provide some input? (I added a comment about how it's currently up for deletion, but since the reasoning seems to be invalid now, I don't think it'll be an issue.) Cheers! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! That's funny, I was considering doing the same thing. Sure, I'll take a look.
And yes, I doubt it will be a problem now, after all, there's a fair bit of difference between this and this. (Understatement of the century, probably. XD)
I had already left the original nominator of the AfD a message on their talkpage to ask if they'd take another look and let me know if there were still any issues about mid-way my expansion. (By the way, I think the page could/should be moved to Nowhere Men at some point; while there are plenty of things named Nowhere Man (with an a), I think this is the main subject for Nowhere Men (with an e). What do you think?) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And only now noticed that I mangled my ping. Re-try: Supernerd11. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree on the move (keeping the hat), but no moves til the AfD is resolved. Actually, I was going to talk to Gbawden about it as well, but you beat me to the punch there! (Have you been feeling any strange psychic feelings or seeing odd lights in the sky? Something's amiss here :P ) There's a few brief mentions of various entities called the Nowhere Men in a few articles such as Ray (Ray Terrill), where they're some writer's deadly imagined things, and in Jimmy Robinson (recording engineer), where they're a small-time band he was a part of, but nothing worth worrying about. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, Supernerd11, the hatnote was added in preparation of a potential move in the future, because at its current location, people aren't likely going to be confused with the majority of things listed in Nowhere Man, except for the comics (which is why I listed that one separately from the bunch). Yup, going to wait until the AfD has been resolved, but hopefully that shouldn't take too long.
What can I say, except for the cliché "great minds think alike"? XD
Closest I could find, in regards to topics that actually have an article of their own, would be Nowheremen (which I probably also should add to the hatnote). Currently, Nowhere Men is a redlink anyway, and the only thing that links there is an user's sandbox, and that's a list of comics, so fair bet it's the exact same subject anyway. What do you think of my proposed alternative of ALT1? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel like it should have something to say what it is/what it's about, but I agree that the main could be shortened (wasn't sure how when I filled out the template). Maybe start out ALT1.1 "In the comic Nowhere Men..."? I'll go ahead and put a hat on Nowheremen. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, that would work for ALT1.1 (or is it now ALT1.2? ALT1.1.1? XD). Feel free to go ahead and suggest it there. If you don't get around to it, I'll probably do so. Good—in the mean time, I've added a hat to Nowhere Men (comic) in relation to Nowheremen; you took the other angle; all should be well. (Well, that reminds me to put a hat on Nowhere Man (comics). On the Nowhere Man dab-page, I already added it to See Also, so a hat's not needed there). By the way, do you need me to keep pinging you, or can I assume you've got my page on watchlist? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you've spammed my notifications enough that I'll be seeing that little red box in my sleep! XD Seriously though, no need to keep pinging me if you don't want, it's watched; If I don't respond after a while, leave a Talkback on my talk page. I gotta leave for give or take half an hour, but when I get back, I'll take ALT1.1v2 (or however I decide to phrase it :P ) to the DYK page. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright. That was exactly the feeling I was getting (me spamming your notifications, that is), which is why I asked. After all, I am many things, but a spammer's not one of them, I'd hope. No clue if I'll still be around in half an hour (quite possibly so, though equally possible I've decided to call it a night by then), but if not, sleep tight, have nice dreams (of little red boxes, mayhaps? :P) and I'll undoubtedly "see" you tomorrow. Or well, the little red box and orange bar of doom, anyway. XD (Hey, that sounds like the title for a comic. "Little Red Box and the Orange Bar of Doom") AddWittyNameHere (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
These next few days I'll be much less active (last-minute stuff before heading off to college), but I'll still pop in when I can. "Little Red Box and the Orange Bar of Doom" could also be a New Wave duo with certain....oddities when it comes to fashion. Hey, this conversation got started with a comic about scientists based off of The Beatles, so why not a superhero comic about a geometric New Wave group? Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. :P Well, sort-of, anyway, in a strange kind of way. As to you not being around a lot, I'll probably be around a little less this weekend myself, so that's fine. (Then again, my edits-per-day on days I am actually around can jump around from "below ten" to "over 200", depending on what exactly I am doing and to what degree the amount of semi-automatic tools is involved. I believe my highest peak so far was at 279 edits in a single day) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
279, holy crap! I also jump around a lot, but not quite to that extreme :P As for a picture for Nowhere Men (probably the cover of the first issue), where would we get one? It'd obviously be under Fair Use, but would the publisher's website be the best place to get it? Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, that was a busy day. Mostly vandal-fighting and leaving warning templates on their talkpages, with only a handful of other edits. (Of course, about half to two-thirds of my ~4700 edits are vandal-fighting or related to it) As to if it would be the best place to get it, probably. In any case, it would be the easiest place to get it. Here, the first cover. Otherwise, you could possible use the collected edition's cover, that would probably work nicely as well. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's uploaded and in the article! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice! I intend to create a page for Erik Stephenson in the upcoming few days. Someone who's the publisher of Image comics, creator of Nowhere Men and also known to have worked on, to pick just a few, Youngblood, Fantastic Four and Spiderman Unlimited certainly warrants a page. We might even be able to make the DYK a double-DYK! Well, if I can get the thing up in time and we can get a hook using them both (which shouldn't be too hard, though), that is. Time for me to go to sleep, though. It's 7am and I have to get up at 11:15. :( AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Night, lemme know when you create the article, I'll help out where I can! (Some of the refs from Nowhere Men (comic), like the one that's an interview with him about Nowhere Men, should give you a nice start. This could also come in handy.) Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I found a nice bunch of sources already. Added that pesky infobox to the article on the comic series, moved your image there—now really done for the... night? morning? who knows? :P AddWittyNameHere (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nowhere Men (comic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nowhere Man. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Nowhere men[edit]

