User talk:Swarm/Archive 1

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of United States Presidential names has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

I noticed that you are part of Category:Wikipedians against notability.

I would like to invite you to join the Article Rescue Squadron. Although Rescue Squadron members do not share any official position on notability, and are simply focused on rescuing articles for deletion, you may find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Caveat: I am writing this as a wikipedian, not as a representative of Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late welcome

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Swarm, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your username

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Abusing, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because connotations of abuse may be disturbing to some. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Draftydoor (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Mount Allison Students' Union

Thank you for your concern, however, I have reviewed the policy for speedy deletion. With regards to the other students' unions, the reason I created the page for the Mount Allison Students' Union is within the spirit of the following; {{WikiProject Canada | class=start | importance=low | education=yes}}. Sjspence (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops

My bad, I thought the anon changed "deceased" into "diseased." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 09:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries.--Stinging Swarm ^talk 09:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Corsham regis

Hello Stinging Swarm, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Corsham regis - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to schools. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. That's right. What was I thinking?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Thanks for the revert! matt (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem!--Stinging Swarm ^talk 15:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage

Why did you remove "congratulations, you're funny" from my talkpage without using an edit summary? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Still, refactoring other people's talk page comments = bad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was refactoring my own comments. That's why when I thought the old header had too much of an unintended sarcastic tone (I mean, no one says "you're funny"), I decided to change it. While in the process of doing so, I got somewhat distracted and saved the page before I wrote a new header. I immediately went back to fix it, but you caught it right away, resulting in an edit conflict. So I just proceeded to change it as I planned.--Swarm^Talk 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Swarm^Talk 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Whoops, didn't see that you were editing your own. The fact that you don't sign as "stinging swarm" fooled me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's what I suspected happened. Swarm^Talk 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

How do I easily stop vandalism without Huggle/Twinkle?GoPeter452 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ACC registration

I wish to use the account creation interface, and have registered. Swarm^Talk 03:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request so welcome to the team. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in as well as the mailing list.

Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day (a day being from 0:00 UTC to 23:59 UTC), although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed". However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM.

Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Swarm^Talk 08:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

SPA info for reference

Just because a user has a large number of edits, doesn't mean he doesn't fall under WP:SPA. An editor may still edit exclusively one topic only. Just friendly FYI. :) Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The SPA template is generally used for users in discussions who are suspected of vote stacking, being sock puppets or meat puppets, or something similar. It is used as a warning to those participating that the user's comments may not be valid due to them only being a single purpose account for that discussion.

The label of "single purpose account" in a discussion should be only be applied for that purpose, not for discrediting the opinion of someone knowledgeable on the subject. You're right, someone can be a single purpose account in what articles they edit, but this isn't against the rules -- the only concerns being that these editors might not adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV, and that's not what the template's meant for.

That's why I removed the template. Swarm^Talk 07:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In respance to "Please be careful!"

I know that rollback should only be used in clear cases of vandalism, I had no control if rollback was used or not because I was using huggle. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If that is true then, what if I see an edit that is unsourced and needs to come down, I can't use huggle for this? --Clarince63 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2 characters edit war

Its not really an edit war. I tried to engage the other party on his talk page but he reverted 2 times before replying. If I get this warning, I think it only fair he does too. ThanksChuglur (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I warned you to prevent you from violating the three revert rule, which one more "undo" would have done. If TheJadeFalcon was in danger of violating 3rr, I would have absolutely warned them. Swarm^(Talk) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed after the fact that I'd reached four reverts, two against the IP, two against Chuglur (though they're the same person). I admitted this when I reported the page to WP:RPP. That was why I didn't revert this edit. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon my brief glance on the history, I simply noticed your edit summary that described the edit you reverted as "removed citations and added uncited gibberish". Generally reverting edits like these aren't held against you, so I didn't take it into consideration. Still, a warning would have been pointless anyway since you already realized you broke it. Anyway, this is a matter for the article's talk page.Swarm^(Talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the neutrality check, Swarm. Also for your notes on my talk page - I will heed them well (sorry, that sounds a bit Lord of the Rings).

