User talk:Darkwind/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Quote tags. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

Huggle message

Hey Darkwind! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

February 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors February 2015 Newsletter

Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 38 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We were able to remove August 2013 from the general copyediting backlog and November 2014 from the request-page backlog. Many thanks, everyone!

Blitz: The February Blitz will run from February 15–21 and again focuses on the requests page. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one request article. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2015 Newsletter

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 21 people who signed up, eight copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: The blitz removed 16 articles from the requests list, and we're almost done with December 2014. Many thanks, everyone!

Drive: The month-long March drive begins in about a week. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

PLEASE HELP ME RESOLVE COPYRIGHT ISSUES!!!

I hereby affirm that I, StudioM NYC, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of minakoyoshino.com. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Minako Yoshino Content Creator and Copyright Owner of StudioM NYC and of minakoyoshino.com content. Wednesday, March 18, 2015

(Redacted) 24.168.72.32 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

April 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2015 Newsletter

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 19–25. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in December 2013, January and February 2014 and all request articles, begins soon. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Last Mr Bigg Diamond Eye

Could you Undelete The Last Mr Bigg Article you deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

Allen Christopher

Ryan. I am contesting the speedy deletion of the page Allen Christopher. The bio on imdb.com is mine. I expanded it a bit for Wikipedia. I was citing reference sources such as youtube videos, newspaper articles, radio interviews etc. when it was deleted. How do I go about getting it posted. Thanks for your assistance. Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeright (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Allen. Thanks for contacting me to discuss this article. Given that you signed your message here with the name Allen, I'm assuming you are the Allen Christopher who is also the subject of the intended article. If that's the case, the basic advice that the Wikipedia community gives to contributors is please don't write an article about yourself at all. (Please click that link and read our advice page about autobiographical articles, especially sections 1 and 4.) —Darkwind (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

T-Pain Im in luv with a stripper

the date released does not match the T-pain album singles chronology. It says is was released in 2012 but the singles chronlogy says 2005. 108.99.250.231 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The Shameless

I didn't add incorrect information to the article. I added another reference, which is an interview about the movie with lead actress Jeon Do-yeon. [1] 203.215.116.169 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

About Jill Duggar

Dear Darkwind,

Recently you reverted an edit and identified it as vandalism on the Jill Duggar page. I mentioned that she got fondled by Josh and you deleted it. Google it! Real talk!

Today, however, an article has come out that her and Jessa admitted to having been fondled by Josh.

I want you to apologize for reverting my edits and marking me as a vandal.


2602:301:7744:61C0:4870:EF52:8687:5E08 (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)xwestsidex

To add material to Wikipedia, several things are necessary. One of the important ones is use of an encyclopedic writing style or tone. The reason your edit was determined to be vandalism is that you did not even try to use an encyclopedic tone. You used an inappropriate metaphor and came off as having a ridiculing tone, which is vandalism. I stand by that determination. Just because you might be writing about an actual event or true fact doesn't mean that you can write whatever you want about it in whatever tone you want. —Darkwind (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Dome / peaseandqueues

Thanks Darkwind. I find myself very confused by instructions here, in Wiki, and tried to follow them but still messed up. I'd like the dome article to be corrected but probably can't be trusted on a second attempt either. I tried to get info to let me pass the text to someone else who could make sure the changes would be correct, but failed in that also. Absolutely not being a vandal but just incompetent. 50.92.122.6 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons that your edit came across as inappropriate and/or vandalism. One of them is that you didn't provide a reference/citation beyond a YouTube video, which is not a reliable source. If you believe the information you added is correct, you will need to cite a reliable source when adding the material. If you have questions about finding reliable sources or how to write in an encyclopedic tone, try visiting the Teahouse where you can ask questions and receive help in a friendly manner. —Darkwind (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Darkwind. I wonder if you would mind blocking IP address 175.143.233.179 - the account is only being used for vandalism and they keep removing themselves from WP:AIV. Thanks. 59.167.86.120 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. 59.167.86.120 (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Userfication request

Per your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firepool, I am interested in creating an article titled Nkandla compound firepool controversy. Requesting userfication of Firepool to User:Northamerica1000/Firepool, where I can perform the changes. North America1000 05:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Done. As with all userfied articles, if you use any of the existing text, please remember to move the completed article into place instead of copying-and-pasting to preserve the attribution/edit history. —Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes, will perform the move page function when it's completed (I'm already aware of this, but thanks for the advice, in the event that I was not). North America1000 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian company ban

