Misplaced Pages

User talk:Winkelvi

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 15 March 2015 (Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Stay the fuck off my talk page - you've been told this before. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:42, 15 March 2015 by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) (Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Stay the fuck off my talk page - you've been told this before. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.



This user has
Asperger's.

If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

Thanks for stopping by!

Here in Misplaced Pages, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.

When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass.

If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry or trolling posts are subject to immediate deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Difference between categories, sections, and headings

These edit summaries were initially confusing. A section begins with a heading. A subsection begins with a subheading, but calling it a heading will be fully understood. Categories are used to help organize the vast collection of articles in Misplaced Pages and are something else entirely, but are hierarchical, so there is such a thing as a subcategory, but it has very little to do with the content of an article. I usually expect edit summaries that mention "categories" to be for edits that add/remove/change one or more ] links on the page. This is intended as friendly advice to help with future editing; please don't take it wrongly if I've worded it poorly. I'm trying to keep the overall amount of confusion around the Donna Douglas article to a minimum. (I'll watch this page for a while for a reply.) Pathore (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are never perfect, they often are confusing - that's why we have diffs to look at what actually happened. I never go solely on an edit summary. That's said, I'll try to be more precise in the areas you've pointed out, but honestly, I'm not going to take great pains to get an edit summary perfect. I figure that as long as someone isn't using an edit summary for the wrong reasons and is at least using the edit summary to begoin with, perfection in edit summary nomenclature is at the bottom of the priority list. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Several of my edit summaries have various errors, including one where I fixed a typo in the article and made a new typo in the edit summary. It's not like Misplaced Pages has a deadline or anything. ☺ Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, Pathore: Recognizing that I cleaned up a totally screwed up article would have been a better thing, a nicer thing to come here with before pointing out that you think I made your editing there more difficult. Again, priorities. No matter if I didn't produce edit summaries up to your standards, the article is in much better shape now than it was 24 hours ago because I took the time and effort to get it that way. In my opinion, there's a plethora of negative criticism in Misplaced Pages when there should be a plethora of thanks given to the volunteer editors who make te 'pedia a better online resource. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
No, you didn't make my editing more difficult and thanks for cleaning up the article. I had thought that thanks for your contributions went without saying. I intended for this to be entirely constructive criticism and advice for the future, on an assumption that you may have been unaware of that distinction. I apologize if I have caused offense. Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Only minimally offensive, and not enough for me to want to you think that I'm unhappy with your commets here, Pathore. I think you hit me at a bad moment when I was contemplating how I've never seen another organzation depending on volunteer workers that is in general less appreciative of those volunteers on a day-to-day, and sometimes moment-to-moment basis. So, all that in mind, please don't take my comments personal or to mean that I'm not interested in working with you cooperatively. Like I said: your message came at a bad moment. Thanks, and Happy New Year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
That's OK. I've had my bad moments too. Happy New Year to you too. Pathore (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much

You are very kind. --talk→ WPPilot  20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you, WPPilot. Keep moving forward, keep contributing, and try not to look back at bad editor behavior. It will eat you up if you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
DONE - thanks again! --talk→ WPPilot  20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

revert

That was an accidental rollback from my watchlist. I've requested rollback removal so I don't misclick again.Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

albert jacob page

regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:202.89.168.229&redirect=no

