User talk:Frank6292010/Archives/2021/August

For disusioon

August 2021 (edit warring)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jack Lang (French politician). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I can already see you've had multiple warnings for this sort of thing before - if you continue, I will block you. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 03:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Uh fine I'll stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank6292010 (talk • contribs)

@TheresNoTime: And, I'll logged out and leave my account and never return ever again to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank6292010 (talk • contribs)

@TheresNoTime: I'll be gone forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank6292010 (talk • contribs)

@Frank6292010: (edit conflict × 2) You've been told multiple times that your current behaviour is not acceptable. It's a shame, as otherwise you are a fairly good editor who could do a lot of useful things for us. Please take a moment away from Wikipedia to reflect on these warnings, and come back once things are a bit calmer. Please read this page, and if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to leave me a message and I'll be happy to help. Please also sign your messages, thank you! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: And it says BLP and vandalism Frank6292010 (talk • contribs 04:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: Thank you for replying I appreciate you thought you were being helpful, but in some cases we need to stop and think instead of keeping reverting - the IP editor was trying to "play by the rules", and we need to assume they mean well. If I may offer some advice, if you ever revert anyone and they leave you a message asking why, take a deep breath, be as polite as possible and try to help the editor understand what they've done wrong. You might even help someone become a better editor, and that's awesome! I must ask you to stop doing reverts for a little while though - maybe take a look at WP:CVUA and How to respond to vandalism. I am not going to block you, but please know that if this continues we might have to. I really don't want that to happen though. PS. Thank you for signing your comment, its really helpful ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And I can report them so they could a problem Frank6292010 (talk • contribs 04:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

A friendly note about final templates

I saw that you used both the "final warning" and "only warning" at User talk:Get high on Ovaltine. The "final warning" is sufficient before reporting users at WP:AIV. The "only warning" template is used when the user's first offense is so severe that there is no question that it was in bad faith. The basic order of warnings is:

• General note
• Caution
• Warning
• Final warning
• And if the user continues, report them to WP:AIV

You can read more about these and other user warnings at WP:UWLEVELS. Thanks for helping to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA Thank for letting me know, next time I have to report people after final warning Frank (talk)

@ZLEA I don't want introduce jokes or use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. Frank (talk)

Tyler Joseph

Hi! I just wanted to ask how im vandalizing when all I did was added accordion in the list of instruments he plays which is a instrument that he actually plays? Forcebylight (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Forcebylight they were incorrect Frank (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please, try to understand an edit before reverting it. This is based on the recommendation of standards organizations for digit grouping. I would appreciate if you reapplied my edit. Luiz.torro (talk)

The English Wikipedia has its own manual of style, we don't necessarily follow standards organizations. In this case, MOS:DIGITS applies. In short: Space as a digit separator is problematic, commas are fine. No need to change them. (Your edit wasn't vandalism – you sincerely tried to improve the article. But for the reasons I explained above, it was OK for Frank6292010 to revert it. He probably shouldn't have called it "vandalism", but don't take it personally. Sometimes when I have to revert a lot of vandalism, I might make such a mistake as well. It happens. Happy editing!) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Christian, it's OK about the misuse of the term "vandalism". Regarding the formatting, MOS:DIGITS states: "Digits should be grouped and separated either by commas or by narrow gaps". My view is that comas are fine for half the readers. Spaces are fine for everyone. That's the reason of my edit. Luiz.torro (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your Contributions.

Let's give a good iguana document a chicory.

Question about a warning

Hey,

I wanted to ask you why you gave me that warning on my talk page. I didn't see anything wrong in regard to referencing in the edit I did. So what was wrong there? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): It didn't appear constructive Frank6292010 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): If you have any question, use the Help desk. Frank6292010 (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: What is not constructive about adding movies to a list of movies they definitely belong to with right citing? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): It was Unsourced and you gotta stop deleting warnings from ClueBot NG. Frank6292010 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: Two things: 1. It wasn't unsourced, look at it again. 2. It was a false positive, as many other people also told me. And in that case, I am allowed to delete the warnings, that's what the user page of the ClueBot says. CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): You should assume good faith edits. Frank6292010 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Frank6292010: What do you want to tell me by that? CanePlayz (Jacob) (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): You can start Using RedWarn, (TW), or Huggle Frank6292010 (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): In order to use these tools read the guidelines. Frank6292010 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@CanePlayz (Jacob): I agree with   melecie    because you could delete warnings if you want to, Happy Editing. Frank^T•C 17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

How do you use this website?

I am so sorry. I only attempted to assist the page on Ratallouie the video game. When I was only a young child in 2007 my father showed me ratatouille the video game before he was killed in a fatal train accident. I simply wanted to show my enthusiasm and yet in seconds my edits were deleted. I really didn't mean to be a problem I just wanted to get the word out, you get it, right?

Sorry I can't find any way to contact you outside of this cute little kitten picture, Really sorry to be a bother.

Chrisbomb4 (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chrisbomb4: Aww thank you. Frank^T•C 17:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgive

yeah sorry you hate the truth that was constructive

About SobySobea

@Melecie: What happened to SobySobea becaause he's like STOP REVERTING MY EDITS because he got angry and globally locked. Frank^T•C 14:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On civility and edit-warring

Hi, Frank. Glad to see someone working hard to fight vandalism! :) I saw that you've had a rough go of it with some trolls lately, and so I understand if you're a bit frazzled right now; but it's not really okay to do what you did at Special:PageHistory/Kia Seltos and User talk:2603:8080:B203:79BD:30DE:FA25:9422:319F. 2603:8080's edits did add some style errors, but also removed other style errors, so ClueBot NG was wrong to revert as vandalism, and you were wrong to warn a second time. (2603:8080's initial revert summary did contain a BLP violation, which I've warned them for, but that's a separate matter.)