I see that you have archived the discussion and banned Judae1, but I don't see a closure statement on the archived discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: My block of Judae1 (t c) came from the Checkuser evidence provided on the SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive#24 May 2015, where I left a statement at the bottom that I performed the blocks in accordance with the evidence presented above. I did not participate in, or close, any other discussion involving this/these users. Can you point me to the discussion you're referring to? —Darkwind (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Ban_on_Ronn_Torossian_to_be_extended_to_his_company.3F --Ravpapa (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ravpapa: Yeah, I was not aware of the existence of that discussion at the time I closed the SPI and blocked the users listed on the SPI page. I was not intending to perform an actual ban per se, but the obvious sockpuppetry (confirmed via CheckUser) was a clear policy violation, so I issued the blocks against those accounts in accordance with WP:SOCK. I had nothing to do with the discussion being archived; I think that was just because it had been a certain amount of time since someone had commented. —Darkwind (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sorry for the confusion. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ollie Forsyth

Thanks for deleting the article. Given that it was his 5th version, 3 at Ollie Forsyth and 2 at Ollie forsyth could you WP:SALT the titles please? Bazj (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done —Darkwind (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

ip

User talk:50.82.14.181 -- can you remove their talk page access for a little while? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jeraphine Gryphon: Thing is, it's OK for them to blank their talk page, see WP:BLANKING. The only inappropriate thing they did was the "break your fingers off" implausible threat via edit summary, which I've deleted from the page history. —Darkwind (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought removing active block notices wasn't allowed. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jeraphine Gryphon: *points at WP:BLANKING again* "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." is probably what you were thinking of. —Darkwind (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: Block notices aren't particularly important because the system displays "blocked" in several places already, like at the top of their contribs page, and it's also logged in the block log. —Darkwind (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck

Why did you fully protect the page rather than semi protecting it? The issues between us experienced editors have been sorted out, by and large, and it's just IPs and brand-new accounts (or long-dormant-but-not-autoconfirmed-accounts) ignoring this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Unless I'm interpreting the situation completely wrong, this is a content dispute and not pure vandalism. Semi-protection is inappropriate for any content dispute where any of the editors involved are autoconfirmed. See WP:SEMI, "Guidance for administrators". Put another way, semi-protection would imply that you and the other registered editors are "right", and the anonymous/new editors are "wrong", and until/unless there's an official policy on the matter, that's not a statement I am willing to make. —Darkwind (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, when you put it that way, I can at least understand your position. I don't really agree with the action you took, but I understand it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Ann Holt

Thank you for closing this. Could you move the history of Natalie Holt to Natalie Ann Holt? It makes sense to keep all the article history together. Thank you.--Launchballer 15:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Performing a history merge is an annoying and tedious process, and is usually only required when text has been moved via copy/paste instead of the normal page move function. In this particular case, since the text of the two versions of the article have nothing to do with each other (that is, the newer article was created from scratch, not from the old text), there is no pressing need to have the history of the redirect merged with the history of the new article. In fact, it may make determining attribution for RaVen Quartet harder to understand if they get merged. —Darkwind (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about vandalism and anonymous editors

In response to your warning about my engaging in repeated reversion, and specifically your criticism of my comment about vandalism on the Samuel Johnson page: If you scan the Johnson history and talk page, you will find that I have in fact already done the things you asked. The inclusion of "United Kingdom" has been debated and discussed at length on the talk page and reasonable consensus was reached. An anonymous vandal insists on returning to change it again and again for no reason. The same is happening on the Burl Ives page, a vandal keeps changing oral cancer to mouth cancer despite valid reasons given against it. Someone has to clean up these frivolous and ill-intentioned changes that only cause harm, and do not have improvement of the article as a goal. Any edit that cannot be defended on the grounds that it improves the clarity and readability of the article must not be allowed to stand. You also ask that I engage in discussion and compromise with other editors, but this 97.104.13.41 on Burl Ives's page will not even attempt to justify his actions, proving his standing as an anonymous, malicious charlatan. How, then, is a conscientious editor, who cares about his subject, supposed to defend a page against such mindless meddling? I don't claim "article ownership," I merely stand alone in a desperate attempt at "article protection," which, given the restrictions you impose, is difficult if not impossible.