what was it I wrote that constituted vandalism? I know this person personally and I did not mean any harm or ill-intent. I wouldnt even dream of writing negativity I only wish this person well. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 202.89.168.229, if you note the comments from me on your talk page, the wording states your edits looked like vandalism, not that they were definitely being classified as vandalism. Taking a look at what you did way back in May, your edits did look suspicious because there were some obvious errors made and not corrected. After making the errors you blanked a section without putting back in what you removed. As well, you did not use the edit summary indicating why you were making the edits you did. Further, when you blanked the section, a warning tag appeared noting "Section blanking". All of that together combined with these edits being done by someone who hasn't created a user account says "possible vandalism" to editors who have been here a while. I hope your edits were truly made in good faith and that you truly didn't mean harm. Coming here and asking what the deal was is a good faith effort on your part and it's appreciated. If you'd like to edit articles in Misplaced Pages in a productive manner, you're welcome to do that. I'd advise creating an account first. If you choose not to do that, please be sure to use edit summaries to explain your edits, that will help other editors to know better your intentions. I will put a welcome message on your talk page that has helpful information and advice about editing Misplaced Pages - please read it for better understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi winkelvi
I remeber now that your reminded me. I did delete info and didn't know how to get it back. It was the first time I attempted to edit Misplaced Pages and I bit off more than I could chew. I'm learning now and just made an edit on the VW polo sections his week without breaking anything (I hope) :-). I'll consider an account. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I hope things go better for you editing-wise and you enjoy what you do here. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan edits

The edits made were to highlight the fact that him joining and then leaving the Wyatt Family changed him to villain and hero, respectively. Also, he is a former member of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.28.107 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The edits had no sources to support them, you didn't use the edit summary to explain the edits, they didn't seem encyclopedic in tone, and the wording really didn't make sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvas warning

Winkelvi, please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing. I have no doubt you will take it in the spirit in which it was given: as a warning, sure, but more as a bit of advice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will. I really didn't believe what I was doing was canvassing. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓

YGM

I sent you an email when you get a second. -- Calidum 08:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will have to wait until morning to take a look, but will get back to you. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

)

A cupcake for you!

Just sending a bit of Wikilove your way through cupcakes! livelikemusic 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, livelikemusic, you made my day brighter. Take care,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So glad I could do that for you! Keep your head up and keep on keepin' on! (: livelikemusic 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm sorry about all the crap going on at ANI right now. I'm not completely aware of what's going on at all the articles being discussed, but I know that the Meghan Trainor editors are completely out of line with their harassment, baiting, and bringing up irrelevant personal details. Keep your head up! :)

–Chase (talk / contribs) 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Very nice of you, Chase. Thanks so much and have a great Sunday! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You definitely got too much shit there, Winkelvi. I really hope that doesn't happen again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Snuggums. I appreciate the kindness. And look forward to working with you, as always. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From NE Ent

  • First of all, EdJohnston made a mistake here in engaging in counting exercises with Winkelvi. WP:3RR is an upper limit, not a good idea (see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Winkelvi, you want do no more than one revert on a single topic issue; if it doesn't stick you go to the article talk page, and as soon as that becomes a one on one back and forth you request help from exactly one of the the "Articles and content" boards in the list below.
  • Secondly, the number and length of time an editor's name appears on noticeboards is not a reliable metric for disruption; the consensus closing statement, if present, or the actual content of the allegations needs at least be skimmed. NE Ent 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard links, for reference

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards



    Dear Winkelvi,

    To follow one convention for three item names in a list, and then give an arbitrary name to the fourth, despite it being exactly the same in nature, is not uniformity and convention. It's POV. It's not a question of research, but of having standards and a system. You're supporting the use of one naming system for all previous colonial occupiers, and a separate and special naming system for the current period of occupation by the United States.

    Please advise: is it[REDACTED] convention to name colonial periods for any given territory after the occupying force (e.g., Spanish Colonial Period, German Colonial Period, etc.)? Yes or No. User:42.3.103.126 — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages does not have an overall convention on how to name colonial periods. Instead, we use the names that are used by experts in the field. We follow the conventions that are used by Reliable Sources. If people outside of Misplaced Pages call it the Spanish colonial period, so will we. If people outside of Misplaced Pages call it the US Colonial Period, so would we. You may have better luck having this conversation on Talk:Saipan, where more editors interested in the article are likely to see it. Best, meamemg (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    IP user 42.3.103.126, what meamemg said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    Requesting your input

    I am requesting your input at Max A. George and its talk page, where there has been incivility, personality attacks, and owning of a page by its creator is going on, without any kind of mediation or discussion able to take place, and I feel as if an experienced editor, whom I respect as yourself, to come in and comment. I've attempted to apologise if said-user felt attacked in any way by my actions (which were in good-faith, however, they are not being seen as such. livelikemusic 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    I will take a look now, livelikemusic. Thanks for your confidence in me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    A barnstar for you!

