User talk:Sto500

February 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Graham Phillips (journalist) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Graham Phillips (journalist) was changed by Sto500 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.86042 on 2015-02-08T20:05:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sto500, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sto500! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm Barek. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Rock Hill, South Carolina, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egyptian Revival architecture. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rock Hill, South Carolina. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Rock Hill, South Carolina. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Amaury (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bots

If "Bot" is not in a username, that user is probably not a bot. Barek is not a bot. Also, just because a user reverted a change does not mean that they are necessarily responsible for every single portion of the previous version. In other words, Barek did not add the Audrey Flack link. WP:WikiBlame says it was added to the article back in 2006 by User:Loulamb. I will replace the reference with a citation needed tag, as that site no longer contains the information it is being cited for, and I cannot get a version on archive.org to work. The source might not have been spam originally, as it appears it was providing information as Flack's design intentions (which fits under WP:SELFSOURCE).

While I disagree with Barek in tagging the link you added as spam (though I can somewhat see the point in calling the repeated addition of it spam), I do have to point out that it qualified as original research, which we do not use. You need a published source that explicitly identifies the building as an Egyptian revival Masonic temple. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, new talk page sections go at the bottom of the page, like a book (later paragraphs after previous paragraphs), and users without "bot" in their name are not on 24/7, do not always study every single portion of the article (usually just the most recent changes), and so cannot immediately solve all issues. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the source you added. Where does it say that the pillars next to Civitas were donated by that masonic lodge? Because the words "Civitas," "South Carolina," "Rock Hill," do not appear anywhere in the source. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson It does not, and they were not. The wiki article says they were gifted by a First Union Corporation, not by the lodge. They had probably salvaged the columns from the demolition and kept for 4 years. It does say though that it was Egyptian Revival. Also, the pictures show the same columns with and without the lodge building. I am in the process of adding that source, but when I try to edit the reference list, I only see the header. I would need to add reference number 32 for that source. How do I do that fastest?

UPD: Thank you for communicating. Unlike Barik and Amouri who has just reverted that edit. Looks like school kids are given licenses here. Sto500 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source that actually says in print that the columns at the temple were reused for Civitas. Look at the other references. Instead of wrapping a link around the text (which is what Barek clarified was the problem.

Communication is a two-way street, which Barek went down. Assuming they're not human fails WP:Assume good faith (a foundational site principle), calling them schoolkids violates WP:No personal attacks, and the combination makes it look like you're intentionally misspelling their names out of some immature grudge. Drop the attitude with them and realize that they were trying to help the site, they know how the site works about as much as I do, and that the best attitude you could have is being willing to learn from them. If you don't want to, fine, but at least show some mature respect.

If you look at how all of the other references are done, they're wrapped in <ref>reference tags</ref>, which you've copied and pasted before. Once you have a source that says that the pillars from the temple were reused around Civitas, then you'd add something like:

blah blah Egyptian revival<ref>[http://lodgewebsite.com source name]</ref> reused at Civitas<ref>"New source" by Arthur Rider, Publisher Co., 19##, P. ##</ref>

(without the "<nowiki>" tags you'll see here if you edit this page, those are there to make the code display on this talk page). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson

@Ian.thomson

Here is a solid reference link to a document, published by the city

http://www.cityofrockhill.com/home/showdocument?id=1809

it states everything - the Egyptian Revival, the Civitates, the lodge, the transfer, and more. I added it as a reference using the help button. It now comes up as number 14 - must have been referenced before.

If you think you need a link to the lodge - there http://excelsiorlodge261.org/ except they used the text about the building from the city site which I referenced yesterday. Also, the building housed all local lodges and appendant bodies under one roof. Do we need more links to lodges?

It's fun figuring it out quietly on an irrelevant page, not bothering anyone, and preferably not being bothered, especially in such a rude manner as that B. character did it.

If you look at the way they approached me, you will see that they start out with slapping threats and red signs, which violates the AGF principle, instead of finding out what I am trying to do and offering help. The other character just disappeared after I explicitly asked for help - only to revert my edit later without a warning. That does not spell great maturity to me. Besides, I hear, one of them is just going to college orientation.

I spell their nicknames as I can remember them, which is "a distorted barrack" and "a distorted amore". I am sure it gets easier after you have seen it misspelled in that particular sweet way more than twice in your life. Anyway, I hope they never notice me again here. I'd rather they did not. Just tell them I'm learning. If I can not get the formatting right by the end of the day, I reverse the edit all by myself. No threators needed.

But on the other hand yours is just a normal name and it is easy to remember. Thanks again. Besides, what is your position here? Are you a programmer?

* *

Question. Technical.

The text in the edit window used to be in an almost visible courier that very literally hurt my eyes - it was so hard to read. I clicked on the -header- button on the panel, and now the text is in arial bold, nice and easy to work with.

I am just wondering if that affects anything except how I see the edit box, as you don't normally work in header format throughout. Also, I have not found a way to reverse that.

Although, if it does not affect anything but the appearance of the text to me, I would rather keep it this way. It's a breeze now.

I had to change my keyboard settings to use the tilde. So, who is not willing to learn.

Sto500 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone here is a volunteer. The only exceptions I can think of are Jimbo Wales and a few rare persons with "WMF" in their username.

The city of Rock Hill source might be good if the citation also links to this page to identify what the document is. The link to the lodge is probably not necessary.

Amaury and Barek used pre-written warning templates, and politely answered your question. Amaury would have eventually gotten to your question had I not done so. A common problem with text is that people can be too ready to read non-existent hostility in there, which is what WP:Assume good faith is meant to deal with.

How is it at all relevant that Amaury is going to college orientation? To say that either Amaury or Barek just disappeared is to fail to take into account that they have lives of their own. I know for a fact that Barek is aware of what's going on, but is leaving you alone because you are imagining hostility from him. From past experience with Amaury, I'm certain he's probably following suit. How is that immature? That you are looking for any excuse to blame them or imagine that they were out to get you continues shows an unnecessary grudge.

Yes, you are learning, but you need to learn to not hold grudges. I'm also seeing that you need to learn to paraphrase. Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson I am not interested in issues and people with issues. That is not why I am here. ≈