This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DVdm (talk | contribs) at 10:22, 2 August 2014 (→Please stop: Corcect diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:22, 2 August 2014 by DVdm (talk | contribs) (→Please stop: Corcect diff)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
— Welcome to my talk page —
— Canard du jour —
|
|
|
about the warning
Dear DVdm, you warned me about spamming of functionspace. However, I found those links really insightful and added genuinely. If you think I should not add them, it's okay. I won't add. But those have a lot of conceptual discussions. That's why I was a bit obsessed with them and wanted to share them with everybody. I apologize for the trouble caused. If it's not appropriate, I'll immediately stop doing it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PuruMuthal (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Ok, good idea. The main reason for not having this site for external links is wp:ELNO, item 11: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Editing techniques
Thank you. I am not very familiar for editing techniques. But I appreciate your constructive comment and now I have added references in 'Time'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.193.164 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a section header for new talk page messages, and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- I also have reverted your second attempt and left a comment on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
My cousin
Sorry about that it was my cousin who wrote that--2.26.193.18 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)anonymous--2.26.193.18 (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Grange Mutual Casualty Company
Hello DVdm. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Grange Mutual Casualty Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The similar page mentioned, Grange insurance, has been deleted at the author's request. I would suggest a history merge. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I didn't really tag it. I just restored the tag that was already there. - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Pink Floyd edits
Please don't describe good-faith edits, however poor, as "vandalism", as you did at User talk:78.90.232.207. Please also be more welcoming of new/IP editors who are attempting to build Misplaced Pages. Consider how you were treated, when you first arrived here, and the effect your comments may have on the likelihood of an editor becoming a long-term, valued contributor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but continuing to add unsourced information when every warning given (see User talk:78.90.232.207) is flatly ignored, is usually interpreted as vandalism, as you can see in the block message. The first 3 messages did not refer to vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not "usually interpreted as vandalism". Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, a policy, is quite clear on the matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I am mistaken, when issuing a 4th level warning for addition of unsourced content, Huggle uses a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning instead of an {{uw-unsourced4}}. If that is no longer the case, then I might have misclicked, for which my apologies.
- I'm definitely going to keep a close eye on this in my next Huggle sessions. If this is indeed part of Huggle's behaviour, then perhaps something should be done about it. I'll keep you posted. - DVdm (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: as promised:
- A user was on warning level 3: 85.31.138.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on their talk page.
- Using the Huggle function "Failing to cite a reliable source", I reverted an unsourced edit: . Automatic edit summary: "Reverted edits by 85.31.138.206 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)"
- This also resulted in a final talk page warning : "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit". As you see, Huggle used a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning instead of an {{uw-unsourced4}}.
- Using the same function I then reverted his next unsourced edit: . Automatic edit summary again: "Reverted edits by 85.31.138.206 (talk): addition of unsourced content (HG)",
- This resulted in an entry on the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism with text "85.31.138.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – – vandalism, including...".
- This report resulted in the user getting blocked by admin Yunshui (talk · contribs).
- As you can see, exactly the same scenario took place with the reverts on Breathe (Pink Floyd song): Revert level 4, user warning for vandalism, revert after final warning, report for vandalism, block by admin Ronhjones (talk · contribs).
- I did not misclick. This seems to be the standard way Huggle deals with persistent addition of unsourced content. I must say, I have seen this hundreds of times. This is not new to me.