    The Barnstar of Diplomacy
    Thanks for helping keep Misplaced Pages free of tabloid junk and remaining civil through it all! Keep it up EoRdE6 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

    I like it, thank you, EoRdE6! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

    Swanson14

    A review (my cursory review) of the infobox edits of Swanson14 shows largely edits on college degrees of famous persons, but never with an explanation. Most (but not all) of (all but the most recent of) those 'edits' were reversed, with explanations for the reversal or correction. I would thank you for doing that. Is a more comprehensive review of Swanson14's edits in order? In my opinion, some of infobox edits were or are defensible, even if they may have been stylistically less preferable to other editors. MaynardClark (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Could be they are a special kind of 'vandal', or they could have just been seeing what would happen if they intentionally introduced errors into an article. I would leave it alone for now, keep an eye on whether they continue and then take whatever action reporting-wise as necessary. Thanks for your note, MaynardClark. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Robin Williams Page Correction

    You recently removed a correction I made to the Robin Williams page since you thought it did not appear constructive. However, I differ since I think removing false information and replacing it with correct information is not only constructive but mandatory and an obligation!

    I thought I would explain in detail here why and how I made the change and perhaps you will see that all I did was make an ACCURATE correction since what was there prior was WRONG.

    Namely, the prior page (and I guess the page now that you removed my edit), says that Robin Williams has 5 Grammys. I did not know RW had even *any* Grammys so I then looked up the Misplaced Pages page for Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album and I found the EXACT and presumably accurate and definitive list of Grammy Winners there.

    First of all RW had exactly 4 not 5 Grammys and second of all the 1987 listed one (Night at the Met) is the WRONG YEAR since that album won in 1988 not 1987.

    SO all I did was to report consistent facts on the RW page as already were approved by Misplaced Pages and appear on the Misplaced Pages approved Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album page.

    Considering that I did not insert any of my own OPINIONS but only reported facts which are verified by an APPROVED Misplaced Pages page, I did not see any rationale for using Sandbox and considered a completely valid and authoritative correction to erroneous information (that RW has 5 Grammys one of which is in the wrong year) and replaced it with factually correct information (that RW has 4 Grammys in exactly correct years)

    If you agree with this rationale for reinstating my changes (and maybe resorting the entries since the year correction does suggest a resort or replacement in the list) then please let me know on my talk page

    Thank you very much for bringing up the point— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukon (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2015 Sig added as a courtesy by 220 of 03:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

    No idea who you are, because you didn't remember to sign you comments with four tildes (~). I reverted your changes because you didn't give any reason for the changes in the edit summary, nor did you add any references to support the changes. It looked like vandalism to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Dan Bilzerian

    Hi Winkelvi, I'm just curious as to why you interpreted my message to LoverofArt as bickering? The User made a contentious and potentially damaging claim in an edit summary. I also notified Admin Bbb23 about it who not only removed the Talk page posting, but also deleted the Edit summaries . --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Hi, Scalhotrod. I didn't mean to seem overly harsh, nor was I trying to butt in, but it really did look like pointless bickering and was really unnecessary on the article's talk page. And now that the comments have been removed, it appears there was more to it than what I knew when I commented. Further evidence, it would seem, that the discussion was inappropriate for the article talk page. No big deal - I wasn't seeing you as a "bad guy". It's all good. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Ah, no worries. Honestly I'm getting sick of the Bilzerian fans and haters duking it out on his article, but there are far worse things that happen on WP... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Re: User:Samsamcat

