| Revision as of 21:48, 21 April 2010 editWillie Sutton Bank President (talk | contribs)20 edits →bot error: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:49, 21 April 2010 edit undoWillie Sutton Bank President (talk | contribs)20 edits →bot errorNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| The instructions clearly says that sections over 14 days old are archived. The bot is archiving 10 day old stuff. | The instructions clearly says that sections over 14 days old are archived. The bot is archiving 10 day old stuff. | ||
| I think if a topic is controversial, it will keep getting discussed so the bot realizes this and holds off archiving. Archiving is to clear away inactive stuff. It makes no sense to have a discussion prematurely archived so that there are 2 discussions, one from January 1-January 9 and another one from January 11-January 20. ] (]) 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | I think if a topic is controversial, it will keep getting discussed so the bot realizes this and holds off archiving. Archiving is to clear away inactive stuff. It makes no sense to have a discussion prematurely archived so that there are 2 discussions, one from January 1-January 9 and another one from January 11-January 20. | ||
| I've seen your name in ANI before. You seem to get involved a lot, some would say troublemaker but I wouldn't say that. ] (]) 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:49, 21 April 2010
Archive 1 is located at User talk:Woogee/Archive 1
PLEASE EDIT BELOW THIS LINE, and add new discussions at the bottom of the page: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Follow sources that you were looking for about Master DeRose. Please have a look. http://www.uni-yoga.org/sobre_derose.php We can only put images on wiki which there is copyrights? We know that have thousands of images used on wiki without copyrights. Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
I am Blackmagic1234 I removed the message I said about my ex friend now my mortal enemy >.> because I bloody dam well quit this place I may as well quit the internet cause she will never stop stalking and harassing me what you see on my user:blackmagic1234 is her causing me to lose control of my anger and rage..my so called psychopathic side I had get help to control. And now because of her harassing and stalking then you add on her signing me up for email newsletters and other spam. I lost control now all because of HER I will need to go see a Psychologist after years of being in control of my anger
142.163.148.8 (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- 142.163.148.8 is me
Black Rose (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank You Woogee :) Live Long And Prosper ^-^ Black Rose (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Sunset Sessions
Hello Woogee. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sunset Sessions, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. GedUK 11:23, 3 April 2010
woogee, my dear woogee. I do not wish to push your buttons, do not take my edits personally. Iberoromania is notable by virtue of being an important German academic journal known and read internationally. I suggest you do a google books search if you want to satisfy your skepticism regarding my claims to its notability. I could say more to this effect, but I trust in your judgement, which though apparently slumbering, will surely now have awaken to the validity of modest claims, comments, and suggestions. --72.221.92.43 (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I am a legendary wikipedia editor who is currently working incognito, I'm on a secret mission, it's all very hush hush. I suggest you turn a blind eye to my machinations for reasons of high wikipedia policy. shhhhhhhhhhhh--72.221.92.43 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
=== Thomas M. Ashe ===
Are you stupid???? Springfield is not a major city????? Are you kidding me??????? Birthplace of Basketball....... not important or anything....
WorldNetDaily RS/N
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
3RR
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - Vianello (Talk) 00:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just for your information/edification, your stance on the contention on this page was correct so far as I can tell. But whether you are ultimately right or wrong, edit warring is prohibited, and the three-revert rule is a "bright line rule" for what qualifies as edit warring. No personal offense is intended. I realize reversion of vandalism is exempt from this rule, but content and MOS disputes are not vandalism. The IP involved has also received a block for edit warring/3RR violation. For clarification, the reversions are , , and . - Vianello (Talk) 00:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Woogee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
3RR doesn't applly to vandalism Woogee (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I fail to see how any of the above linked reverts are even remotely vandalism. Q 04:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Did you by any chance happen to read my note that addressed why whether or not you were right is irrelevant? It's right below the block notice. The IP's block was longer for being considerably more disruptive, openly non-cooperative when the reason their edits were incorrect was brought up, and having a powerfully implied COI. So yes, they were wrong. However, please see above. I would like to also add that you do have a demonstrated track record of having plenty to contribute, so aside from just putting the kibosh on this edit war, I didn't want to see your otherwise legitimate editing put off for terribly long. - Vianello (Talk) 18:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for reverting the removal of edits I had made to a number of articles. I don't know what the editors problem is with me, but everytime I make more than a couple of edits to an article, it reverts the edits as vandalism. All the edits I made were legitimate, involved fixing up references, adding references or fixing text per WP:MOSBIO. It's frustrating as this has been going on for about a month. One article I added 8 references, and the IP says that's vandalism, so I'm at the point of just giving up. To make matters worse, you end up getting banned for reverting the IPs vandalism, which I'm truly sorry for. I was under the impression that if the edits were vandalism, they could be reverted without causing a ban, but I guess I was mistaken. Once again, thanks. Cmr08 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back