PS: Real editors should always overrule anonymous time-wasters playing with their cell phones. SamJohn2013 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try to address this by individual points, and I'm going to aim for being clear without being condescending, so this is going to get long.
First, the warning about edit warring, specifically the part not in italics, is from a template message designed to alert users who may or may not be aware of the rules about edit warring. It contains advice on how to avoid or resolve an edit war situation that may or may not be appropriate for every single article and situation, but the point of the warning is to tell you that your behavior is unacceptable to the Wikipedia community.
You reverted an editor three times because you didn't like their wording. That is not acceptable. Period. There are very few exceptions when multiple reverts are OK. The big one is if you are reverting pure vandalism, meaning, those things which are listed in the "Types of vandalism" section of that link. Someone changing "oral cancer" to "mouth cancer" IS NOT VANDALISM. The other exceptions are listed at WP:3RRNO, and the edits you reverted did not fall under any of those exceptions either. Therefore, your reversions were edit warring. Period.
It does not matter if you think you're "right", because the other editor thinks they're "right" too. It doesn't matter if you have one reason or ten reasons why you don't like their edit. Repeatedly undoing someone else's changes, or repeatedly inserting your preferred version of material, is not acceptable. At all.
Calling another editor's changes "frivolous and ill-intentioned" or "mindless meddling" is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith, which is one of the fundamental principles that maintain the health of the Wikipedia community. Along the same lines, referring to "article protection" in the sense of defending an article from changes you don't like, is further evidence of your apparent failure to grasp the inherent principle that makes Wikipedia work — it is collaboratively edited by a wide variety of people from all walks of life, countries, races, genders, etc. Some of these people are going to have ideas about how to improve articles that differ from your own opinions. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the sole defender of an article, protecting it against changes they don't like. Credit to WP:OWN for some of that wording.
If someone makes a change to an article and you don't agree, then feel free to edit their wording if possible, or revert if necessary — once. Ideally, they will respond by discussing the changes with you on the article talk page or on your talk page. This is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, if they instead re-insert the change you don't like, DO NOT revert them again. It's that easy. You start the discussion with them if needed. Put a message on their talk page and on the article talk page, or something, but don't just keep reverting them.
Failure of another editor to discuss changes with you, 1) does not prove that they are a "malicious charlatan", and 2) does not make your reverting any more correct than theirs is. It just means your continuous reversions are a demonstration of you stooping to their level. Be the bigger person and start a discussion yourself instead next time. —Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and finally, IP editors are just as "real" as you are. Really, take a few minutes to read that page and reconsider your attitude toward IP editors. Also, because I forgot to in my first reply to you, ping: @SamJohn2013:. —Darkwind (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for the explanation, and I now have a much better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. I will take these factors into account if ever I do any more work on here. But here are the facts: No edit that I have ever done done in my life has been affected by what I like or dislike. My only concern is what is correct or incorrect according to the highest standards of written English. There is no such thing as "more correct" or "less correct" as you claim. There is right and wrong, especially in this case. I state now and for the record that the Burl Ives "mouth cancer" change was pure vandalism, even by Wikipedia standards, because any search for it links to the "oral cancer" page. The vandal's ONLY motivation is to cause annoyance, there is no good intent whatsoever in his actions. And as for your supposed good intentions, you only contradict the Wikipedia "community" paradigm. Much like our society today, no one here has any real authority, except for a hidden elite like you who are able to dictate and make arbitrary judgments according to obscure rules and confusing procedures, being held accountable to no one. It is you who commit the very offences of which you falsely accuse me. Meanwhile decay and destruction continue, and honest people who really do practice good faith are insulted and punished because of it.