Paulsnorman (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout

WuhWuzDat 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hi Swarm, what's wrong with my changes to Disturbia plot. I was just adding more info that was part of the movie. For example, I wrote that Ashley shouldn't took a picture of Turner's face. Please stop reverting my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits appeared to be unconstructive. For example, your changes of "this", that" and "the" to "dis", "dat" and "da". Swarm^(Talk)

Message

When I was editing Disturbia (film), how come it's not okay for me to use slang? I used slang so I could get done faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.78.94 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I am trying to do New Page Patrol & I am so confused about what to do with new schools. I think the documentation is lacking and needs to be clarified & updated. It's clear that you are not allowed to "speedy" a school, but what to do with entries like this one? Seely place elementary school If you can direct me to a concrete guideline I would appreciate it. If not where can I discuss it with other editors? Thanks!! --laurap414 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Laurap! You did the right thing by "proposing deletion". Generally elementary schools and middle schools don't meet the general notability guideline by themselves. So yes, usually proposed deletion is the way to go. However, if the author contests the proposal (for instance, they remove the template), or if you're not sure and would like discussion regarding the deletion, you should nominate it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, where editors will discuss whether or not the article should deleted (over the period of 7 days, usually). Just another note, high schools are always considered notable. Swarm^(Talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That is helpful, thanks! Do you agree with me that the documentation is sketchy on this? Or, can you point me to a place where the above very helpful guideline is documented anywhere?  :-) thanks again!! --laurap414 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, I agree with you. The notability guideline for schools isn't very clear, in my opinion. Specifically, schools are covered by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the notability guideline for organizations. However, in practice, high schools are generally always considered to be notable enough for their own article, while elementary schools and middle schools are not considered notable unless they meet that guideline. And on top of that, they can never be "speedily deleted".

At deletion discussions for non-notable schools, the decision is usually redirect to a relevant article instead of delete. For example, the article may be redirected to the article of the school district, or the "education" section of the article for the town the school is located in. Anyway, yes I would agree that the notability requirements for schools, while pretty stable in practice, aren't that well documented. I completely understand your confusion when dealing with that, I went through the same thing! Swarm^(Talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of term

I really did see your sincerity, and I genuinely appreciated the instinct that drove you. Wikipedia needs more editors with such instincts. —SlamDiego_←T 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Ciao Swarm, just a quick procedural note. You marked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PunBB as relisted, but it is still transcluded from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 1. When relisting, you need to move the transcluded discussion to today's page, i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 9. Cheers,  Skomorokh  23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Swarm^(Talk) 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about

Hi,

I am not extremely uncivil.Yopie keeps targeting my edits harassing me by following me to articles in which he had obviously no interest beforehand at all. And it seems that this has been going on here for more than 6 months. Good luck.--Nmate (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You are indeed extremely uncivil. If Yopie is provoking you, you should seek some method of dispute resolution rather than respond with incivility or meanness, even if you feel they deserve it. If you can provide evidence, I suggest you seek dispute resolution against Yopie, rather than simply provide it when you're on the and use it as an excuse for uncivil comments. Swarm^(Talk) 07:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? In which and where ? Because he follows me around everywhere! And I think the way Yopie behaves is odd and bizarre. Would you be happy if an odd guy followed you around on Wikipedia?

--Nmate (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He is following you because you make poor edits, not to iritate you. Anyway, I hope it will be a fair trial and the sanction will be correct(Iaaasi (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Another wikihounding.--Nmate (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have the right to talk about things that are done by yourself. I posted here because I got an undeserved sanction because of you and I want to be sure you get the right punishment for your action. And I was informed about this discussion om my talk page [1], i did not arrive on this page by following you (Iaaasi (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

• Firstly, this is not the place of the Wikiquette_alerts.
• Secondly, Swarm is not administrator.
• Thirdly, you are not supposed to answer questions posed to others.
• Fourthly, by doing this, you discerdit yourself.--Nmate (talk) 09:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

if "this is not the place of the Wikiquette_alerts" why did you yourself post here, and not on the Wikiquette_alerts page?(-Iaaasi (talk))

Commanders in war articles

There is currently a discussion on how to handle commanders in war articles at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Commanders_in_War_articles. Your input would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Swarm/Archive 1 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SOMETHING THAT YOU JUST DUMP SOMETHING ON

Replied at my talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Hi there. Since you are not a new editor, I did not want to leave a standard, templated warning but could you please try to use edit summaries in all your edits? It would be a courtesy to your fellow editors, meaning they don't have to check your edits in order to find out what you changed. Regards SoWhy 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate you not templating me. Can you be specific as to what you're referring to? I don't think I've made any substantial edits for several days. The only time (that I'm aware of) where I don't include edit summaries is when I'm participating in a conversation...generally the edit summary "reply" or "re" would go without saying on a talk page, would it not?

