User talk:ChocolateRabbit/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Just because Anders Lindegaard hasn't announced his "official" retirement from international football, that doesn't mean he "still plays" for the Denmark national team. He hasn't played for the team since 2011 and as of today he doesn't even have a club. To say he "still plays" for the Denmark national team is completely misleading for any reader when he hasn't even been named in a Denmark squad for more than five years. – PeeJay 14:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey - just wanted to mention I reverted your addition to Marten de Roon because the Daily Mail is discouraged as a source - WP:DAILYMAIL. Home Lander (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Home Lander: Thanks for letting me know changes have been attributed to a more reliable source.
PS How did you know of my edit so quickly? Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 00:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, the edit tripped the edit filter. Home Lander (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Home Lander: Didn't even know those existed but thanks. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 00:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah my bad on that typo - was thinking backward (I even left the others alone!) Home Lander (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Home Lander: No worries, mistakes happen. :) --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 00:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
RFA
Hi, Please read WP:RFAADVICE, In short I've CSD'd your RFA as it will sink quicker than you can blink, Editors need to have over a thousand editors and have been here for 2+ years which unfortunately you haven't so as I said RFA isn't for you at the moment, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You can try Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll if you want, but I predict that you'd be given low scores due to your inexperience and insufficient edit amount. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho and Davey2010: That's fine thanks for letting me know ----Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 01:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Also see Anarchyte's advice at User talk:ChocolateRabbit/Archive 3#Why I reverted your edit to WP:RFA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Your request for adminship
Hello, I saw that you have just submitted a request for adminship. While it's great that you've contributed to vandal-fighting and have made constructive edits, and your contributions and enthusiasm are strongly appreciated, your account is only 8 weeks old, and you will likely need a lot more experience with Wikipedia before you can be considered for being granted adminship. Requests for Adminship is an area where people can have very high standards and things can get pretty heated, and I wouldn't want to see you subjected to such scrutiny. For those reasons your request has been tagged for deletion. I recommend that you focus on improving the encyclopaedia as you have been doing without the admin tools for now. Best of luck. Linguist111 01:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Linguist111: Okay Thank You Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 01:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
About adminship
Hello ChocolateRabbit! Thank you for your interest with adminship. However, I am afraid that you may not have read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate carefully, and therefore I have removed your submission based on this commonly cited guideline. Becoming an admin requires much more experience, and right now it is far too early. Please keep up the good counter-vandalism work that you have been doing, and let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 01:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User rights
Hi. I don't really want to pile on to all the other messages you have received, but as you withdrew your ORCP before I had time to get to it, I would like to help you with some advice. I think you are on the right track with your vandalism patrolling and reporting. It's very important work. However, as regards other user rights, you don't qualify for many of them yet, and we generally assume that admin candidates will have significant experience in those areas too. The most important thing to do is read instructions before you do anything. If you had read the instructions properly you wouldn't have wasted your time on trying to start an RfA or starting a poll at ORCP. For all the maintenance tasks there are a lot of instructions to learn, not to mention the complicated policies that go with them.
Keep up the good work, learn as much as you can while you do it and in a few months you might even be ready for New Page Reviewer - which is a very big challenge. If you ever need help with anything don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Neymar score
Neymar score 2 match 3 goal not 4... Md Saymun islam (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Neymar score psg 2 match 3 goal.. you write 4 goal.please write Right... Md Saymun islam (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Md Saymun islam: Sorted. Thanks Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 21:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I see there was a spate of vandalism on the page but the thing about his online rant was not vandalism, there were reliable sources. It is not tabloid gossip either as it had real life consequences, he was suspended by his club. Removing this is like taking the Kung Fu kick out of Eric Cantona or biting out of Suárez. This event has been covered again recently since Aurier's move to England, just search "Aurier homophobia" for even more sources.