A public restroom indeed. SamJohn2013 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SamJohn2013: Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. The fact remains that you are not the arbiter of what is "right" and "wrong" with the English language. Neither am I! There is, in fact, a whole debate about whether "right" vs. "wrong" English even exists. See English usage controversies and Linguistic prescription, for example. There are also variations in the use of the English language among countries; do you also propose to change those articles using another country's conventions to match your selected version of the language? Anyway, you are already aware that other people have different ideas about the correct usage of English on Wikipedia, for example from your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2#Present tense from 2 years ago.
In the particular case of the Burl Ives article, perhaps maybe the IP editor simply thought "mouth cancer" was easier to understand? If there's a redirect to the correct article (which there is in this case), no harm is done with that change, except for the fact that it reads differently. "Mouth cancer" is not "bad" or "wrong" English, and the link would lead to the same article. However, your failure to assume good faith keeps you from even admitting this reading of events as a possibility, and thus predisposes you to think ill of the IP editor.
Furthermore, I will just point out that I am not the only editor to have raised concerns about your tone and/or behavior, which I can tell from reading your talk page history. If you try to assume good faith a little more, and "right [the] great wrongs" of the English language a little less, perhaps people won't have as much cause to call you names in the future. Just a suggestion; history certainly shows that editors like yourself with negative attitudes either "get it" and reform said attitude, or they don't — and end up leaving the project or becoming the subject of an ArbCom case. Either way, I'll be shot of you. Good day. —Darkwind (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Angel Haze

I was just wondering why my edits were deleted? They/them is not the proper way to refer to a single person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilnims (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gilnims: I already left a message on your own talk page about this, but I'll repeat it here: it is not up to you to determine "improper pronoun usage". If a person prefers to be referred to by a particular set of pronouns, current Wikipedia guidelines are to respect that usage in the article about that person. Changing the pronouns, especially to something like "it" which is generally considered offensive when applied to a person, is ignorant at best and malicious at worst. Please stop. —Darkwind (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So ascribing to the rules of the English language is not Wikipedias policy, but content added to the site, per your comment on the Jill Duggar story, must be written in an encyclopedic manner? You sound like you're on a power trip. Furthermore, for someone who doesn't want to be identified by a gender, it is the only proper word to use when referring to it by itself. They/them is used to refer to a group of people, meaning two or more. Gilnims (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gilnims:I'm sorry if I am coming across like these are my rules I'm making up or trying to arbitrarily enforce. They're not; pronoun usage in regard to an individual's identity is covered by this guideline, while encyclopedic tone is covered here.
Also, you're kind of missing the point. The entire point of the identity/pronoun guideline is to allow an individual to express themselves (including their gender identity) in a manner of their own choosing. It is not your job as a Wikipedia editor to say "but that's not right". Here's a hypothetical: let's say someone's chosen pronouns are ze/hir/hirs. Would you revert those pronouns out of an article because they're not "real words"? If so, then you're on the wrong side of the guideline, and thus, people would be likely to revert you.
Either way, intentionally using a pronoun not chosen by an individual, especially one with non-person connotations like "it", is offensive on its own, even if it weren't against Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Please just don't do it. Also, if you're replying to a person's commentary on a talk page like this one, please insert your comment directly below theirs so that everyone can follow the conversation easily. Thanks. —Darkwind (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gal lilos

Hi Darkwind. I just noticed that you responded to this EWN report at the same time as I did. My internet has been pretty slow tonight, so it looks like we've overlapped here: you responded with no violation while I was blocking the editor for 24 hours. I chose to block the editor because there were strictly 2 reverts in 24 hours and, although the first was reverting a change from a while back, the tendentious nature of the edit (changing the Palestinian flag for the Israeli one), combined with some of the edit summaries ("there is no palestin") and talk page comments suggested an intention to edit war and disrupt the article rather than work collaboratively. Hence I felt a 24 hour block was necessary to prevent further disruption. However, I recognise that your response is an equally valid one and am happy to discuss this with you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@ItsZippy: I have no strong preference here. I tend to try to avoid blocking new-ish editors who may be genuinely confused/ignorant of policy, but you're absolutely right that the evidence indicates an editor likely to engage in very tendentious editing if given free reign. I do not object to the block, but how do you want to handle the ANEW report? —Darkwind (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Darkwind, thanks for your reply. I would tend to agree with you regarding new editors, but I do this in this case the evidence suggests a block might be the best way to prevent disruption here. With regards to the ANEW report, I suggest that it reflects the final outcome, with some mention of what happened here, for the sake of clarity. If you are happy to keep the block in place, striking the no violation template and adding a block template to the report should suffice. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for blocking that persnickety IP. Much appreciated! :) -Pax85 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Arif.hasam1408

