User talk:Eihel/2019

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Small digression[change source]

I remain at your disposal if someone wants to give me the rights patroller and / or rollback in the future. Thank you in advance. --Eihel (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Stay active on simple, remember to AGF, be kind, and I wouldn't be surprised to see tools given in time. If you would like the patroller tool, I'd strongly suggest creating new articles so the community can see you are good at writing simple english articles. For rollbacker, I'd suggest staying very active fighting vandalism. The sysops here tend to watch and notice when people are active and helpful here. Operator873talkconnect 18:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I made more than 600 editions on this project. Wikipedially. --Eihel (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not vandalism. Vermont (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Vermont Face-smile.svg,
On another article, the same error has been reverted several times with a "Wrong information" message for several addresses, very similar to the one where you put a link. It's no longer a coincidence. That's why I filed vandalism. This is my POV: if I write that he or she adds false information and he or she persists 4 times in a row to add false information ... QED. Wikipedially. --Eihel (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
ps: "Wrong information" has only three levels and IPv6 are slightly different. --Eihel (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see what information is incorrect. After reviewing the edit further, it looks as though it's correct. Their past IP addresses have never had any issues that I can find; I don't know what you're talking about when you say "reverted several times...for several addresses". Vermont (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your first link, @Vermont: On Template:Disney theatrical animated features: "Sleeping Beauty (2015)" by Disney does not exist. In the same way, "Sleeping Beauty 2 (2001)" does not exist. Do you notice that a "2" comes out before a "1" and in different formats! I put a link above, did you follow it? I classify it as vandalism because you have to follow my link that explains everything. There are about forty mixed editions and you have to see the diff of these two pages. Examples on Template:Pixar Animation Studios:

  • Yves the Koala (1996)
  • Little Drummer Boy (1997)
  • Dr Seuss: One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish (2000)
  • Happy Birthday (2002)
  • Dr Seuss: Fox in Socks (2005)
  • Kangaroo Pete (2014)
  • Finding Marlin (2024)

Pixar has no relation with these works. Then the movies announced and not yet released: they are wrong, mainly for their dates. Or Reprises of existing films with a sequel, example: "Wall-E 2 (2023)". For some, there will be a sequel, but no date is planned. And the IPsv6 push the vice to create anchored links (internal_link#anchor_in_the_page) that do not exist: the title Sequels on the page Sleeping Beauty does not exist and speaks of the book and not of the film. But precisely, I see that he / she vandalized again. I give you some more specific datas:

But if you find me references of these films in connection with Pixar or Disney (including dates), I would do mea culpa. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You are correct; my apologies. It seems these IP's have a good deal of edits which I'll check later if I have the time. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello @Vermont:, I wrote above that IP vandalizes again... and still today. For the starting topic, I will still ask the rb which is useful in this case. Will you support me this time? --Eihel (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I will not grant you rollback myself, but I will not oppose your request either. You've done a good amount of anti-vandalism recently, and I'd like another admin to review. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Operator873, Auntof6, Djsasso: Well, the rb would be useful in this case (especially since I write that the IP has still vandalized). Face-crying.svg See the topic from the beginning and these two pages: request for rb and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback/Archives/2019/January/Notdone Face-wink.svg. Wikipedially. --Eihel (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No need to check my work Vermont, Only did it for you here Face-smile.svg. All that's left is someone checking Template:Disney theatrical animated features. CIDR...--Eihel (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

re Talk:Twelve Apostles[change source]

Hi, a talkpage is for people to discuss stuffs about the article, the adding of stuff by the IP seems reasonable and it's clearly not vandalism. Do practice a little more AGF. The issue raised isn't groundless. Thanks a lot.--Cohaf (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I keep thinking just the opposite, Cohaf. The IP did not add "I kill cats with a hammer" unfortunately. If several IRCs think the opposite, then it's a consensus. I will not cancel this edition anymore. I still act with AGF: it depends on the POV. Hoping that there will be a second edition of this IP. But you will never have an answer to your question on Talk:Twelve Apostles, I think. --Eihel (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, we keep our fingers crossed for this and hope for the best, Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about edit[change source]

Sorry Huyeron45 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism[change source]

This is not vandalism. You reverted it with the Twinkle vandalism button and warned them for vandalism. It is a good faith edit, and is only incorrect as we do not capitalize the second word in those names. Vermont (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes Vermont. I already discussed this with Cohaf, it's about using the middle button with Twinkle (without vandalism). Thank you for your message. --Eihel (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Just to note here we didn't discuss this diff but a different one yesterday on IRC. No comments on the rest but this is really not vandalism. For anything other than clear vandalism, please use the middle ROLLBACK button in blue and give a short summary on why it is an incorrect change. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on IRC[change source]

What does WP:IAR have to do with the current situation? Vermont (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note[change source]

For simple Wikipedia, we don't use External links but Other websites. I'm leaving this note due to your change on Barbara Bates. We don't use See also too. Palais Royal. Thanks for your changes also. Very informative. =).Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cohaf, you know it's a little blurry. There is a rule (which is in GTL and not in MOS as you have summarized), but is "nearly" followed, and for many articles. For bibliographies, SimpleWP has VGAs with separate notes and references, others with Further readings, others with Other websites, etc. You can watch:
It is only 2 articles, but the examples are inumerable. But your change suits me: it is the rule perfectly applied. There should be a change on Simple for the harv and sfn references that connects another part of the article, imho. Also note the link to the previous topic: WP:IAR. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with your points, it's blurry. What shouldn't appear is see also and external links as headers. Others are per editorial discretion. Sincerely,--Cohaf (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Release Dates[change source]

Hello, I would like to tell you that Windows NT 4.0 was released officially on August 24, 1996. It was only released to manufacturing on July 31, 1996. The official date was 366 days after Windows 95, and the RTM date was 342 days after W95. Thank you.2600:1001:B01A:F7D7:B044:48D5:12B4:1C90 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Technicalchelaji[change source]

The QD you have for this user listed 2 reasons, the First was they are not a registered user, they are, and they are the ones that put that on their page. Second is Spam/Advertising. Listing a name, and then putting Youtube out to the side is not Spam/Advertising, you have to stretch things pretty far to get it to that point with what they have listed. As such I have declined the QD on both grounds. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Enfcer: You do not classify it as advertising? Okay, I do not want to discuss your choice. It is surely he did not put a link specifically. It depends on the POV. If I go to Youtube and I search Technicalchelaji, I'm landing on the page of a juvenile subscriber: TECHNICAL CHELA JI. It is not difficult to make the connection: he writes that he is on Youtube and his username on Youtube and WP is Technicalchelaji. It only has 4 changes on any WM. Each project is modified in the same way: "I am media YouTuber"; except on Commons, where he wanted to put a promotional photo (which has been deleted). For me, it's clear: he wants to promote his YouTube channel through WM. Best regards. --Eihel (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If you did not want to discuss my choice, why try to get me to comment, by defending your choice to list it for QD. I discussed with another Admin and user on IRC this, and they agreed with me. Simply listing a Name and Youtube is not Advertising, that is why I declined it. If you feel strongly about it, you can always take it to RfD, which is where this discussion should be taking place, my initial note was a courtesy to let you know I declined, and my rationale. -- Enfcer (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2019 (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.