It may just be me but I think that even in those cases an edit summary should be used. Did you comment in general or reply to someone specific? Did you change your wording or fix something else? For example, an edit summary like "resp to SoWhy" on a talk page would make me notice a reply in my Watchlist more easily than if you don't write anything.As for your edits, I noticed two today where you changed/expanded your previous comment on a talk page ([2] and [3]) both of which I think would have been served better with an edit summary detailing the change. After all, someone just noticing the edit probably thought you made a new comment rather than changing your old one - a comment they might have already read. I think, in the end, it's easier to add a simple "cmt", "resp" or "rephrase my comment" to your edits. After all, you might think that your edit on a certain page is self-explanatory but others might not. :-) Regards SoWhy 21:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, why not? :) Your words are noted, and I will use one on talk pages in the future. Swarm^(Talk) 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting up with me. Okay, it's time for bed for me now, have a good day. Regards SoWhy 22:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SOMETHING THAT YOU JUST DUMP SOMETHING ON

Replied at my talk page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching.

I'll look into that, but it looks like I'll need lots more experience before that. Thanks for letting me know though. Hamtechperson 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Swarm, Celestialwarden11 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello, fellow Wikipedian! I am so, so happy and honored for this chance for us to talk. If you need anything, or if you simply want to chat, I am right here for you, pal! Also remember, to spread the joy! Wikipedia may not be the most cheerful place to be, but YOU can help make it more cheerful! Have a fantastic day, and God bless! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Please, accept this well-earned reward for your efforts here on Wikipedia, friend! May you continue to aid others and devote your fine skill to editing articles here! God bless you! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, thank you so much for your message, Swarm! But, seriously, it's like, nothing, to me. It's just something everyone should do once in a while, sending a WikiSmile, just to lighten up Wikipedia's overall mood! But, Swarm, I'm really, really happy you appreciated what I've done here! Thank you! And, please, though you're way more experienced than I am here, if I could possibly help with anything at all, just leave me a message! Have a great day! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Swarm, thanks so much for the Barnstar! Really, there was no need to give me one! But I'm really glad and proud that you did! Thanks so much! Remember, if you need anything, feel free to contact me! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

NO

Hey man, he said it rocks. --75.83.22.88 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

He said what rocks? The edit made no sense, and didn't have anything to do with "taco bell endorsement details". Sorry, but let's try to keep the edits constructive, okay? Swarm^(Talk) 08:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

is there a way

is there a way to stop yourelf from haing warnings as i mean u already had 3 warning edits is there a way to make them 0 again. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.118.193 (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you can't get rid of warnings. If you are on a shared IP and want to edit constructively, and are not the one making the edits you're being warned for, simply create your own account so you don't get blocked. If you were the ones making the edits you were warned for, stop doing it and you won't get blocked. Swarm^(Talk) 13:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Land and Liberty (Russia)

OK, then, what would you feel would be the best edit then, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.26.48 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, certainly not this. I don't see any purpose whatsoever in that edit. Swarm^(Talk)

But there isn't an article whatsoever for the Polish movement Land and Liberty. Shouldn't the phrasing be removed temporarily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.26.48 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you were doing. I had no idea why you changed the link like that. Alright, instead of making something link to the vandalism page, you can just remove that whole sentence. Keep in mind that you can't remove anything you disagree with, but since there's no article on it it doesn't need to be there, so go ahead and remove that sentence if you want. Thanks for clearing that up. Swarm^(Talk) 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brandt mle 1935

I think you're correct that it is Mle 1935 vs mle 1935. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the page to that capitalization. Swarm^(Talk) 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Editor air

Hello. You have a new message at Grondemar's talk page.

The Clockwork Flowers

I believe you closed the debate, such as it was, on The Clockwork Flowers too early. There was only one comment, and that was to keep. but, I believe their reasoning was faulty (see the delete discussion for Gaijin Sounds). I would ask you to reopen the discussion for further review by the community. Thanks XinJeisan (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopened and relisted. That was indeed an early closure...I may or may not have performed that closure after a full listing period, but I don't know why I closed that argument so early, and with only one comment. All I can say is my mistake. As seeing such closures usually makes me quite frustrated, I apologize. Swarm^(Talk) 22:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Supreme Court of Thailand

I have nominated Supreme Court of Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Paul_012 ^(talk) 12:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Thank you for adopting me and I gladly accept you!! Well I finally made an account and I wanted to start a few pages but I don't quite know if I'm allowed to start them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Written123 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin help

{{adminhelp}} Can an admin userfy this deleted page to here? An adoptee wanted to create the article (it got SD'd) and I'd like to take a look at it to offer advice if I can. Swarm^Talk 02:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. One moment, please. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Swarm^Talk 02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for helping!! - Written123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Written123 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Offer accepted

I saw on my talk page that you said you'd adopt me and show me the ropes. I'll accept,thanks for helping me out. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I've been away from my computer for a few days. Christina Silverman (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Sure! It would be great if you could adopt me. I can't come on very often, though. (No time) 1shift345archer (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Help!!