Hi. Well done on the improvements to the article. I have withdrawn my nomination, you guys addressed all my concerns and the article looks great. Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]


Haven't seen you around lately. Hope you're feeling alright. We got a few of the hardest-hit articles permanently semi-protected. A minor win for the good guys, eh? Don't bother to reply if it will cause you to suffer injury; I'll just assume that you're on vacation somewhere nice in Europe, sipping drinks, and staying far away from computers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nowhere Men[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello AddWittyNameHere. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 March 2015[edit]


The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015[edit]

The Signpost, 1 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 01 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2015[edit]

Touch base[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2015[edit]


Are you an admin? Cause my friends keep using my computer to make edits, as they did with the Pacaya volcano page, adding the part about it having a penis in the center. Also, the edit to the poison page wasn't deconstructive, it was just an obvious statement. If you drink poison, bad things happen. It wasn't a helpful edit, but wasn't deconstructive, so you have no right to ban me from editing (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC) SomeDudeWithAComputer

Responded at your talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015[edit]

Star Wars: The Force Awakens[edit]

Sorry about my edit on Star Wars: The Force Awakens....I was actually showing my class teacher that Wikipedia can revert edits very quickly. Sorry, and I won't do it again. I am into MediaWiki editing and enjoy helping. Thanks, NoahR9 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal Attack[edit]

I see you left a message on the talk page of Trollskillz97 may I ask which editor that was personally attacked? TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

TeaLover1996: you, actually. 1. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I received a notification about his/her first message, there was nothing wrong about that one, however I didn't get one about the second message which you reverted, strange, anyway thanks for the reversion. Cheers TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
TeaLover1996 - that'd be because he edited your userpage rather than talkpage that time. You're welcome. Face-smile.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


I'm thinking of putting a list of users who I trust on Wikipedia onto my User Page, I'd like to add your name to the list, but I'll need your personal permission first. TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm honoured, TeaLover1996! Sure, feel free to. Oh, and just a heads-up: people don't have to be alerted to AIV-reports about them, because AIV is just for blatant vandals and spammers. There's no discussion there; either it's so blatant that there's no way around it or the report is declined/referred to the appropriate venue. Face-wink.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015[edit]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg For your help with the proxy vandals the other day! 5 albert square (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@5 albert square: Thanks! If you ever need me to keep an eye on the newuser-lists for similar high-speed-return vandals, or to otherwise help you find the newest incarnation of high-speed-return vandals, just ping me. It's almost becoming a speciality of mine. Face-tongue.svg AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I seem to camp out there! I'm about to leave Wikilove message for ClueBot NG for helping so much!--5 albert square (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@5 albert square: if you're in the mood for doing something else, a well-intentioned IP did a cut-and-paste move on Costero/Guiana dolphin. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll have a look at that when I'm next on, only it's late here, I'm full of the cold and just had a hot toddy so going to log off shortly!--5 albert square (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Tagged it with histmerge as well, so might be done by a different sysop before you're back. Sleep well and let's hope that cold soon goes away. (Not that late over in the UK, though—it's an hour later here. Face-tongue.svg But then again, I'm a night-owl, so...AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
@5 albert square: Yup, has been fixed by someone else. =) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015[edit]

Proposed deletion of Wigger[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Wigger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article appears to be coat rack and synthesis. Renominating since no noticeable improvement since last AfD in 2010

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nowa (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]