- @Yunshui: @Ronhjones: do you think this should be taken up with the Huggle guys? - DVdm (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. By the time you get to a level 4 warning it's pretty much of a muchness anyway. In this case, it would have been handy to have
{{uw-genre1}}
and its brethren available, since that would have been a more accurate warning template. Yunshui 水 12:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)- Yes, that's true for the latter example, but not for the former where no other template than the {{uw-unsourced}} series would be appropriate. It still seems to be baked in that persistent addition of unsourced content and ignoring all warnings is de-facto seen as vandalism. I have had hundreds of such cases and each time they were indeed blocked after being reported for vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Disruptive editing of this sort genuinely isn't vandalism (Andy's right, WP:VAND specifically excludes this kind of thing), but with IPs, the block messages tend to be fairly non-specific ("abuse of editing privileges" is the wording used on the anonblock template, IIRC), which gives a fair amount of leeway for an admin needing to block a particular IP. Even if the edits aren't technically vandalism, but a block is still warranted for disruption, trolling, refusal to get the point etc., you'll generally see the same block message. Yunshui 水 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for your comments. I'll think about going to the Huggle group. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most reports at AIV claim "vandalism". It's up to the admin to view the edits and see what has gone on. We don't have an "unsourced content" block in the "common block reasons". If it's not real vandalism, I tend to use "disruptive editing" and a plain Twinkle block template - if the warnings above that show the cause of the disruption. If the warnings are varied, I might add an "repeated addition of unsourced data" to the block message. Ronhjones 20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I have noticed that. I asked for a comment, because sometimes I feel a bit uncomfortable having reverted for "blatant unsourcedness" and then, as happened here, getting a complaint about the reverted edits "not really being vandalism". Afterall, the revert tool reverts with an edit symmary about unsourced, but then creates a final user warning about vandalism ({{uw-vandalism4}}), not even mentioning unsourced, even when there's a perfect 4th level warning for unsourced ({{uw-unsourced4}}) available. Odd, to say the least. - DVdm (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Disruptive editing of this sort genuinely isn't vandalism (Andy's right, WP:VAND specifically excludes this kind of thing), but with IPs, the block messages tend to be fairly non-specific ("abuse of editing privileges" is the wording used on the anonblock template, IIRC), which gives a fair amount of leeway for an admin needing to block a particular IP. Even if the edits aren't technically vandalism, but a block is still warranted for disruption, trolling, refusal to get the point etc., you'll generally see the same block message. Yunshui 水 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's true for the latter example, but not for the former where no other template than the {{uw-unsourced}} series would be appropriate. It still seems to be baked in that persistent addition of unsourced content and ignoring all warnings is de-facto seen as vandalism. I have had hundreds of such cases and each time they were indeed blocked after being reported for vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps. By the time you get to a level 4 warning it's pretty much of a muchness anyway. In this case, it would have been handy to have
Why is the warning?!
I don't know why you gave me a warning while I was trying to fix the page!
The page was showing Egypt for some reason instead of Qatar.
I was looking for the last proper version to revise it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmgx (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I gave the final warning for this edit, for which anon 175.38.130.83 (talk · contribs) was already finally warned. I assumed you had made their vandalising edits anonymously, and to avoid being reported, continued with an infrequently used username. If your edit was indeed a mistake, then so was mine. I have removed the warning from your talk page. Sorry and cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Paleontological Specimen Location Question
I can adjust the captions on the images I inserted yesterday Wiki-linking to the Triebold Paleontology Incorporated article to meet the guidelines. I can understand how reference to a specimen's distributor probably is not the most non-commercial means to cite a source. I see that you also took issue with including in some captions Wiki-links to the museum the specimens the in the images are exhibited in. From what I could tell, this was not an uncommon practice. Do I also need to remove those Wiki-links from the captions? Please advise. My apologies for instigating any commotion.
MCDinosaurhunter (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)MCDinosaurhunter
- Sounds ok with me, but I suggest you propose this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#User MCDinosaurhunter and see what they say. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2014
- Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Herbert E. Ives, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)}}
Herbert E. Ives is (was) my grandfather and I knew both him and his wife and their three children, one of whom was my mother, and the other two were my uncles. Now all deceased. I do not know who could be more authoritative on this matter than I am. In fact, I wonder how whoever originally wrote this article ever though there was a Herbert Eugene Ives, Jr.
This link shows that they had three children, if you trust this link: http://www.tutorgigpedia.com/ed/Herbert_E._Ives#Biography
And this link lists Herbert and Mabel's three children, none of whom were Herbert Eugene Ives, Jr.