I do not think this block is warranted. Once made aware of the copyright issue, the user removed the content, and the misguided patroller kept restoring it and incorrectly warning the user (though perhaps they just wanted to restore the CSD tag). It is quite possible Arif.hasam1408 was trying to do the right thing, and from their first article you can see how they attempted to include proper referencing, further supporting the theory that they are WP:HERE. Please consider an unblock, and also respecting my decision to decline at AIV. — MusikAnimal talk 16:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I probably did not check this one as thoroughly as I should have. I saw the edit warring in the deleted contribs and assumed it was warring over the CSD tag, which it was not; Serols (t c) while using HG similarly did not take the time to examine why the user was removing content and jumped to the conclusion it was vandalism. While I was well aware that the user in question is not vandalizing, I had assumed the edit warring on the article indicated a likelihood to continue disrupting in the short-term. Having re-reviewed the situation, I agree that a block probably isn't necessary. For the record, I did not see your decline at AIV. It is quite likely you posted it while I was investigating the same user. —Darkwind (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:OnceARed

While respecting your decision, I'd like to point out that his last re-creation of MDS (Martin Dawes Systems) was again a copy from wikisperience.com. I didn't see that 'til after I'd already tagged it G11. If repeated copyvio isn't vandalism...? Bazj (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: First, repeated copyright violation, while disruptive, is indeed not vandalism (see the second entry at that link). Secondly, copying from wikisperience.com is not precisely a copyvio, because they release their content under GFDL. The only reason it's even partially a copyvio is because he didn't properly attribute the copying — a link directly to the article in question on the outside wiki (or its history page) is required. All of that being said, it's fairly clear this company isn't sufficiently notable for an article at this time, so I am going to SALT the title for 3 months. —Darkwind (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User M.srihari

I see you blocked the editor for exceeding 3RR on the supercarrier page, but were you aware that at the same time he exceeded 3RR at Vikrant-class aircraft carrier as well? Not sure if it makes any difference, just thought you should know. - Nick Thorne talk 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: Yeah, I was aware of that. Either way, though, duration of blocks for edit warring is largely based on previous block history, and to a lesser extent how long the user might be a risk of further disruption; not so much "how many times did they break the rules". —Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't angling for a change in the block length, just advising in case you hadn't seen it. - Nick Thorne talk 02:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

User:Culebra spider

Hi. Please could you revisit User:Culebra spider & Culebra (automobile). Thanks. 180.183.7.233 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to Khestwol

I'm not sure what IP he's having trouble with, but I accidentally ran into another set of IPs that are apparently wikistalking him when trying to figure out who has been vandalising a page.

  • 197.212.41.187
  • 197.213.129.178
  • 197.212.158.234
  • 197.212.224.21
  • 197.213.29.0

and probably others are, over time, generally causing minor but annoying vandalism but I noticed they overlap in interests and even refer to themselves as a single entity such as in 197.213.29.0's first edit, which has the wiki summary (Undid revision 666866825 by Khestwol (talk) (Those were unsourced edits made by Thomas W. before me in the row that I reverted. Read the content he edited article to. It's bogus.). I found them because they've been introducing deliberate errors onto the page Bactria since March of this year at least, which I believe started here.

I'm not sure what to do with this hot mess I've stepped in. Can you let me know? Ogress smash! 05:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: After examining the contributions from this IP range, 197.212.0.0/15 (which for practical purposes 197.212.0.0/16 and 197.213.0.0/16), I've soft-blocked the range for 48 hours for disruptively IP hopping, which they've done on at least Gondophares and Bactria in the past 2 days. That really ought to get rid of most of the problem, at least for now. Normally I wouldn't block such a large set of IPs, but after looking at the contribs there's little chance of collateral damage. Let me know if the problems resume.
In general for this sort of thing, there are several noticeboards that might apply depending on the scope of the problem. For a long term pattern of abuse, you could open a report at WP:LTA. If you can tie the edits to a specific registered user (i.e. socking), you can open or extend a case at WP:SPI. For edits that contain very obvious vandalism and not just edit warring, you can post at WP:AIV. —Darkwind (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The user is now editing at 41.77.2.111 ... le sigh

CoolJunk / LataKumari

Why don't I...? Because I think it IS an advert (and so did 2 admins and another nominator before me [2][3]) but mostly because I'm not here to do somebody's advertising for them. The fact that a puppet turned up to contest the speedy only confirms my suspicions as to his/her motive. Bazj (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 June 3#File:Uberstudent-1.0-education-menu.jpg

Could you explain your closure here? You are claiming that the software is freely licensed, but I see no software licences on the file information page. The vast majority of all free licences require you to refer to the free licence in some way: by name, by linking to it, by providing a copy of the licence or in some other way. How does the file on Wikipedia comply with this licensing requirement? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thanks for pointing that out. GNOME is GPL and I've indicated as such on the file page. As for the UberStudent portion of the software, they released the screenshot specifically under CC-BY-SA-3.0, and since they would also be the owners of the rights to their software components, that takes precedence over any more limiting license on the software itself.

