User talk:Mendaliv/Archive 4
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 3||Archive 4||Archive 5|
- 1 Thank you
- 2 Drudge report
- 3 Thank You
- 4 Please watch your huggle edits
- 5 t-pain page
- 6 RE:uw-huggledelete1 on Adam West
- 7 ArenaTV prod
- 8 Thanks
- 9 WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter
- 10 New Page Watcher
- 11 your user warnings have semi-broken diffs
- 12 Swedish American
- 13 Huggle
- 14 DYK for Richard Rompala
- 15 James W. McMillan
- 16 DYK for James W. McMillan
- 17 Disruptive editors
- 18 Disruptive editors - A question
- 19 Another wiki-question
- 20 Talk:Classification society
- 21 WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter
- 22 Mdwh
- 23 Semi protection of Rock of Love: Charm School
- 24 Julianna Rose Mauriello LTP Interview
- 25 Belated thanks
- 26 Page Patrol
- 27 Context?
- 28 Email
- 29 Anglican Church Grammar School
- 30 Thanks
- 31 Query: biography
Stop unfairly moderating the Drudge Report page to suit your own opinions. When somebody rightfully changes the page to make it more accurate you call it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the Drudge Report. Your contribution is vandalistic in that it removes sourced, substantive content from an article without any attempt at discussion on the article talk page. I have yet again reverted your removal of content. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The sources are absurd. Have you even clicked on them? They provide nothing of any substance. I think you need to do some homework. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in that article. What does matter here is that you've continued to remove content which other uses had re-added without attempting to start a discussion. Now that you have done so at the appropriate talk page, I think things will be better. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
If you're not involved in that article why do you continuously undo edits and cite vandalism without looking into it. Shouldn't you know something about the article before you do that? Also notice the 3rd "source" takes you to some website's main page. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am, however, engaged in recent edits patrolling. The sudden removal of content, after another editor has re-added the content, without any attempt at discussion is generally frowned upon. I've posted a welcome message at your user talk page with some suggested reading to help acclimate you to Wikipedia better to prevent any misunderstandings in the future. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Please watch your huggle edits
You reverted my removal of superfluous external links, and then subsequently warned me for removal of content without an edit summary, while I clearly provided an accurate edit summary. Please be more careful in the future with your reversions. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about that, but I still consider the removal of all those links to be unnecessary. You might want to discuss it at that article's talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Perfectly understandable to revert, per WP:BRD; I just didn't find the warning to be such a great addition to my IP's talk page.
- To address the link removal, all those links were from unreliable sources, and added very little to the article. Cheers, --18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the issue, the issue is that you need to provide proof that what you put in articles is true. See WP:BURDEN. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
RE:uw-huggledelete1 on Adam West
See my edit summary and the talk page as to why I removed it from the article. It's a list of poorly sourced quotations. Wikipedia isn't Wikiquote, and relevant quotations should be integrated into the body of the article, not dumped in a laundry list at the end. I moved the list to the discussion page. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I'm sorry. I'd attempted to undo my revert and warn, but it appears it didn't go through. Feel free to disregard the warning, and again, my apologies! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that mere removal of a tag without an edit summary or further improvement (by someone with four total edits, no less) constituted a valid contestation, but I thank you for letting me know. Biruitorul Talk 16:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noted your repeated reversions to the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln article which have been necessitated by the vandalism of "126.96.36.199" (unknown user?). Can vandals like this be stopped (blocked)? Thank you, and please keep up the good work! Mkpumphrey (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like that IP has slowed/stopped vandalizing, but in the future, if the IP continues to vandalize articles after having recently received a "final warning" (i.e., within the same 24-48 hour period), you can report the user at WP:AIV. An administrator will likely block the IP temporarily to discourage further vandalism. However, IP addresses generally are not indefinitely blocked as they can (and usually are) reassigned to other people over time. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter
The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
New Page Watcher
Hiya, I've granted you access to the above tool. Sorry it took a few days.12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
your user warnings have semi-broken diffs
I saw your warning on User talk:Jhaseltine. If you click the "this edit" link in your warning, it shows the correct diff, but the Article, History, etc buttons across the top are bad. They link to Habanero+chili instead of Habanero_chili. It was pretty confusing to me. You might want to fix that script or file a bug against it. Thanks. ScottJ (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Huh, weird. Thanks for the warning. I've dropped a note over with the Huggle people. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, looks like my mistake. I seem to have leaped before I looked. I've restored the info. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Richard Rompala
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 02:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Mendaliv! Thanks for adding the dab page to the article, and the other little fixes as well. Just to let you know, as far as the references and notes sections, I use these guidelines: User:Hlj/CWediting, which has been requested as the writing style for bios by the American Civil War task force here. I haven't reverted anything, but I wanted to tell you why I use this method, and separating books from online refs is my own thing. Good day! Kresock (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok; honestly I have no problem with that if you wanted to revert- my figuring was just that as there were only a couple sources altogether, you could make things clearer . I'd still suggest using the ref templates if you're gonna use split sections though. You can also make them a bit clearer by using the "ref=" argument of those templates, as used in Jueju and Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
DYK for James W. McMillan
18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there MENDALIV, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
regarding your input to my report on a disruptive editor (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents), you seem to not understand what i am conveying. PEP10 (which may not me previous user PARARUBBAS, i only said it should be because his modus operandi is the same, and i also did not mean PARARUBBAS was permanently blocked, i only referred he had been in the past for continuous edits of the sort) is a disruptive editor and adds nothing to the site.
