Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 16 June 2007

General

• Thanks for editing my userpage back, no issues you didn't overwrite anything. Appreciated. Riksta 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• wikipedia pkk propanganda make.I m this not Pkk anti kurdish wikipedia millitanism noTURKS REVENGE BRİGADE--88.241.3.229 12:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not exactly sure how to respond to that one. I do assure you, however, that none of my actions are anti-anything, so I'm sorry if any of my reverts came across as such. If you feel they were unjust, please speak with the Arbitration Committee. Thanks, and continue enjoying Misplaced Pages! :) --koder 14:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the article http://en.wikipedia.org/OohahahaAAAAH%21_Oh%2C_man%21_The_colors%21_It%27s_so_beeeaaauuuuuuuuuuutifuuuuuuuul...... And tried to tag it. But you or one of your bots thought I was creating it. I was not, I am new to this so could you please help me get rid of the article--Ed2087 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be gone now. Thanks for helping out :D Have a great one. :) --koder 06:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you --Ed2087 06:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting archive blanking

Eep, no, I've been out of town a few days. Thank you kindly for putting your oar in on reverting my archive page!  RGTraynor  00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Pruden Prod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Matthew Pruden, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks! NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to . I suppose you could be right that it wasn't intended as an objection to the deletion, but on the safe side I wouldn't assume that. I noticed your "oops" edit but didn't take it as any particular interpretation of the other editor's intent. Anyway, sorry about any mixup. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for the notice put up on WP:AIV about a vandal. They have not as of yet been blocked, due to the fact that they seemed to have stopped editing for now. But keep up the good work, but remember to warn users, as they cannot simply be blocked usually. Jmlk17 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for all your hard work. And yes, I always make it a point to warn users before bugging you guys except in cases of repeat offenders =) Cheers. --koder 04:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD on SKY U

Hi. No headaches. The place gets a lot of g-hits, so I thought a speedy might be a bit hastey. The first version was clearly written like spam, but I couldn't find any copyvios, so I just edited down to something vaguely encyclopedic. I'll keep an eye on the article. As far as the editor goes - he/she is just a novice (probably just a WP:SPA who needs polite guidance. Good work, and cheers, Rklawton 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Links

I'm sorry Koder but the edits I made to the pages of Hutu and Tutsi are not vandalism. The articles I added are from BBC.com based on the Rwandan Genocide which affected those 2 groups. You don't have any right to remove those articles from the Hutu and Tutsi pages, because those articles are about them. Plus, you should not remove it from the evil or the church pages, because in those BBC articles it mentions how people were killed in "churches" and how there was evil behind those killings. What I did is not vandalism Koder so you need to give me a good reason why, because if you remove valid content that is related to an article like Hutu and Tutsi or evil and church then you are committing vandalism yourself, because you are removing articles that contain valid facts based on the Rwandan Genocide and church evil. An editor has asked for a deletion review of ] and ] . Since you closed the deletion discussion for these articles or speedy-deleted them, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 129.89.134.234 18:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC) These articles do not contain inappropriate content, therefore you need to give a reason why you would delete them for the Hutu, Tutsi, Church, and Evil pages even though the content in the bbc articles "TAKEN OVER BY SATAN" and "MASSACRE AT NYARUBUYE CHURCH" are relevant to them.

• Yikes, I apologize for outright removing those two links from Hutu and Tutsi and calling them vandalism. On the other hand, links regarding the Rwandan Genocide should probably be placed there instead of the ethnic group pages. Consider: would two links about The Holocaust be relevant to the present-day state of a jew? But, I digress, you are correct in notifying me that those two links were not outright vandalism. However, the main reason I removed both links from your recent history was due to overlinking for the following reasons:
  1. They are merely "indirectly related" (see also: wikipedia's external links guidelines) to the pages you added them to. You added both links, which primarily address Rwandan Genocide, to the following pages, none of which reference or pertain to the recent genocide:
     1. Church
     2. Horror (emotion)
     3. Hate
     4. Evil
     5. History of Christianity
  2. The mere mention of a location of an event is not sufficient reason to warrant a direct reference of that event on the location's page. This applies to placing your links on Church. While I understand why you did so (one of them occurred in a church), it is not appropriate to link a genocide with an otherwise-innocent establishment. For example, while during The Holocaust, Jews were forced to work in factories by people who called themselves Christian, it is not appropriate to add Anne Frank's diary to both Factory and Christian (or even History of Christianity). Therefore, I removed your links from both Church and History of Christianity.
  3. The Horror (emotion), Evil, and Hate articles deal with their respective emotional states in almost purely scientific and/or philosophic approaches. They take a meta-analysis approach to the emotions and their implications for history, and do not expound on explicit examples, as they're deemed universal emotions. That is, the average reader will understand horror, evil, and hate without reading an article by the BBC on genocide. Instead, we allow the reader to explore articles like Rwandan Genocide, The Holocaust, The Crusades, Darfur conflict, Armenian Genocide, Bosnian genocide, and more. You can quickly see how linking every single link from these pages to the Evil, Hate, and Horror pages could be problematic-- and that's not accounting for all the nasty things that happened in their churches, either. Thus, your links were not appropriate there.
  4. The links also do not belong on the History of Christianity page because the acts, themselves, were not overtly under the claim of God, Jesus, or other deities, as were The crusades. However, this is debatable, but more so in the Christianity and the Rwandan Genocide article.
  5. No discussion of the links was made prior to inserting them in any of the pages. Usually you should discuss changes on each page's talk page, defending why the change was made.
  6. You gave no edit summary defending why you added the links or why they pertained to the pages to which you were adding them.
  7. You are anonymous. The majority of spam and spam links and vandals come from anonymous users. Consider creating an account.
  8. Your links are shock-and-awe in nature, which led me to believe you were simply trying to gain a commiserating audience for whatever cause you support.
  9. Your links were ALL UPPERCASE, which draws unnecessary attention to the links.
  10. Your link additions were done in a short period of time.
  11. The exact same links were posted multiple times, as was demonstrated above, on multiple, irrelevant pages. All of this taken together, this led me to believe they were spam, or you were from the BBC (or possibly, you were the author of the content in the links).
  12. I was in auto-pilot mode due to the large amount of spam that was coming in when you made those edits.