Also, what does the closure of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 June 2#File:FWIII (1).jpg have to do with the discussion? The user who listed the file wrote 'Painting might be PD' and 'might' means that the copyright status of the painting (i.e. the age of the painting) is unknown. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons attributes it to the 19th century, and I really doubt it's plausible to assume that a contemporary painting of a 19th century figure is under copyright even in a country with PMA+100. (will finish momentarily) —Darkwind (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry about that, am editing from a time-limited public computer today) However, since the file here is an orphaned smaller version of the commons file anyway, I've deleted our version under F8. —Darkwind (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know that the picture was on Commons. That sorts out the copyright status of the painting. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion removed

Actually, I'm allowed to remove anything I want from my own talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Happysaddy

Hi Darkwind, just an FYI that you blocked Happysaddy yesterday, and I'm fairly certain he's operating as Mrsunnyside. I've got an SPI report cooking, but it's pretty ducky. I got three notifications today that he reverted my reversions of Happysaddy's unsourced content. Happy whacking. If you do choose to smite that account, you might also consider a mass rollback. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked indefinitely. —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi Darkwind. This is User:ITfan1990 signed out and I disagree with your decision to block after my recent contributions. It's unfortunate that you believe I'm not here to contribute, but I'm still upset because the album Acid Rap currently violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#General guidelines if its title is not disambiguated with "(album)". According to Wikipedia's general guidelines, the article should only reside at the normal name (i.e. Acid Rap) "when there is no other encyclopedic use of the album title".

Otherwise, when necessary (as in this case), "disambiguation should be done using "(band)", "(album)", or "(song)"". Because Acid Rap is an album here on the encyclopedia but also a genre of music here on the encyclopedia, there is in fact one other encyclopedic use of the album title, making it necessary to disambiguate Acid Rap using "(album)" (i.e. Acid Rap (album), according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#General guidelines.

A complex histmerge should be an appropriate way, following discussion, to request an administrator's help with this correct move. I am asking you to stop ignoring the Wikipedia naming conventions and style guidelines I have cited, and I also wish not to be blocked over this policy dispute. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.56.179 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

IP blocked for evasion and yet more disruption. --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@ITfan1990: You were not blocked for your viewpoint on the page name dispute, you were blocked because you disrupted the project by move warring. You are further ignoring Wikipedia policy (and disrupting the project again) by evading your block instead of making your case in an unblock template or UTRS request. What you are doing is focusing on a guideline to the exclusion of all of our other guiding policy like no edit warring and be civil, and that is why I said you are not contributing in a positive manner. Please do not reply further here, as you are only going to weaken your case. If you believe that my block was in error, make your case on your own talk page in an {{unblock}} template, or file a UTRS request, and an uninvolved admin can look it over. —Darkwind (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Factchecker_atyourservice

Yes, this is still edit warring. Any purported motives for filing this report aside, I am not going to privilege one side in this content dispute by selectively blocking the editor who's done the most reverts, and I am also not going to block all of you.