    Much obliged. —ATinySliver/ 11:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

    Leonard Nimoy adds

    I made a revision (without having logged in) that added information to the Leonary Nimoy page about popular tributes to the actor, and I see that you took it down because it was "trivial." I'm a PhD student in Folklore, and feel that popular cultural movements are just as significant for demonstrating the impact a particular figure has had on a society as are official statements from well-known individuals. In my mind, the "spocking" of five-dollar bills speaks significantl to the importance of the actor in Western culture, and I'd like to suggest that this piece of information (and its appropriate citation) be kept on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azsymkamen (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

    It's trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    What makes it "trivia"? Azsymkamen (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Surely you're familiar with what trivial things in the course of someone's life (or happenings after their death) are. You're welcome to bring up your thoughts on this at the article's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    No, I feel like you didn't address my original statement: that broad, popular phenomena surrounding an individual's death are strong indicators of that person's impact on society. This is just as meaningful as anything Barack Obama or other major figures might say. Azsymkamen (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, since you're pressing the issue, here's my straight up answer: it's stupid, trivial garbage that isn't encyclopedic and doesn't belong in the article. And, seriously, if you think it's along the same lines as something a world leader might say, you're delusional. Now, does that sufficiently answer your question? Hope so, because I'm done entertaining you here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    I have made it a point to be civil, and I get the sense the tone of this discussion has shifted... I am not as experienced a Wikipedian as you, and I genuinely don't know what makes something "trivial." Is there an explication of this label somewhere? Many elements of modern folklore are described on Misplaced Pages, both as their own articles and as points within articles. I don't understand what objective criteria exist that allow you, as apparent arbiter of the article, to decide that this point is "trivial." But certainly other documented phenomena (e.g. memorials following traumatic events, circulation of new phrases derived from a particular event, etc) are treated as significant forms of expression on here. You have not made it clear why this is any different. Azsymkamen (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

    The Signpost: 04 March 2015

    Bobbi Kristina Article Edit

    Hi, I see you reverted my edit about the upcoming interview of Nick Gordon as per Misplaced Pages:CRYSTAL. I don't think this is appropriate. WP:Crystal does not state that upcoming events may not be discussed. It states "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation"..."Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I don't want to get into an edit war with you by re-reverting my work, but it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. First, the upcoming interview is not unverifiable (I provided a reference), nor is it speculation (the interview has already been filmed, and there are pictures from it online, it just hasn't aired yet). There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will not air. The interview is notable, as it will give Gordon's side of the story of what may very well may end up being the cause of death of Ms. Brown, and again, it will almost without question air.

    WP:CRYSTAL does not simply state we cannot discuss things that haven't happened yet. It states that we cannot make predictions about things that cannot be verified. If I stated in an article that the Red Sox will win the next World Series, that would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - no-one can know that, so it is pure speculation. Discussing an already filmed interview segment is totally acceptable - Misplaced Pages is not a Crystal Ball, but it does not require one to know that this interview, which has already been filmed, will air.

    I am undoing your reversion with respect. I hope this settles the matter. I have no ill will and wish you the best; I hope the matter can be left at this. Cheers. "Yes...It's Raining" 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