Well now that I'm adopted and all set I have no idea on an article to create I have just been looking around just seeing if there is something to make that someone else hasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Written123 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm,

I am new to wikipedia and wondered if you would adopt me Thanks Tejb (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

When I'm reporting a vandal to WP:AIV, how do I include relevant diffs in my report? Christina Silverman (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I got another question for you. I have been reverting vandalism using Twinkle, but I can only catch so much with it given how many edits are made each minute. Is there any program or anything that could help me to catch vandal edits? I appreciate your help. Christina Silverman (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumble Strip Edits

Hello Swarm. I just noticed that you did some substantial deletions of the Rumble Strip article. Another editor had to go back in and rescue some the work. What I put up was referenced and from highly regarded sources and they were all related to the subject. Please reinstate what you removed.

Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alberto. All of the content that was removed was done so for a perfectly legitimate reason, as seen by my edit summaries. Much of it, was sourced statistical info that followed an unsourced statement, and in removing the unsourced statement, the statistical info went with it. For example, one section (the one you re-added) was an analysis on inattentive driving and statistics on alcohol fatalities. Although they're related to the subject, they might trail off too far. A reader may wonder why there is a lengthy analysis on inattentive driving and statistics on alcohol fatalities. This aside, however:

• This section was removed because it was original research. The last paragraph that I removed was sourced by something that did not mention traction loss, so using it is original research at best. The introduction, though well sourced, served no purpose other than to introduce the unsourced traction loss statement.
• This, if you feel it is incredibly necessary, can be inserted anywhere in the article, but does not need its own section.
• This, while good information, is not necessary to the article. It's just statistics. If another paragraph relied on it, I would have left it, but it serves no crucial purpose. It would better serve an article on vehicle crashes.
• This is interesting, well sourced information on behavior adaption, but its relation to your article appears to be your own tie in: "Rumble strip may gradually encourage inattentive driving...". It is essential that a claim like this be backed up by a source. You can write pages of well sourced information to back yourself up, but it doesn't matter if the claim itself isn't verified.
• Same thing here. It's sourced information on accidents, followed by an unsourced statement that simply isn't backed up.

The "rescue" that you speak of was actually a bot fixing some sources. I deleted a couple of named references in my editing, so other references that relied on the "name" parameter were abandoned. A bot automatically repairs, or "rescues" them. That's all. Anyway, I hope I explained the rationale of the deleted content to you. Seeing that the section's neutrality was disputed (and the section was largely biased against rumble strips, I hope I cleared up the neutrality concern. Regards, Swarm^Talk 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Swarm,

Thanks for your quick reply.

"Inattentive driving" includes drunk driving, so this is why its discussed.

"they might trail off too far" appears subjective. I would rather the article was a complete, clear, concise discussion of the topic and written so a someone 12 years and older may understand it. Almost everything I wrote is supported by a source(s) including most of the the stuff you took down. I went to great lengths to use direct quotes from refs to avoid beening accused of misrepreseting anything.

"Behavior adaption" is a common concern in the safety world, so to write "Rumble strip may gradually encourage inattentive driving..." is not wrong. I believe Wiki allows some degree of freedom for some unreferenced sentences to tie things together. Most of these "unreferenced" sentences are intuitive and useful to make the article flow better. For example, if strips are filled with water, ice, gravel there will be traction loss. Or if the tire isn't in contact with pavement for multiple split seconds (as it passed over strips) there will be traction loss. I don't think anybody would debate this.

I've seen many other Wiki articles that include statistics.

Basically, there is no original research in the article. I did a Google search for "rumble strip" (and related terms) and read everything I could and pieced together key findings of each article to make it easy for others. Just look at the references. Go back and look at the article prior to my involvement (Feb 2010) and see how under develeped it was. I thought Wiki would appreciate my efforts especially when the article had been languishing.

Please reinstate what you removed.

Thanks Albertoarmstrong (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

I've actually otten a request by someone who has been editing in similar articles with me, so I think I'll go with her instead. Thanks, though!! --Glimmer721 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good. Thank you. --Glimmer721 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)