User talk:Crasstun/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

thanks for the hello[change source]

May I ask are there any projects listed somewhere on this wiki? I have been editing quite awhile over on english wiki and a few others, and I thought I might like to help out here. Are there any particular areas that need more help?

thanks for your time, ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I assume you mean Wikiprojects. We have a few of them. I am not sure if there are certain areas that need attention but others may know so you may wish to ask at WP:Simple talk, --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

About Veron(Software)[change source]

Thanks. But can you tell to me that my article is accepted or rejected? and i will change english language to make easy understand. Jamesb6545 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, we don't have a process were articles are accepted of rejected so your article is an official page on this wiki. But it could be deleted it does not meet our standards. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

why[change source]

Why revert the electrical current page? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargoth (talkcontribs)

Thanks for the tip, but I still don't understand why revert those changes, when they're related topics ( Electric current ) Fargoth (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Fargoth

Its because you put wiki links on the external websites page. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A better option, Mr. WP, would have been to move those links to a "related pages" section. That way you wouldn't completely discount the editor's contribution. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Wilfred thesiger"[change source]

When I reviewed Wilfred thesiger I changed your unsourced tag. Since he was born within the last 115 years I used the tag BLP unsourced which means the article can be quickly removed if it remains unsourced. This is per WP:BDP. Just a heads-up as to why I made the change. Rus793 (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks for telling me.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Rolling and wheels in the natural world[change source]

I'll gladly work on the complexity. As I said in my edit summary, this is my first contribution to Simple. Some article-specific pointers on my talk page would have been more helpful than a drive-by tagging. Swpb (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the tag did contain information on how to improve article so you wIll probably find my "drive-by tagging" somewhat helpful. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, I'd already consulted the guide linked in the tag, so I didn't find it helpful. I've worked a bit more on reducing the complexity of the prose, and I'll continue to do so, but I think it meets the guideline - I've stuck to simple grammar and used the most basic words I can to explain the concepts, and I've explained the more uncommon words. Unless you have some specific points of concern, I'm removing the tag. Swpb (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your VIP report on Looneyboy6[change source]

What the other person does isn't related to your assuming good faith. Did you try to see where the user was getting the numbers he was using for the sizes of those dog breeds? The numbers I saw him enter may have been in the wrong place in the text, but they weren't invalid numbers -- those numbers show up in the enwiki article, just in a different context. To me, it looked like he just didn't know how to properly add the info. That isn't vandalism. When you see changes that aren't right, ask yourself if you can see them as something other than vandalism, like maybe plain incompetence. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not have been vandalism but the user kept re adding it and ignoring me and causing disruption. I would have happily helped the user contribute but why should I when there is a high possibility the user will ignore me! At first I did AGF. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If it wasn't vandalism then why is this user blocked for vandalism? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Because a new admin who is a little less used to how they should block made the block. I wouldn't have blocked either. As for them re-adding it, they may not have realized you were removing it and thought it was accidentally being done or a mistake. You have to give new users some leeway. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure they did notice as they would have received a notification saying their edit was reverted and talk page notices.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I imagine not everyone understands that they need to pay attention to those things. In any case, this isn't the only case where I've seen you call something vandalism where it probably wasn't. Please be sure you aren't reverting changes as vandalism just because you disagree with them. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Including one just now to a users own talk page that was made 5 days ago. Why are you going back 5 days and reverting edits people made to their own talk pages? -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Info[change source]

Just dropping you a quick note about your revert on Jones (Animal Farm). It appears at least 1 if not 2 of the edit the user who vandalized that page had made could be classified as Cyber bullying, and I have went on and gave that user that particular warning. We have a strong guideline here on Simple about Cyber bullying, and I have hidden a couple of those edits, and referred then to Oversight for further removal. Here is the guideline for the Cyber Bullying. If you have any question feel free to message me. Enfcer (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I did not really read it much I just glanced at it, saw it was inappropriate and removed it.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of rollback[change source]

You have used rollback quite a few times to revert changes that were not vandalism. Here are some examples:

  • Fallopian tube: the user unlinked "isthmus" because it linked to the wrong meaning, not just to unlink something
  • Marilyn Monroe adding "on the night of" is not vandalism -- you reverted several of this kind of change
  • List of diseases: the user wanted to add polio to the list. He/she misspelled it and accidentally removed the heading, and didn't recognize that it was already in the list as poliomyelitis.
  • The sandbox -- pretty much nothing you do to the sandbox can be considered vandalism, certainly not adding nonsense

Because of this, I am going to remove your rollback right. You can ask for it back if you demonstrate that you can better identify what is vandalism and what is not. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Second inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson[change source]

This article still needed some simplifying. Take a look at what I did to see what might need changing if/when you do more inauguration articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I am pretty new to things like this but ill do better next time. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)'

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

May 2014[change source]

Stop acting as an admin. You added "suspected sockpuppets" categories to various user pages. You removed content from other users' user pages. You added "blocked" templates to user pages. Those are just the things I have noticed. You should not be doing any of that. It is not up to you to decide what users are sockpuppets. If you continue doing things that should be left for admins, you may be blocked from editing here. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Reporting vandals[change source]

When you report a user at WP:VIP, you don't need to leave them a message saying they've been reported, or that they'll likely be blocked. Just leave it for the admins to handle. Leaving such messages can make the user mad, and it might turn out that they don't get blocked anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I just thought it would be polite seeing as the user had madeSome constructive edits.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It comes across as taunting the user, so better not to do it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh really? I had no idea that it came across that way. I certainly didn't mean for it to come across like that.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Are You...[change source]

Hi!

Just Wondering if you are the same Mr Wiki Pro on Regular Wikipedia who was blocked for Sockpuppeting.

No Offence if you aren't.

Titusfox (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Your right that is me.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)