http://encyclopine.org/en/Herbert_E._Ives
SchroederTo SchroederTo (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- This seems to be discussed now on the article talk page. See Talk:Herbert E. Ives#Children of Herbert Ives. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI
You had a hand in this the last time around, just thought you might like to know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have just removed 4 more external links to gpscentar.com. See my comment. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Error
To tell the truth, the removal of edit on the article Time is actually not nesscary because one year is 365.25 days and the saying about the leap year is actually incorrect. The reason that people say that leap years exist is becuase they did not count the extra 6 hours at the end of the year. Because of this, the errors that you removed will be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- I have put a second level warning on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- To claim that a year lasts 365 days and there are leap years, you have to prove that it only lasts 365 days and leap years exist. To view the evidence that a year actually lasts 365.25 days, click HERE. Also, I have put a discussion on the talk page of the article Time, so if you have any comments, post it there. If you oppose, post the evidence there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry.y.ma (talk • contribs) 02:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the article talk page Talk:Time#Error about the defenetions about a year is where this should be discussed. But note that (1) ask.com is not a wp:reliable source, (2) is has a copy of our own Misplaced Pages article Year—see wp:CIRCULAR—, and (3) it contradicts what you are saying here. - DVdm (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleting References
Hi, I'm not trying to be mean, but why do you keep deleting my references on these pages: Mass Weight Speed? Also, when I said "it", I made a mistake and should've put the name of the physical quantity there. Thanks! Note:I am about 3 months new into editing on Misplaced Pages. I've edited and created pages before, but wanted to reference some things I saw in a book. Thelogoontherun (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, I found the additions irrelevant. In the case of Weight you merely repeated the opening sentence. If you would like to discuss this further, you can go to the article talk pages and propose the additions—see wp:BRD. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, but what about the other pages? I realize the thing with speed, but can I reference the page mass from the book? Thelogoontherun (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I rewrote it for it to make more sense.. And I read the BRD page. Thelogoontherun (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wikepedia doesn't deal in "It has been said...". Discuss on talk page before you put it back. - DVdm (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits to Time
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo some of your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! 71.82.112.140 (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the unreliably sourced content again and warned you on your talk page. If you feel strong about it, then, per wp:BRD, propose the addition on the article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have proposed a discussion on the talk page and removed the online links. 71.82.112.140 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's more or less the way to go. - DVdm (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Understanding differences(RE:July 2014)
Actually, the reason that I made that edit is because that my understanding about a common year is the actual length of the year, which is 365.25 days, which is also the length of a Julian year. But to most people, a common year is 365 days, which is the actual year simplified. Gerry.y.ma (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I suspected that this is your understanding, but Misplaced Pages doesn't care much about our personal understandings . Cheers - DVdm (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Image of trollface on Troll (Internet)
Someone else restored the non-free image you removed. Please join WP:NFCR#File:Trollfacememe.jpg. DMacks (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I got there just too late.
- I had removed a link to article Troll Face (meme) from the article Troll (Internet) when that article got deleted—in fact, I had waited for the deletion. However, I accidentally also removed the appearance of the image from the article. User McGeddon restored that, and I did not object, because as far as I'm concerned it can stay in the article as long as the image survives. I'm not sure either, but I don't particulary care either way, i.e. keep or delete. - DVdm (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's at FFD if you're still interested. I really don't care enough to wade too deeply into NFC-land, figured others who really do know would sort it soon enough. DMacks (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon
Hi DVdm, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle !
Major changes:
- Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
- Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
- Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far
In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop
You do not WP:OWN my talk page. Please stop editing it unless the edit is the addition of a new comment. Muffinator (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right, I don't own your talk page. Remove all you want from it, but do not change my comments on it as you did here, here, and here again. You are also advised not to call a request not to change other people's comment disruptive, as you did here. . - DVdm (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did not change your comments. That first link is an addendum, not a change, the second is part one of a two-part undo process (I do not have rollback privileges), and the third is the same as the first. Advise me all you want. If I consider something disruptive, I will call it disruptive. Muffinator (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The section title is part of the comment. I find your change repulsive. What would you say if I would change the title of this section here to "Please stop being an asshole"? Please undo this change. - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would say the sentiment is very strong and a little uncivil. It may be confusing if a third-party is called upon to review the content, in which case the fact of which editor added "please stop" and which one added "being an asshole" would need to be clarified.Muffinator (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right, that is exactly what I think of your change to the title of my comment. You changed a neutral request into an extremely uncivil one. I would never open a section to another user's talk page asking "We're Disputing Content On Talk Pages Now? Are You Kidding Me?". So again, please undo that. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would say the sentiment is very strong and a little uncivil. It may be confusing if a third-party is called upon to review the content, in which case the fact of which editor added "please stop" and which one added "being an asshole" would need to be clarified.Muffinator (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The section title is part of the comment. I find your change repulsive. What would you say if I would change the title of this section here to "Please stop being an asshole"? Please undo this change. - DVdm (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did not change your comments. That first link is an addendum, not a change, the second is part one of a two-part undo process (I do not have rollback privileges), and the third is the same as the first. Advise me all you want. If I consider something disruptive, I will call it disruptive. Muffinator (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)