P.S. in the interest of legality, I do not consider Mr Aurier a homophobe, rather as someone who made a bad judgement and used a word without knowing its effect on some people Harambe Walks (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
[1] Harambe Walks (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
(FC) Barcelona
If you want information, it'd be that we'd normally use [[FC Barcelona|Barcelona]], and just Barcelona when not linked, because that's common usage in English. But if you want advice, it'd be remember that being right doesn't justify edit warring, apart from in very specific circumstances. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lionel Messi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Warning both of you - please discuss instead of edit warring -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @There'sNoTime: Acknowledged. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 15:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- So.
- You came to my talk page for advice. I looked at your recent contributions to see why you were asking, and came back here with an answer to the question you asked me about piping a club name, and a piece of advice about not edit-warring. I believe you've already been made aware of the concept. At the time, you'd reverted twice.
- Within seconds of my reply, you reverted again, and then did so three times more, taking your total to six. At which time you were formally warned by admin User:There'sNoTime. Then when the other editor reverted again, you went crying to the admin.
- Well done. I'm impressed. Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Comma removal
Hello, re your edit summaries at the Truck article and others: the commas you've been removing are called serial commas, and Wikipedia has no official position on their use (as long as each article is internally consistent). Therefore, I've undone all the removals of serial commas you made that I could find using the Edit summary search tool. Graham87 06:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Reverts
Sorry, this was about two months ago, but I have been away from Wikipedia for a while. When I came back, I found you had reverted six of the edits I made just before I went. Please can you explain what you were doing here?
- Talk:Grade II* listed war memorials in England: why did you remove this edit from an article talk page? The edit summary suggests you want a source. What?! Firstly, edits on talk pages do not need sources; and secondly please do not edit or remove comments left by other people. [2]
- 5000 yen note: then you removed a link to Japanese iris and Irises screen, replacing them with links to "Kakitsubata Flowers", and folding screen. Why? Is that an improvement?[3]
- Irises screen: I made an edit to an article that I had started less than an hour earlier, to correct some errors, so your revert reinstated the errors. Why? [4]
- Nezu Museum: another edit replacing a link to Irises screen - an artwork held by that museum - and replacing it with Iris (plant). Is that meant to be an improvement? [5]
- St Michael Cornhill War Memorial: another edit to an article that I wrote. You want a source for source the Dover war memorial featuring "a figure without wings but holding an object aloft"? Just look at the image that you also removed! [6]
- Grade I listed war memorials in England: and then this was the edit that followed the discussion linked above. You ask for sources? Follow the links to the Historic England website. [7]
Theramin (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Theramin: Hi, sorry for the late reply I've been dealing with personal problems, I apologise for some of my reverts as I should have checked them first. Hope this helps. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 19:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Help
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
When an account is described as a vandalism-only account does that mean it has only made bad edits and no good ones or that the majority of the contributions are vandlism?. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 09:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- That depends on the editor describing the account, and on context. Fixing a comma once with lots of vandal edits otherwise won't make the description inaccurate, in my mind. Neither will making a couple inconspicious edits to get autoconfirmed before engaging on a vandalism spree on semi-protected articles. Huon (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Non-free image use
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically John Michie, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Anna Windass
Hi ChocolateRabbit. You have cited the WP:CRYSTAL policy as your reasoning for not including Anna Windass' departure date. I have reverted your changes based on sources - [8] - that state Anna will depart in early 2018. When a character is announced as departing a show, it is often announced a date when they will leave; in Anna's case, this has been stated as "early 2018". This is confirmation that Anna will depart in 2018, which we therefore include in her character page. I'm confused as to why I should not re-add Anna's departure year in her duration parameter? Soaper1234 - talk 15:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Soaper1234: Dually noted, apologies for the late reply . --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 17:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
ChocolateRabbit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that I should not have engaged in edit warring and I will refrain from making such actions in the future, and I will seek discussion to prevent conflicts with editors. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 23:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Accept reason:
If there had been some indication of willingness to discuss or engage with the other editors involved I probably would have let this slide in the first place. However, given your positive contribution history in the past and your assurances not to do so again, I'm reducing this to time served. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The other editor was edit warring and continues to edit war. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Closing Moving discussion to page archive.