Hi. Are you aware that User:Factchecker_atyourservice just came off a one week block for edit warring given to him by User:GB fan on June 9,[4] for feuding in the same article?[5] Don't you think a block is called for here? Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: No, I don't, not if we have any hope of retaining the pretense that blocks are not punitive. If the true purpose of blocking a given editor is to prevent disruption, which I believe it is, then it wasn't necessary in this case. Factchecker_atyourservice (t c) last edited that article yesterday morning at 4:27 AM PDT, and I closed the ANEW report yesterday at 2:32 PM PDT. He hadn't edited the article in 10 hours at that point, and wasn't showing signs of misbehavior elsewhere.
All that a block would have done (that protecting the page didn't do) is make him more upset and less likely to listen to reason in discussing the dispute — and disenfranchise him from the discussion in the process. There's poor behavior in spades on this article, why single him out? Protecting the page accomplished the goal of ending the disruption of this article, with no collateral damage. —Darkwind (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's see: 1) a one week block for edit warring expires and the user immediately returns to the scene of the crime to start telling two other editors why they are wrong 2) the user then begins edit warring against those two editors in the article 3) a block in this case would not be punitive, it would both a) prevent imminent disruption, and b) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior. Pretty simple, really. Your argument against blocking hinges on an admin being 1) late to block and 2) the user not being active up until the time the admin reviews the report, and 3) the user not editing anywhere else disruptively. There are two things wrong with this rationale: a) there are any number of time zones, and a delay of approximately 12 hours between the time a blocking admin reviews a report and acts on it is not at all uncommon. 2) the user has not been editing disruptively elsewhere because they have been absolutely obsessed with this one topic and article, to the detriment of constructive work elsewhere. With that revised rationale, it becomes apparent, IMO, that a block was not just necessary, but required. You obviously disagree. Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"Crime scene" is such loaded language. All that ever happened was reverting of deletion of material that was not only valid in every respect but also extensively caveated to identify the source and specifically attribute the opinions to it, sometimes multiple times in the same sentence by insertion of "according to [source]" in a sentence that was already explicitly attributed. I even added an unsourced designation of the WSJ's partisan alignment (as if anyone could fail to guess it)— even though I don't think that's supported by policy I find it is usually a dispute-ender. Anyway this kind of material is simply innocuous coming from a major newspaper. People are perfectly capable of applying their own prejudices and don't need us to do it for them.
Also, it rings a bit hollow to criticize me (and demand further blocking) for paying too much attention to this article when the unsupported deletion of the other editors was the reason for the extra attention. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer me this, then, @Viriditas: has any disruptive activity occurred since the time you believe I should have blocked him instead of protecting the page? (21:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)) If yes, please provide diffs. If you can do so, I would be happy to both apologize and revise my decision. If not, then that just proves my point — a block would have been purely punitive in nature.

To address your points 3a and 3b, protecting the page provided both of those benefits, without preventing the editor in question from participating in the discussion about the article.

Further, I will point out that my decisions as an admin are influenced all the time by whether disruption has stopped and how long it has been since said disruption has ended, among many other factors. This is why there are response templates like Stale report. User has not edited in X hours. etc. —Darkwind (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Please feel free not to respond if you don't wish to continue this conversation. I'm not trying to be argumentative here.

Is there any way to appeal a denied RPP?

An edit war at Rohingya people was going on between a user and some IPs. I filed an edit war thing, and the admins blocked the registered user... and that's it. It's now like a battlefront down there, and so I went to TWINKLE to file for RPP temp/part ... and a request was already up on the Admin page and had been declined because the filing party was edit warring. Anyway, is there any way to appeal? I added this but I don't know that anyone is going to read it before it gets bot-filed because it was already declined. my comment. Ogress smash! 06:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, one would try to communicate directly with the admin who declined the request. This is going by the same logic where procedure requires asking the same admin to unprotect a page. If they are not available, and it's a particularly disruptive situation, or the situation has evolved considerably, you can ask any admin to re-review. I'm looking at it now and it looks a hot mess. —Darkwind (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: I've blocked 58.106.254.122 for violating 3RR, and warned 203.81.69.86 about edit warring (they're on their third revert now). As far as I can tell, those two IPs are the only ones who have made multiple reverts in the past 24h. Maybe that will help (and it doesn't require me to "overrule" another admin). —Darkwind (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because it was a hot mess I tried the admin, who I think is asleep, then I added that comment. I just wasn't sure if there was a procedure - of course I don't want you to cross another admin. By the way, at least one of those IPs is that Za-something-something, and the other one might be Markus, who was blocked earlier today. I don't even know what is going on there, I just saw it because it's on my watchlist because I wikignomed it a while ago. It's a hot mess for sure. Thanks for replying. Ogress smash! 06:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Some more bans might be in order. I reverted it to where it was before (my first revert!) and said to take it to talk. Ogress smash! 08:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: Yeah at this point, it just needs to be protected. However, since it involves at least one autoconfirmed editor, it has to be full protection - 4 days. —Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Lord, I don't care, I'm not in the middle of this argument. That seems like a great idea. NO EDITS FOR YOU! NO EDITS FOR YOU! EVERYBODY GETS NO EDITS!!!!! Ogress smash! 08:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone needs to make an Oprah GIF with that... —Darkwind (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Create album