• In short: you are correct in noting that, if you honestly added the links believing they were relevant to the pages, that it was not explicitly vandalism. On the other hand, the removal of the links from their respective pages adheres to Misplaced Pages's external link policy-- at least, as I understand it. Thus, I believe that while the reason given for removing the links may not have been accurate as to your intentions, the removal, itself, was accurate. I apologize for mislabeling your intentions as vandalism, I appreciate you notifying me of this error, and I hope you accept my apologies for labeling you a vandal. Sometimes the people like me who are always looking for vandalism start assuming that things that match vandalism patterns are, themselves, vandalism. :(. If you would like, however, it would seem completely relevant for your links (NOT IN ALL CAPS, that is) to be posted to Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, as they appear to be possibly valuable contributions. However, if you would like, you may also continue with your deletion review request. Thanks, and sorry about any mix up. If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to notify me. :) --koder 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

BITE much?

You reverted a good faith edit as vandalism here, then left a vandalism warning on their talk page. Please take time out from biting the newbies to refresh your memory on what is and is not vandalism. I will be more than happy to assist you, if you have difficulty. KillerChihuahua 02:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that one probably should have been an even more welcoming notice than the level 1 vandal one. However, I did not think that level 1 vandal was excessively harsh to a new editor. After all, consider the text, "Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to whateverarticle, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia." This is much, much nicer of text than which the average person, who even himself claims WP:AGF, will post on discussion pages and user talk pages, and it doesn't even mention the word "vandalism" except in the edit summaries. Moreover, it's an actual message as opposed to a random removal of text without any notice of what happened (like quite a few non-RC patrolling admins do, sadly), therein ghosting the new editor's changes and leaving him in the dark as to what happened. I reason that if at least I leave a notice is so that the user will come to me as opposed to randomly flaming people elsewhere and getting pissed off and leaving the Wikimedia sites.

With regard to what vandalism is not, I honestly did not see the edit as an unintentional misinformation attempt. The exact preceding two sentences explicitly said the exact opposite of what the user added, and the user placed his text directly before the cite for the contradicting information, which made it look very suspiciously like vandalism, but not quite something as overt as cuss words and calling atheists morons, which is normally the case on a highly vandalized page such as Atheism. I saw it as something similar to someone writing "Do not go the" in front of a "Speed Limit" sign. Believe me, I know what vandalism normally is, and I always try to AGF (check my contribs, if you would like). However, I am known to make mistakes from time to time, and I apologize if you believe I was excessive in my actions. If you have suggestions as to what I can do otherwise, please let me know. Have a good one, and cheers. :) --slakr 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was a complete sentence; it was about Atheists in foxholes, so it was in the appropriate paragraph. Far from being "the complete opposite" of the previous sentences, it did not even contradict the previous statements at all, but even if it did that would be poor writing not vandalism. It was OR and incorrectly placed before a cite which did not support it, but it was also the very first edit of a registered editor. In short, this was clearly not vandalism, and using the template you used for anything other than obvious vandalism (such as your examples of foul language and childish insults) is biting. I fail to see where the confusion might be.

If you choose to reply to this, please do not duplicate your response on my talk page. As I clearly indicate on the box at the top of my page, I will reply here to any response you may choose to give. KillerChihuahua 12:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding questions: I do not use TW. Is that template an automatic one when using TW? Is there a choice of which template to use? KillerChihuahua 12:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No warning is automatic. In fact, I explicitly revived an old revision to TW, by request, in order to re-humanize the process for other RC patrollers. If you want to experiment, take a peek at User:AzaToth/twinklewarn.js versus User:Slakr/twinkle-oldwarn.js. The former was the most recent (as in, last couple of days was a major change) versus the latter as the longer-standing version. Cheers. --slakr 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)