Everyone makes mistakes, but it troubles me that you kept reverting 2603:8080 until Andra Febrian stepped in and reverted you. It's important to understand that reverting IP users is not an exemption from WP:EW. If I see this kind of thing again, I'm afraid I'll have to take the matter to WP:ANEW.

I'm even more concerned, though, about your attitude toward 2603:8080 on this page. While they were being incivil to you, that's not a justification to be incivil to them. As a recent changes patroller, you're a representative of this project, and you need to be the bigger person in disputes like this, especially when someone is accusing you of having gotten something wrong. You don't get to say "Idc and get lost" when someone says you've made a bad revert, and you definitely don't get to do that and then still keep edit-warring.

Looking at your talk page history, it seems that things have been getting better since the interaction you had with Fences and windows in April. That's good! I think you have a lot to offer Wikipedia. But you need to understand that our edit-warring and civility policies are not optional. Please consider this a polite warning regarding both.

All the best. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I will not try to edit war or disrupt wikipedia. Frank^T•C 17:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You removed the subject's name? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Because it says Muhammad Shah Firdaus bin Sahrom and that said possible BLP issue or vandalism. Frank^T•C 13:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

IP user on my Talk page

Hi, thanks for reverting the edits by the IP user. But can you please tell me what the insults were about?  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 08:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@KyloRen3: It started when he continue to introduce jokes into articles into KABC-TV and WPVI-TV and then Added us and 7 more users in his contribs. Frank^T•C 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@KyloRen3: He added us and 7 users into the kill list and I scream in my pillow, and Mvcg66b3r reported him. Frank^T•C 13:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@KyloRen3: Were starting a discussion. Frank^T•C 13:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.  Kylo Ren III  (talk ☎️) 05:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

Administrators: CheckUsers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Therefore, a Checkuser must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission or the prior approval from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

I don't understand why my collaboration was removed

Hi Frank You removed all the content I added to the page about Sidarta Ribeiro. I'm sure the information I've added is correct and I've included references whenever possible. I made a fair amount of updates because the page was so out of date. Please clarify what I did wrong in a more specific way, as I see no errors or incompatibility with Wikipedia standards in my collaboration. If you can help me understand the issues, I'll be happy to fix them and an outdated page will look much better. Thank you. Flavio PS: This is the second time I'm sending you this same message, which just disappeared from this talk page.

@Flavio Righetto: Fine, Because one of your edits said possible BLP issue or vandalism and let I'm busy working on WNYW in the Spanish Wikipedia. Frank^T•C 1:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism?! Have you read my updates? I just added correct information (everything well checked) in polite language. How can my updates be restored?

@Flavio Righetto: You should provide a reliable source. Frank^T•C 1:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Frank, you can't revert something just because it's tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism". I've read the edit and, while I would have reverted it too, I don't see any BLP issues or vandalism. You also—and I can't stress this enough—cannot revert people asking good-faith questions on your talk page about why you reverted them. If you don't like answering those sorts of questions, you shouldn't do RCP. When you do respond, you need to be specific: Which parts of the edit need a reliable source but lack them? If you're going to revert someone's first edit to Wikipedia, especially a large edit, you need to be willing to explain why you did that, in detail.

@Flavio Righetto: With that said, a lot of your edit seems to violate our rules on promotional content. Do you have a conflict of interest with Ribeiro? If you are being paid by him, you are required to disclose this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, Flavio, are you working with pt:Special:Contribs/Luiza Mugnol Ugarte? I see that User:79a, a Portuguese Wikipedia administrator, has reverted both of you there citing pt:WP:SPAM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tamzin. I am a friend of Sidarta Ribeiro, I follow his trajectory as a scientist and writer and now that his book The Oracle of Night is being released in English I thought he deserved to have his Wikipedia page – which was outdated and with some objectively wrong information – updated and correct. I am not being paid for this work nor am I working with Luiza Mugnol Ugarte. All information I have added regarding academic titles, papers, positions, research areas, awards and publications is strictly factual. There is no way to consider “hard”, objective and correct information as “promotional”, right? The only part of my updates that can be discussed as to whether or not they are promotional is the description of The Oracle of Night book. Compared to other book descriptions published on Wikipedia, I don't consider it out of the box. But since all text of this type has an authorial, subjective dimension, if you find my description of the book inadequate, OK, then let it not be restored. (If I have time, I can try to make a “less positive” synthesis.) Given these considerations, I ask that the additions e corrections I made in the introduction, and in the sections “academic degrees”, “fields of research”, “awards” and “works” be restored. As it is strictly factual, all the information I have added in these sections would be the same if included by anyone else who properly updated the page. (Incidentally, this information can be confirmed in a single document: the “Lattes Curriculum” of Sidarta Ribeiro, published on the official resumés platform of the academic community in Brazil, in which the insertion of false information implies legal consequences: http://buscatextual. cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do. If appropriate, I can add this link to the page after the information is restored.)Flavio Righetto (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)