You said you had a random look at his edits and saw nothing particularly disruptive. Well, his "correcting of typos" consist in writing in appalling English (not an accusation or a judgment, a statement based on what i see) and gluing all sentences leaving just 1 paragraph. Much much much worse, his "linking to appropriate articles" may also include removal of references and external links that pertain duly in articles, and that is a striking pattern in both user PARARUBBAS and PEP10. Of this latter user, i'll give you an example: see what he did in RICARDO OLIVEIRA's article in 3 edits at about 16h00 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Oliveira&action=history), right before i "entered the pitch". If that's not vandalism...
Anyways, i did what i thought was appropriate and reported, if the people responsible don't think a block his justified, no problems by me. By the way, here his PEP10's talk page, where he also has received warnings about removal of content.
Regards, keep up the good work,
- MENDALIV, VASCO again,
- sorry, forgot to insert PEP10's talk page, here it is: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#November_2008)
- Cheers, VASCO AMARAL - --188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think you might want to reply to the thread you created to respond to my comment- that way more experienced editors and administrators who can get involved will have all the information necessary to determine whether any action is needed. My comment was more to let you know that you might want to be more clear in your report. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive editors - A question
MENDALIV, VASCO again, sorry 4 the insistence,
Just a question, my fellow wiki-user: considering i understood your response, how do i reply in the same zone where you left your comments so that it would be available there? I dont know how..
- Next to the heading where your previous comment was made, there should be a button that says "edit". Click on that and it'll open the edit box. I suggest using colons before your comments to indent your replies, which is customary to help make a long conversation more readable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
MENDALIV, VASCO again my friend,
I am not all that proficient in computer language :(... What is a colon? The rest i understood perfectly, thank you very much.
Have a nice weekend from PORTUGAL,
- Sorry, I was referring to the symbol in Colon (punctuation), which looks like this ":". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll reply to the talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter
The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi protection of Rock of Love: Charm School
Julianna Rose Mauriello LTP Interview
Thank you for responding on the Julianna Talk page. I would like to know how does an editor go about adding a 'source' to an article as per your suggestion?
- Well first, I'd like to preface this by saying that it might be useful as a source; I'm not entirely sure that it would work. But, what I meant was that if there were information in the interview that is appropriate for inclusion in the article on Julianna Rose Mauriello, then if we include that information, we would create an inline citation to mark the source of those statements. You might notice when editing articles; this icon inserts the proper formatting for making reference footnotes. I hope this helps! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
For your kind note on my talk page 17 October urging me not to leave. I had one foot out the door for awhile, and things got much worse, but I'm still here so I guess it worked. Tomorrow, who knows...but today I just want to say thank you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Above all I'm pleased to see that you're still around- Wikipedia desperately needs the support of experienced academics such as yourself and I think the manner in which you have been received by the community is utterly disgraceful. Best of luck in the future! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks so much for your help in New Page Patrol. Unfortunately, your CSD software may not be working correctly. Several pages that were tagged by your account for Speedy Deletion, were not marked as patrolled.
If you aren't using Twinkle or Huggle software, you might want to explore it. Otherwise, there is a link on the bottom right corner of all new pages which should be clicked, to take the new page off the "pending" list.
You can find the scripts here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TW
- Isn't that odd... I'm using Huggle, and in the past it has marked pages as patrolled, or so I thought. Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
First off, I know my name probably sounds quite masculine, but I'm actually an older teen aged girl. :-)
Secondly, I have a question. How do I know the difference between an article genuinely without any context, and an article which will eventually have context? This question is, of course, prompted the embarrassment caused by the AN/I post. Thanks. --Call me Bubba (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I've learned not to assume. At any rate, "no context" means that you can't tell by looking at the text of the article what it's about, so it would be essentially impossible for you to improve it. I honestly can't think of an example beyond what's at WP:CSD#A1; though really an article with that content would also be eligible for WP:CSD#A7. I suppose a better example would be an article called "White Knight (book)" and the content is "About a knight wearing white armor"; not eligible for A7 and probably not the others.