Re: November 2017 (Catalonia)
Thank you very much for your message on my talk page. Even though I have some time as an editor on Wikipedia, I consider myself more of a newbie than of an experience editor, and I am not quite used to the proceedings. First of all, I apologise if this is not the appropriate place for this kind of message.
I realise that there is a difference between what I think the page should read and what other user (Impru20) thinks the page should read. I appreciate the point of his edits, and I do consider that he acts in good faith. I need some time to sensitively express what I think it should read and why, to take others' input into account when discussing, and so reaching a consensus that satisfies the whole of the community.
This is not an excuse but a pledge. I will in the coming hours or days go to the talk page to discuss the points where there is lack of consensus in order to reach a consensus. I am quite optimistic and feel that all of us will be satisfied with the final result. Especially if we consider, as I do, that the differences are quite nuanced. I also promise not to edit the challenged matter further without consensus.
In short, I will act in good faith, taking your message on my talk page into account.
Thanks for taking your time to leave me the message on my talk page.
Sam10rc (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S.: @Impru20: This mention is for you to be notified of this message, as I think it also matters you. I don't want to engage in any edit war, and I think this needs time and a bit of debate on the talk page. See you on the Catalonia's talk page? :P
Hi, Sam10rc, You're more than welcome to leave messages here, as it is what talk pages are for. Of course, my message was simply a warning, I have been warned about the same thing myself just a warning. Just letting you know to be careful in future. I hope you enjoy editing here. Thank You. --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
> Oh great. Thank you! Sam10rc (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Sam10rc: If you need any help with anything, let me know. --Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 14:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 19:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)- @Swarm: Hi, I understand that I need to be more careful in future regarding my recent edits, I can promise you that, I'm not requesting for the block to be lifted, I'll serve it learn my lesson and come back with a wiser head next time. Thanks Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 20:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Rollback privileges revoked
It has been brought to my attention that you were using rollback in the aforementioned edit war. This constitutes abuse of rollback, and from a review of your edits, you have been abusing rollback on other pages as well. For this reason, your rollback privileges have been revoked. Swarm ♠ 20:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Content removal
{question from my talk page) If I see that a IP or Registered User has removed content from a page without any explanation is it grounds to revert on that basis?
No, not without looking at the edit and making a decision as to whether it's constructive or not: editors ought to explain their edits, but many don't, either habitually or occasionally or through ignorance/inexperience. Look at the definition (my highlighting):
- The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia
and therefore vandalism. Such an edit can be removed, with suitable edit summary and warning the user if necessary. If you're not sure whether the edit is OK or not, assume good faith: ask the editor concerned about it, or ask at the article talk page, the relevant project page, or the Teahouse. Use your judgment, which usually improves with more experience of editing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In a related matter (since this exchange has to do with the user that edit warred/edited your talkpage messages), i fail to see what the problem is in writing the clubs' full names in the storyline and leave them compressed in box (after all, if it is so wrong why name an article CD Numancia instead of "Numancia", just to name this example?). But whatever, i don't want this to escalate into a needless edit war.
Attentively, all the best --Quite A Character (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"Trequel"
Hello ChocolateRabbit. (Nice username, btw.) Regarding this edit, in which you restored the change you'd made earlier that I had undone: providing the url of a web aggregator in the edit summary isn't an adequate response to my objection. As I'm sure you can see, assuming you've read the page you linked, the source is Wiktionary. Like Wikipedia, Wiktionary is crowd-sourced and not reliable. That Wiktionary chooses to include an entry for a neologism in no way means that it is appropriate for us to use that word. If the word becomes commonly known, and found in major general-purpose dictionaries, it might then be appropriate to use it here. If you'd like to make a case for our using the word now, please do so. If not, I'll revert again in a day or so, and I assume you won't edit war but rather follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle that is best practice. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: I'll self revert that edit and we'll discuss it, you chooose the place either here or the article's talk page preferably, and we'll try and reach a consensus. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 16:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Probably best to open a discussion at Talk:Rowan Atkinson. I probably won't be able to contribute for the rest of the day, but I'll check in early tomorrow UTC. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Rivertorch: It's alright I'm a bit busy myself, however I'll start one and you can join in when you can. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 17:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)