User talk:The Dales of Glendale/Archives

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hi. Just a note, when reverting vandalism, don't welcome the user that made the edit, instead, put a warning template there (Twinkle's warn tab). Thanks, and welcome. Zhangj1079 talk 03:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Read the message again. It’s a vandal welcome, saying “welcome to Wikipedia but your edits were vandalism”. I generally prefer that over a level 1 warning. —Glendales 03:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Ah. I see now. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. :) Zhangj1079 talk 03:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Unblock messages Please don't leave unblock messages as you did with thus edit, unless you unblocked the user yourself. That is for the unblocking admin to do, because they need to include their unblock rationale at the same time. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC) December 2017 Welcome to Wikipedia. You might not have done it on purpose, but your recent change removed helpful information from Wikipedia. We ask that you do not remove things from pages, as you did to "Foreskin", without giving a good reason in the change summary. If it was a mistake, do not worry. The part of the article you removed has been put back. If you want to try things out, please use the sandbox. If you would like to learn how to help Wikipedia, please see the welcome page. Thank you. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. It has articles about various body parts, along with appropriate images of them. If you think the image that was on this article was inappropriate, please be specific about the reason. Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Stop changing other users' user pages You may have created the templates in templatespace, but that does not mean everyone has to use that version of them. At most, you can leave each user a message pointing out that there is a new version that they can use if they want. If you change any more user pages without an acceptable reason (and I can't think of one), you will be blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC) The version in Reception123’s userspace was exactly the same except for a few words. Additionally, the user pages that were using Reception123’s version were throwing off the QD category due to transclusions of the cross-namespace redirects that are now tagged for deletion. —Glendales 01:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC) I’ve reverted all of my edits to the user namespace of others. —Glendales 01:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)  (change conflict)  It doesn't matter how similar the templates were. Do not change any other user's user page without an acceptable reason. The problem was because you didn't include "noinclude" tags in the qd requests. I will be undoing your active/inactive user changes: we decided some time ago that it was not helpful to track this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC) You have not undone the changes to the original templates in userspace. Please restore those to their original state. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC) They are still in their original state. As I noted, the templates are practically the same - and the discrepancy in wording has the same definitions in both versions. The only difference remaining is that the pages in Reception123’s userspace redirect to the pages in the template namespace, which if User:Reception123 doesn’t like, they can revert. However, there’s nothing “wrong” with that. —Glendales 02:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC) They are not in their original state, because they are now redirects. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Also if you want to block me for being bold, you can go right ahead. The only thing that will happen is that I will leave the project. No big deal. If you’re that concerned about users editing other user’s pages, set up an edit filter like EN uses to keep user pages clean. —Glendales 02:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Being bold doesn't apply to other people's user pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC) In general, no. But when the user has specifically stated that they are inactive here, and they have created a bunch of userboxes that really should’ve been in the template namespace to begin with, it’s a different story. Notice that I said in my log summaries “if the user doesn’t like it, they can revert”. Again, if you want to block me for this, go right ahead. I’ll just leave the project and you’ll loose a vandalism fighter. Congratulations. —Glendales 02:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC) No. We allow users to have userboxes in their own space, and for other users to use them. It doesn't matter if the user is inactive. Saying that the user can revert if they don't like it is not an excuse. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Chanyeol It seems ridiculous to me that they revert me just by putting an image.SuZumiya (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC) You need to cite a source that shows that the caption of the image is accurate. See WP:BLP. —Glendales 16:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC) A reference is not needed to add a Commons image. SuZumiya (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) A reference is not needed to add an image, true. However, a reference is needed to add a caption describing the image. How else would someone know whether or not the caption is actually describing what the image is depicting? They wouldn’t. —Glendales 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC) (talk page stalker) A reference is not needed for the caption that was entered, because it contains no substantial information. In any case, I don't know what possible kind of reference there could be for just giving the who, where, and when of the image. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC) January 2018 Please do not remove quick deletion tags from articles, as you did to "Prem Khan", without either a good reason or fixing the issue. If you think the article should not be deleted, please explain your reason on the article's talk page. Thank you. Also, you reverted the addition of the QD template as vandalism, which it wasn't. Auntof6 (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Vandalism on your user page Your user page has been getting vandalized by an IP editor. If you want, the page can be permanently semi-protected: just request it at the admins' noticeboard. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC) @Auntof6: I think that permenant protection is overkill for a first offense. I’d protect it for 2-3 weeks and see how it goes after that. —Glendales 19:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC) OK, it's your call. With user pages, we don't have the same rules as for articles and other things so some users do the protection just as a preventive -- usually you don't want other people changing your user page -- but that's up to you. Just leave a message at WP:AN if you want it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)  Done —Glendales 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Userboxes Not sure if you didn't notice the first line of Wikipedia:Userboxes or not, but those types of userboxes are not kept in template space. That is why it keeps being deleted. Please don't recreate. -DJSasso (talk) @Djsasso: “Current consensus is that userboxes (excluding the standard Babel templates and the actual code) belong only in the user namespace.” — so then why are the user rights boxes in the template space and not in the userspace of whoever first created them? —Glendales 15:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC) User rights ones are considered official, they aren't just "interest" or "comentary" userboxes, basically the same idea as babel. We don't want to have to deal with the cleanup from people creating lots of userboxes so basically we insist they do it in user-space instead of template-space if they insist on doing it. We don't outlaw creating them, but we basically make it so its out of the way to discourage their use. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Personally I highly suggest that you not discourage creation of personal userboxes since this is one way that new users learn how to work with templates. —Glendales 15:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Hence the suggesting they do it in their user-space. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Archive 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. January 2018 Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent change to the page September 11 attacks appears to have added wrong information and has been removed. If you think the information that you added was correct, please provide a source for the change or discuss it on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Thank you. Hawaii has been part of the United States since the US annexed it in the late 19th century. It didn't become a state at that time, but was still part of the US. If you still disagree, please start a discussion on the talk page instead of continuing the edit thrashing. Auntof6 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Bettino Craxi Please explain your thinking concerning the reverts you did on this article that you called vandalism. As far as I can see, the only change was to use a different image. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC) The change of the image was made in bad-faith, since it replaced a very high quality and modern image with an older and lower quality image. It would be obvious to tell the difference even for someone who is not experienced working with images. —Glendales 12:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC) I don't see much difference in the two images. In any case, changing images isn't so serious a problem that it needs edit warring and warning messages. Did you try asking why the user changed the image there and in the other pages? I'm starting to think that you're being generally heavy-handed in what you revert and warn for. Please be more thoughtful about it if you want to continue. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Anti Vandalism Thank you for your anti-vandal edits, reverting blatant and not-so-blatant vandalism that this wiki has a lot of. I was wondering if you'd like to help out with WikiProject Revitalize. We are working on getting ORES (the thing that turns "bad" edits in Special:New Changes yellow and red), and we need people to classify edits for it. We are also working on making a bot to revert vandalism automatically. If you'd like to help, please add your name to the member list, perhaps review a set or two of edits, then maybe start a discussion about new things we can do to combat vandalism! Thanks, Adotchar| reply here 10:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Concerns about Wikipedia page D Shivakumar Hello Sir, Could you please let me know how to fix the issues that you have raised in the article about D Shivakumar. I have added more sources of information about the Leader. I have included article's from sources such as EconomicTimes, Livemint to increase number of reliable sources. please let me know if anything else is required to be done. Karthikbv402 (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC) @Karthikbv402: The issues that still remain, most importantly, are that the subject of the article may not be notable. See also the biography policy. Additionally, the article has an excessive use of external links, and some of the references appear to duplicate each other. Such duplicates cannot be considered independent sources and should be removed. —Glendales 12:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Dear Sir, The external links that I have provided are the links of the article, where the person is covered independently, the sources are Economic Times and Live Mint which are the most reliable secondary source in India. These sources have covered D Shivakumar independently. Please advice. Karthikbv402 (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC) I didn’t say that the links were bad or wrong - there’s just too many of them. Also, I never said that the sources weren’t independent - it’s just that some of the sources appear to be duplicates of each other and you can’t a a second source that duplicates a first source to be independent. —Glendales 14:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the update sir, I understand that I have used repetitive sources. I will try to use one article from one source & remove repetitive sources and update you by tomorrow, Thanks for your support, Appreciate the help. Karthikbv402 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (talk page stalker) I have looked at the sources in the article and don't see the issues you mention with the sources. Some duplication of sources is OK, especially when there are a reasonable number of different ones. In fact, that's the whole reason for named references: to use the exact same reference in more than one place in an article. I have removed the tag for this issue. However, @Karthikbv402: you do need to simplify the article because it contains complex words and sentences that are compound or too long. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages might help you understand what is required. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Dear @Auntof6: & The Dales of Glendale, Thanks for the update, I have removed few external links to keep it to a minimum, Could you please let me know if the article use of external links adhere to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines now. Also could you please let me know if this page could be moved to the encyclopedia wiki. Karthikbv402 (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) What do you mean by "the encyclopedia wiki"? I think the number of external links is fairly reasonable for this size article. The article does need some simplifying and wikifying. Also, the Commons template should be removed because Commons has no category for this person. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Dear @Auntof6:, I have used a different image from Commons, this Commons has category for this person. Could you please let me know, if this is fine? Karthikbv402 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) No, Commons doesn't have a category for him. If you click on the link in the Commons box, it takes you to a Commons page that says the category doesn't exist. Besides that, the other things I mentioned still need to be taken care of. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I propose moving this discussion thread to the article talk page instead of my personal user talk page. Getting pinged about every update to this thread by Auntof6 when not even addressed to me is getting annoying. —Glendales 18:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC) The IP user talk page It wasn't necessary for you to blank that talk page. What the user wrote was in essence an unblock request, although not a proper one, and was about to be addressed. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC) The IP is a cross-wiki vandal also attacking me on Commons. Global block requested. —Glendales 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC) That doesn't make it necessary to blank the talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Abusive/disruptive unblock requests aren’t just declined - they are removed. —Glendales 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC) That's not up to you. What the user wrote there had nothing to do with you. I suggest that you not police user or user talk pages. If you see any that seem to be a problem, just leave an appropriate message or, at most, make a deletion request. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Your change to Pablo Zibes This change you made to Pablo Zibes had the edit summary "Please don’t remove interwiki language templates." However, the thing that the user removed was not an interwiki language template: it was a template that flags German language text and displays the language name, which has nothing to do with interwiki anything. Furthermore, removing it was not a bad thing because the name of the language did not need to be displayed at that point. I have replaced the template with one that flags the language without displaying the language name, but removing the template was just as valid. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Shout-out to a soul sib Greetings, Glendale! As I'm fairly new to the Simple English project myself (and former regular visitor to PDX), here's some encouragement and moral(e) support for your efforts wrangling the mischief so often found in New activity. If you aren't already a regular visitor to WP:Simple Talk, I recommend reading other's queries there, as the Admins' replies are instructive. See, for example, my latest: WP:Simple Talk#A triple feature for fans of Prashast Singh. If you ever get fed up with vandalism and junk, I can recommend some productive activities here I've found of interest and value. And congratulations on making your 1,000th global edit! Keep up the great work, and happy 2018! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.