m Reverted edits by Haichina (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|archive = User talk:Widr/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = User talk:Widr/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== Saint Vincent (island) == |
|||
hi Widr, i got your message regarding an edit i made to the wiki on St Vincent. Thanks for advising me as to the deletion. I have the wikipedia app on my tablet i used it to look up St Vincent and it gave a good description of St Voncents name according to the native indians at the time of Columbus. However when using just the firefox browset to lookup the same subject, the wiki was not exactly the same, i just wanted to correct what it said about the islands name at the time of discovery. I am new to this so i guess i messed up the edit, my apologies.[[Special:Contributions/95.63.8.40|95.63.8.40]] ([[User talk:95.63.8.40|talk]]) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Terry 2/04/14 |
|||
⚫ | |||
== A barnstar for you! == |
== A barnstar for you! == |
||
Line 34: | Line 29: | ||
:Hard to say. I was wondering about that too. [[User:Widr|Widr]] ([[User talk:Widr#top|talk]]) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
:Hard to say. I was wondering about that too. [[User:Widr|Widr]] ([[User talk:Widr#top|talk]]) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Yeah. Someone's sock probably. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
::Yeah. Someone's sock probably. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Please check out the Rock Hudson Article -- help needed == |
|||
Hi-- I'm writing to you as a person who has edited the Rock Hudson page and who also appears to have significant Wikipedia experience and/or admin status (I'm not sure about that last part). Anyway, there is an Anon editor that has deleted a chunk of text from the Rock Hudson article, because according to this editor, "The entire entry is politically motivated and serves no useful purpose." The material being deleted has been there a while with no complaints, it is neutral in tone (tho it mentions Reagan), and is sourced. The first time the material was deleted, I reverted and added a request for comment on the deletion/material being deleted to the talk page. The same IP has re-deleted without responding on the talk page. The edit summary says: "Quit adding this nonsense back into this page. It has nothing to do with Hudson." I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'd like a wise 3rd party to step in. Maybe that could be you? Looking at the contribution history of the IP in question, the editor's relatively few contributions have mostly been deletions accompanied by unsupported, incorrect and/or provocative edit summaries (My favorite: "Glenn Miller did not play jazz, which had mostly faded from the scene by 1935"). Most of the IP's edits have been reverted on the pages in question. Whether or not this editor is usually wrong doesn't determine the result in this instance, of course, but I think the context does matter. If you don't want to get involved, could you point me to someone who might be able to help? Thanks! [[User:David.thompson.esq|David.thompson.esq]] ([[User talk:David.thompson.esq|talk]]) 02:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks (though I'm not an admin). This seems to be a content dispute, so it would be best to go by consensus here. It doesn't exactly look like the IP is doing that. I also noted that they have been warned of the similar behavior back in December. Since the original content is sourced and previously accepted, I don't see any reason to remove it without discussion and consensus on the talk page first. [[User:Widr|Widr]] ([[User talk:Widr#top|talk]]) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::: so I should re-revert and direct the IP to make his/her case for consensus on the talk page? Thanks for your response, by the way. [[User:David.thompson.esq|David.thompson.esq]] ([[User talk:David.thompson.esq|talk]]) 02:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ |
Revision as of 04:30, 9 April 2014
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
You are so amazing:D Ck-33023 (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC) |
IP address vandal permaban?
Hi, thank you for fixing the vandalism here. Looking at the history of 50.122.58.35, shouldn't that IP address be banned indefinitely? Nothing but vandalism from that IP, as far as I can tell. Thanks, Cowicide (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The IP hasn't edited for over a week, so blocking wouldn't be appropriate now. IP addresses aren't usually blocked indefinitely anyway. If they continue vandalizing, we can always report them at WP:AIV. Widr (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Any clues
as to who gave us barnstars a few hours ago? Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hard to say. I was wondering about that too. Widr (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah. Someone's sock probably. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please check out the Rock Hudson Article -- help needed
Hi-- I'm writing to you as a person who has edited the Rock Hudson page and who also appears to have significant Wikipedia experience and/or admin status (I'm not sure about that last part). Anyway, there is an Anon editor that has deleted a chunk of text from the Rock Hudson article, because according to this editor, "The entire entry is politically motivated and serves no useful purpose." The material being deleted has been there a while with no complaints, it is neutral in tone (tho it mentions Reagan), and is sourced. The first time the material was deleted, I reverted and added a request for comment on the deletion/material being deleted to the talk page. The same IP has re-deleted without responding on the talk page. The edit summary says: "Quit adding this nonsense back into this page. It has nothing to do with Hudson." I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'd like a wise 3rd party to step in. Maybe that could be you? Looking at the contribution history of the IP in question, the editor's relatively few contributions have mostly been deletions accompanied by unsupported, incorrect and/or provocative edit summaries (My favorite: "Glenn Miller did not play jazz, which had mostly faded from the scene by 1935"). Most of the IP's edits have been reverted on the pages in question. Whether or not this editor is usually wrong doesn't determine the result in this instance, of course, but I think the context does matter. If you don't want to get involved, could you point me to someone who might be able to help? Thanks! David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks (though I'm not an admin). This seems to be a content dispute, so it would be best to go by consensus here. It doesn't exactly look like the IP is doing that. I also noted that they have been warned of the similar behavior back in December. Since the original content is sourced and previously accepted, I don't see any reason to remove it without discussion and consensus on the talk page first. Widr (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- so I should re-revert and direct the IP to make his/her case for consensus on the talk page? Thanks for your response, by the way. David.thompson.esq (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)