Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:55, 12 August 2012

Please note: If I gave you a warning and reverted edits that you do not think were disruptive, leave me a note below and I'll look into it as soon as I possibly can. You might also try checking out this page, for common reasons that edits will be reverted. If I tagged your article for speedy deletion, please don't yell at me. It won't help your case. You are welcome to contest the speedy deletion nomination by clicking the appropriate link in the template notice. It will probably help if you specify a valid reason, though. With the exception of warning templates, if I've left a message on your talk page, it is already on my watchlist and I will see your reply shortly. There is no need to leave me a talkback notice in these cases. And finally, if I've done something mind-blowingly stupid, trout me!

Kuwait/IOA Total

I agree with the points you made on S&P's talk page. However, it's also bad to report information that is most likely false, even if we have no verifiable sources saying it is. Perhaps we should just leave the IOA total blank for now, with a footnote explaining the situation? Smartyllama (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise. Do we just set the athlete number parameter to "unknown"? I'm not quite sure if that might break the template, but I'll let you handle that if you like. The footnote is already in place, so we should be fine in that department. Evanh2008 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try "unknown". If that doesn't work, I'll leave the field blank, which should work. Smartyllama (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It worked with unknown. Once we figure out what the deal is, we'll replace it with the correct number. Smartyllama (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

London 2012's site has been updated; the three Kuwaitis formerly listed as independents have been moved to the Kuwaiti roster. Unfortunately, their total for that roster only comes to ten, rather than the number of eleven given by other sources. I don't think that this is a problem, however, as I'm no longer interested in citing London 2012 for information on which they have proven themselves to be unreliable. Evanh2008 04:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Something involving Rob Liefeld

Yeah, um, maybe you should lighten up? Rob Liefeld is absolutely terrible and "vandalism" doesn't really apply here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.104.66 (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about vandalism? Evanh2008 19:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you're talking about this thing you did five months ago. Yes, that's vandalism. Don't do it again, please. Evanh2008 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For alerting me to a BLP violation. Done. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Doug! I see now that there were two more that I missed, so thanks also for being thorough. Evanh2008 07:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For telling me of what to know about Jaosn Russel, again, thanks. =)184.98.143.25 (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Evanh2008 10:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Note

I'm not sure what I did wrong and am hoping you can advise me. All I was trying to do was to agree with the mediators' decision about the Beatles "compromise." Did it seem like I was trying to do something else? I added my agreement under the "Your views" section on the mediation talk page. Wasn't that right? The note said I had refactored someone else's talk page. I'm not sure what that means, but, if I did a no-no, it was an accident. Thanks for any advice you can give me.Jburlinson (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If you check the diff I posted at your talk page, you'll see that you accidentally removed two other editors' comments (and inserted one with Yeepsi's signature attached to it). If I misplaced your comment in repairing the damage, I apologize, and you can feel free to move it to wherever you think it belongs. Evanh2008 04:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, stop templating people

The stuff on Alymustafina's page was totally uncool.

You are turning away potential contributors with your little kid mall cop antics.

TCO (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point. I use templates where I feel that they will be more helpful than direct engagement, but in this situation I definitely could have handled it better. I'm just trying to sort things out where edits look potentially problematic, and things certainly did look problematic in this case. Edit summaries are to prevent confusion over things like this, and when they aren't used, the edits come across as vandalism, regardless of what they are intended to be. But I overreacted. I apologize, and I thank you for calling me out on it. Evanh2008 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Having established the above, would it be possible for you to clue me in as to the purpose of the edits in question? If I know that they have a decent rationale, I can guarantee that there won't be any confusion in the future. Evanh2008 20:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I would just like to thank you for asking Aliyamustafina (talk) to stop deleting large chunks of information for no apparent reason. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed this and thought that it was destructive to the gymnast's pages. Since you warned Aliyamustafina the IP address 182.93.41.50 has been deleting the same type of information from gymnast's pages and I believe that it is the same user. I'm not sure what to do about it other than undo the edits on the pages that I follow and I would appreciate any help you can offer.Malluu12 (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of what the motivation is, those edits are disruptive without an explanatory summary. I noticed the IP edits last night and had intended to take a closer look at them today; I think you're right, though, as the pattern matches. At any rate, I don't think it's a whole lot to worry about. If the user doesn't explain the blankings, they can just be reverted and warned; and if it continues, they can be blocked. I've undone the edits and given the IP a level-three warning. If they start in on it later, they can be given a level-four warning and then taken to AIV. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks for the notification! Evanh2008 21:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

60.246.242.89 now, too. Evanh2008 19:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Thanks, TBrandley 03:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)