    You say you don't want to get into an edit war, yet you are reverting content on something that may or may not air and saying it will is speculatory. Until it does air, it's only speculation that we will ever see it, that makes its existence trivial - to be determined. WP:CRYSTAL does apply and I will remove the content again based on that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ayayay. First of all, trivial means "of little or no importance." This interview, the first given by any family member or friend of BKB's since the incident, is hugely important to the story, as it will be the first time she is discussed, to the press, by anyone involved. Secondly, unless someone drops a bomb on CBS headquarters, this show will be airing. They have already recorded and announced it, scheduled it, and there are pictures of the interview (which took place already) on CBS's website. And yes, you are correct - I said I didn't want to go into an edit war, but I didn't say that I was unwilling to do so if necessary. This is so minor, but it's a matter of concern to me that we have such an overzealous editor who seems to understand WP:CRYSTAL so poorly. "Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball" means "we can't make predictions about what's going to happen." Predictions are guesses. This is not a guess, it's a scheduled television special. You don't need a crystal ball to know this is happening, you need a television set. I won't change the edit back again - but, for the record, I continue to think you're dead wrong, and suggest you reread WP:CRYSTAL - in particular, read point 1, which makes it very clear that it in no way corresponds to my edit. However, I'm too tired and it's too late for me to do battle. You are incorrect, but you win. Have a nice day. "Yes...It's Raining" 05:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

    Deletion

    Hi-I have some concerns about some deletions you are proposing: State and territorial legislators of the United States are considered notable;

    Both men would be considered notable since they served in their state legislatures. Please make any comments, etc. Thank youRFD (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for your note, RFD. Here's what I know: The individual who created the articles has been creating articles all over Misplaced Pages with his family members and ancestors as article subjects, practically all of which have no notability whatsoever. A number of editors over time have raised their eyebrows over the articles created by Kbabej (who is indeffed right now and has been using socks since his indef to create more articles that fail WP:GNG, by the way). He carefully puffed up the articles to make the individuals look notable, when in fact, the individuals had little to no notability at all. A careful look at the references he added in these articles show the references to either be bogus or have very little mention of the article subject and no real notability established through those references. Many of the other articles he created which were not about family members and ancestors proved to be more of the same: no real notability, and failing GNG. A perusal on my own of the articles I nominated for deletion didn't seem to meet notability guidelines. If, however, the article subjects prove to meet guidelines after all, fine. They will likely receive support in the "Keep" department. Of course, in the meantime, it would be acceptable for anyone thinking the article should not be deleted to do more research and find content and references that would lend to better establishing notability - if that's possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

    Benjamin Keough

    I've checked that you have PRODed this article. There are a few passing mentions in a few reliable sources. How about redirecting the article to Lisa Marie Presley#Personal life ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

    I think that's a good solution, OccultZone. On its own, the article will unlikely develop into more than what it is now. The notability really isn't there for a stand-alone article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
    Redirected for now. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

    WP:EGG in reference to Australian Pink Floyd Show

    Hey WV. Thanks for the help. I see you've reverted a few link activations on the basis of WP:EGG. If you don't mind, it would be great to hear from you what makes this situation applicable to WP:EGG. That would help for future reference, since I don't believe the MOS' explanation is particularly clear. Is it because the article being linked to is a tribute band? Do you feel the subjects are not related enough to justify the links? Just a brief explanation for the sake of clarification will be fine. I see the bit about intuitiveness, and I think it's intuitive enough. These musicians were brought in to give the album more of a Pink Floyd sound. Maybe that should be stated in the article?

    From WP:EGG: Intuitiveness. Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense. . . The readers will not see the hidden reference to the parton model unless they click on or hover over the piped particle physics link; in hard copy, the reference to partons is completely lost. (Such links are sometimes called "Easter egg links" or "submarine links".)

    Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I think the policy is clear: don't hide a link inside another so when the reader clicks on the inter-link, they end up somewhere other than where they thought they were going. "The readers will not see the hidden reference to the unless they click on or hover over the piped particle physics link; in hard copy, the reference to is completely lost. (Such links are sometimes called "Easter egg links" or "submarine links".) Instead, reference the article with an explicit "see also"..." -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. Does that apply to this situation? I definitely see where the WP:EGG policy can be helpful. The three subjects, Emily Lynn, Lara Smiles, and Lorelei McBroom are known as members of Australian Pink Floyd Show. If someone wants to find out more about these three artists, their best option is to be sent to the article whose subject they are most associated with. I feel that's fairly intuitive, and I don't think anyone who clicks there will be confused. Their response might be "oh, so this person is from this band." It's the only thing these people are associated with. What are your thoughts? I could alternatively link Lorelei McBroom to the article for her sister, Durga McBroom or Pink Floyd live backing musicians; I would agree the latter (and even the former) would apply to WP:EGG, so I don't think those are really options. She is most known for Australian Pink Floyd Show, where she has been a member for four years (all three subjects in question have been members for four years). Would it be more advisable to link to Australian_Pink_Floyd_Show#Band_members instead? Your thoughts would be appreciated. Vuzor (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