- As to the ANI post, it probably isn't a big deal. I just informed you as a courtesy since your username was mentioned by that IP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, just to clarify. Does the article "White Knight (book)" get speedied?
- Yeah, I think that IP was a bitter somebody who got their article deleted.
- Thanks for the talkback. --Call me Bubba (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would think so, unless it's clear there's a notable book (per WP:BK) by that name. If it's unclear (e.g., there are a lot of books called "white knight" and many of them are about knights who wear white armor), I believe that would qualify as a case for deletion via WP:CSD#A1. If it were clear there was never a book by that name (might be easier to prove in other situations), it'd be a WP:CSD#G3 situation- pure vandalism as it's an obvious hoax. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I replied to it, but as I noted, I'll need to discuss some of the finer details with Foundation staff when the office opens again in about 14 hours. If you haven't heard back from me by Wednesday, please come by and slap me on my talk page :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Anglican Church Grammar School
- As I noted in the warning, and at your comment at EAR, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. However I templated you because, one, you're close to breaking WP:3RR, and two, because I'd templated the other party for the same dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, hadn't seen the comment at trouble with user yet - JRA WestyQld2 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A new user, new talk page (User:tomkoch) ... query. A Wiki biography of an acquaintance appears to both violate general Wikipedia policy and to be imbalanced, incomplete, and slanted. Author is an anonymous computer IP at a university so can't talk to the author. How do I protest and submit a broader, and fairer, Wiki' bio'?
Do you know how I could do this?
- Hi, Tom. I assume this is in regards to the article on Denis Wood that you'd mentioned in a listing at the Editor assistance requests noticeboard? I'd replied to that query. Basically, we don't generally do out-and-out rewrites/replacements of articles without good reason, but if you wanted to edit the page, you can do so pretty freely. That's one of the tenets of Wikipedia- anyone can edit. You don't need to talk to the original author, or submit a complaint, in order to edit and balance the opinions or information in that article.
- However, I would like to stress that if you're associated with the subject- that is, if you're a personal friend or have worked with him extensively, that may set up a conflict of interest on your part, which may bring your edits to that article under scrutiny. That is not to say you shouldn't edit the article if you feel it's in violation of our policy on biographies of living persons!
- I'd be glad to help if you could address specific concerns to the discussion page for that article. I put that article on my watchlist some time ago, so if you add things or make changes, I can see them and give advice as you go. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I do think the biography of Wood, as it stands, is a violation of general Wiki policy of the biography of living persons where caution is argued in limiting discussion to the area of the person's expertise. If the author thinks this material important, it needs to be correctly presented.
As it stands, there are inaccuracies in this Wiki's presentation of legal issues sourced only to a local newspaper. Similarly limited is the author's summary of Wood's work.
I would like to upload an alternate and see if the author of the present Stubb would agree to its substitution. I don't think the Wiki as it stands is accurate or does justice to Wood's work.
I did a draft to offer for consideration. It's in Word. How do I upload it into the system, here, for this purpose without loosing the footnotes.
Yes, I do know Wood, professionally and personally. so, I suspect, does the unnamed current author. PRior knowledge may set a higher bar of impartiality in writing but doesn't preclude it. I am also a journalist with 40 years experience as well as a practical clinical ethicist fairly versed in the legal nuances of these issues.
How and were would I upload something done in Word for the author of this page, and the Wiki folk, to read?
- Well, and I must stress this, it's rather unusual to do an out-and-out substitution, rather than an improvement of the old version. But if the article on Denis Wood is as bad as you say, that's a different matter. However, I think that if we're going to put the text of your new version on Wikipedia, we should first put it in a sandbox-type area so we can alter its formatting to meet the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as well as adapt its citations format.
- What you can do is to click on this link: User:Tomkoch/Denis Wood. In the window that appears, you can copy and paste your entire article to be substituted, and save it. From there I'd be glad to help you help confirm it meets our guidelines. Once that's done, a straight substitution might be appropriate.
- However, it's likely that not mentioning the controversy at all won't pass muster; certain things bear mentioning because they're notable and verifiable. While WP:BLP states that we should be conservative and respect the privacy of the subject, if his criminal history (if any) is of note in multiple reliable sources, then it likely should be mentioned. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now and leave you to it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)