Sorry to see this hilarious Mr Massicotte incident Woogee, it is easy done when you are uninvolved to know you are correct and get carried away, I have seen your recent work and I hope you won't let this trivia put you off, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Lakeland Christian Academy
Hello Woogee. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Lakeland Christian Academy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
No, not really
Fat fingers on an iPhone display. Thanks for catching and correcting it. Celestra (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Clean Up Rewrite Reasons
Hi, I already rewrote the page I added on Dastur_Jamshed_Ervad_Sohrab_Kukadaru Please let me know why you added the Cleanup Rewrite again to the page? There is no explanation on the discussions page. Deenparast (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Woogee
Thanks Woogee for your comments. I will do the needful to clean up further. Deenparast (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hilo Art Museum
it looks like three reverts on this article in the same day. To me it looks like the edits were in good faith, even with an edit summary indicating why. The web sites no longer work, as I indicated in the Talk page. Some of the material like email and phone numbers should have never been added in the first place. So do not think we can call removing unsourced old info as being "vandalism". The burden of proof should be on someone to show the museum really is there. Its the old question of course that it is hard to prove something does not exist, but if you search for it and do not find it, (I also looked in several local newspapers) it is hard for me to believe it is still there. I would like to remove at least the redundant info and email etc. It might even be worth a request for deletion of the article if all it is used for is reverting. W Nowicki (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Follow up: I exchanged email with Ted, and he was trying to remove his home phone number from the article, since he keeps getting calls about the museum which indeed has closed. The only place it is mentioned now is here on the Hawaii Museums Association web site. I will go ahead and remove the phone number etc. let me know if you have an opinion on either reducing it to a stub or deleting. W Nowicki (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, but do not understand your question. Unregistered users are entitled to the same presumption of good faith as registered users. (Although not sure I agree with this all the time either.) This was not a case of page blanking. What the edits actually did was remove some redundant sections (ah, which seemed to get a "section blank" tag?) and remove his personal phone number. I would say web sites that no longer work are evidence that an entity no longer exists. But I think Misplaced Pages policy is that the burden of proof is on the person claiming something does still exist to give a source. Since it never appeared in any local newspapers, for example, I do not see any evidence supporting keeping the old information. Actually the article already stated the Museum never opened on its own, just had some mentions of loaned space, without any citations at all. So edits removing redundant unsourced information look OK to me. So can we leave the article alone now? Thanks for your other work on vandal patrol, by the way. Not surprising that we get a few false positives now and then. W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
OK it sounds like you still disagree. I suggest we try a third opinion before engaging in an edit war or going to escalation of conflict resolution. To repeat: the edits only removed material that was redundant, did not belong on Misplaced Pages according to its rules, and was never sourced to begin with. You cannot have a "source" for something that does not exist. Let's put it this way: if someone added your personal telephone number to a page, would you need a "source" to remove it? Copyediting (e.g. removing peacock words, extra salutations, etc.) would never be possible if those edits needed a "source" to remove anything that violates style guidelines. Certainly removing information that is sourced needs sources for its removal, but that is not what those edits did. W Nowicki (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
No prob. :)
There's no way to verify the user's claims anyway and when someone new starts hurling accusations at experienced users, it's time for a time-out. Glad to be of service. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk: Year of the Black Rainbow
I was just removing the section that I started before the album came out. The album is out now so I believed that section to be obsolete.--DrBenEvl 03:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
About Jason Miller (fighter)
Hi, in that article i corrected the misspelling of an existing edit. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jason_Miller_%28fighter%29&action=historysubmit&diff=356721950&oldid=356721921 )
From Malendez to Melendez. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Gilbert_Melendez )
I'm not sure how correcting the spelling of the existing article could be controversial or need me to cite a source but I hope this notice doesn't get me in trouble! Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flimflamx (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
bot error
The instructions clearly says that sections over 14 days old are archived. The bot is archiving 10 day old stuff.
I think if a topic is controversial, it will keep getting discussed so the bot realizes this and holds off archiving. Archiving is to clear away inactive stuff. It makes no sense to have a discussion prematurely archived so that there are 2 discussions, one from January 1-January 9 and another one from January 11-January 20.
I've seen your name in ANI before. You seem to get involved a lot, some would say troublemaker but I wouldn't say that. Willie Sutton Bank President (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)