The album Aman az Eshgh has many notable because you've deleted.--5.232.36.24 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that sentence doesn't make any sense. If you are asking why I deleted the page, it's because the article did not say why the album was significant or notable. We don't have an article on every musical album ever made -- especially for artists who don't even have an article yet. —Darkwind (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
He is in Farsi article--5.232.36.24 (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If he is notable enough to have an article on the Farsi Wikipedia, then he would probably meet our guidelines too. The place to start is to create an article for the artist first. You could do so by translating the Farsi article, but don't forget to include reliable sources, because every biography of a living person on the English Wikipedia needs to have sources right away, or it will be deleted. —Darkwind (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Using PP templates in templates

Re. Special:Diff/667900714 - yes, you can't have anything before a wikitable on the same line, but it wouldn't have affected any of the template's transclusions. Also, you don't need to use {{Pp-template}} with templates which have got documentation; {{Documentation}} has got the padlock icon functionality built in. Thanks for reducing the protection level. Alakzi (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocking an IP

Hi Darkwind. You've declined my ANV request twice in the past week for an IP that is adding unsourced material to Marvel Cinematic Universe related pages. I just wanted to let you know that the IP is still performing these edits (IP 75.136.218.176) and has started using a second IP to perform the same edits (IP 72.64.182.144). I would greatly appreciate your assistance in dealing with this IP user. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: You need to write up a report at ANI or another appropriate noticeboard for this situation if you believe the user is editing disruptively enough to be blocked. These edits are nowhere nearly obvious enough vandalism for me to be able to justify a block without some kind of discussion or evidence. Judging from what I can see, this editor doesn't seem to want to harm the encyclopedia, he just doesn't seem to understand policies like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. —Darkwind (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Surface Images

You have absolutely no right to delete my images which do not contain any copyrighted material and are completely my work. Ians18 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ians18: Okay. First of all, if you come to my talk page and start out with telling me what I do and do not have the right to do, you're already starting out on a fast track to me ignoring you completely. Secondly, while you may have indeed taken the pictures, each one I deleted contained a large view of a possibly copyrighted image or item.
File:SurfaceTablet.jpg contained a copyrighted background image from Microsoft that, by your own admission, came from Microsoft's website. Just because it's free of charge doesn't mean it's freely licensed. As for File:SurfaceHero.jpg, while it may sound absurd at first reading, the teddy bear is likely copyrighted, especially because it features a pro sports jersey. See COM:TOYS on Commons for an explanation.
If you wish to try recreating either or both of these images, try using one or two of the thousands of truly free images featured on Commons. —Darkwind (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fawzisaba1

I duly and correctly reported Fawzisaba1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. According to WP:VOA, "Vandalism-only accounts are usually blocked indefinitely, sometimes without warning." I therefore was within my rights to report immediately, which I felt was necessary based on the egregious nature of the content added and the misleading edit summaries. The warning was a courtesy to future patrollers. Elizium23 (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You are "within [your] rights" to report anyone to any page you so choose, for any reason whatsoever, and I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise. Similarly, a patrolling admin is within their rights to decline your report if they determine it does not meet the noticeboard guidelines or other Wikipedia guidelines, or if they determine no action is necessary. My "please don't" was intended to convey that I felt you were ignoring the spirit of, if not the letter of, WP:BITE and WP:AGF by leaving a message for a user but giving them no chance to read it, respond, or change their behavior before proposing that they be blocked indefinitely.
Regarding this specific case: two edits does not a vandalism-only account make. New editors often start with an edit that might be described as vandalism or testing. The user's second edit simply removed content; again a possible test or a screwed-up edit that was intended to be helpful. You jumped to assume bad faith after only two edits and one warning the user hadn't even had a chance to read (I don't consider ClueBot's level 1 message a "warning" because it doesn't say or imply the user did something wrong). As a project, we cannot afford to slam the door in the face of editors who may become useful contributors, unless/until bad faith is clearly demonstrated. Given the content of this user's edits, I don't feel that threshold was met. —Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right, I was wrong, and I am sorry. I owe an apology to this user if he ever returns. Elizium23 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Pings

Unless I am mistaken, if you just add the {{ping}} template without signing, no ping is sent. Just making a note as I saw you did this on AIV just then. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the timestamp and re-signed... —Darkwind (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Oh, I see, since the new timestamp was the same as the old, it didn't show in the diff. I wonder if it counted for the notification system? —Darkwind (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwind/Archive_10&oldid=1125487026"