    correcting Port Gamble entry

    Hi Winkelvi,

    I just tried to correct the frequently-cited fallacy that the Battle of Port Gamble's lone Sailor death was the first in the Pacific, and correct the name of the ship's captain to "Swartwout" rather than "Swartout."

    J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for your comments here, J. Overton. The name is spelled variously as Swartout, Swarthout, and Swartwout in history books. I imagine it's a case of the one was chosen because it was used the most at the time the article was written. In regard to the other issue, you removed content that was supported by references, replacing it with content that was not supported by references. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability. If content is verifiable and referenced by reliable, secondary, and non-biased sources, that's what we strive to include and keep in Misplaced Pages articles. What you did was take out that type of content and added something that appeared to be of your own knowledge (what we call original research). Hope you understand why the content you added was immediately removed. If you are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines regarding editing, references, and the like, I recommend you take a look at the various Misplaced Pages articles available to help you better contribute and edit Misplaced Pages. A start would be here: Intro to editing Misplaced Pages. Cheers,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


    Hi Winklevi,
    The name is spelled "Swartwout" in the ship's log ... I can send you a copy if it helps. The Naval History and Heritage Command's casualty list, which I referenced to refute the "first casualty" reference, is usually considered verifiable (although it gets the date of death wrong, it shows many, many other U.S. sailors died in Pacific long before November, 1856. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ship's log would be primary referencing as well as fall under original research, J. Overton. Further, just because you or I can look at the log that doesn't make the name spelling verifiable according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If the various sources spell the name Swartout (or Swarthout or Swartwout), then that is the spelling to be used. I understand your frustration, but do encourage you to read WP:VERIFY for a better understanding. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    Just trying to make this entry actually factual. Do you consider the Naval History and Heritage Command's web site to also be original research> — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    The website appears to be fine as a reliable source. One more thing: could you please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~)? So far, it's been done for you by a Misplaced Pages bot, but it would be better if you do it yourself. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

    The Signpost: 11 March 2015

    Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

    Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: ). Thank you. EoRdE6 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

    March 2015

    Stop icon with clock
    You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three revert rule on Taylor Swift. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Swarm... 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

    Reference Errors on 14 March

    Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

    Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    Getsic

    I agree about possible COI, but there is likely some claim to notability. Quis separabit? 03:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    I removed the fact tag because I noticed when I was leaving you the previous reply that you had a reference error and the only thing I could see in the diff was the fact tag, so ...

    As far as her father goes, you're right. I noticed that he had a link to his own article but I never got around to checking it out. I doubt he would pass notability, but anything of note could be added to daughter's article provided validly sourced. I am going to check out the Ed Getsic AFD now. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    Consensus majority voting?

    I saw this phrase in an edit summary you recently did on the article for Taylor Swift, and frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me.

    Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. We don't reach consensus by "majority vote." We reach consensus by discussion and building agreement, not by taking a headcount of who already agrees. That's the idea, anyway. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    I have no idea what edit summary you are referring to, Jsharpminor. Please be specific. And, I know Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy. Whatever I said, it was probably just not well thought out. Edit summaries can't be edited, after all. Do you have anything positive or helpful to add or just negative criticism? Because, frankly, I'm sick of seeing negative bullshit on Misplaced Pages tonight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    User talk:Winkelvi Add topic