User talk:Excirial/Archive 17

Excirial

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

 

Yourname

Would you consider filing a long-term abuse report for User:Yourname, a vandal who has been blocked since April 2009 and in recent days has resurfaced on a botnet using many different IPs. His trademark: A suicide note with text as follows: "HELP ME I FEEL LIKE IM GOING TO KILL MYSELF". One IP vandalized my talk page today, causing it to be protected. On ANI, there is a discussion about a ban being placed on this user, which was thought of by User:Jasper Deng. (I was the one who thought of filing the LTA report)--1966batfan (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest i am not familiar enough with this particular vandal to file an LTA report on him or her. I only recognized this particular editor yesterday because i noticed multiple vandalism edits with the same modus operandi the day before that. Other then that i am not aware of any history surrounding this particular user, so it would be somewhat odd for me to file a report on this. Probably the best course of action is suggesting the LTV report in the ANI discussion, and then seeing if other people agree with it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Range contributions

You asked about range contributions, and Soxred93's tool. Notice: User talk:Zzuuzz#Range contributions. Would have left this comment in the discussion, but I don't know how to post a link there. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that is really, really helpful indeed, thanks! I knew of the javascript version, but the tool by helloannyong does precisely what i need - give me the recent X edits from a range so that i can see how busy a range is, and if there would be collateral damage to quality IP editors once a block a range. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Excirial! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! And pleased to meet you as well :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How can i contribute?

Hi, I have been checking recent changes, cleaning up pages using some tools like twinkle, autoed. Is there anyway else i can contribute. Needed help on this if possible? Arnavchaudhary (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there are actually a ton of things that needs doing - it is actually more a question of what you feel like doing! In general i think that activities can more or less be split in three categories: Patrol work, Content creation and User Assistance. In each category there are many, many activities that can be done if one feel like it.

Patrol work mostly involves checking new contributions such as new page patrol, vandalism patrol, new image uploads (Copyrights) and so on. These are most times real-time activities since they mostly involve checking things that others users do. Content Creation is pure and simple writing new content for article's or updating existing content. For example there is a page with article's requested to be written, and there is a huge backlog list with all the article's that have maintenance templates regarding issues within the article. Last but not least, User Assistenance is helping new users find their way around the Wiki. Examples of this include the article's for creation page where new editors can submit content for review, and the help desk, new contributers help desk, reference desk and the the IRC help channel.

Note that the above is only part of the area's where once can help in; There are so many area's that it is impossible to list them all. Hence, I'm pretty sure that even now there are area's i never even heard of because i never worked in those. In all due rights it is mainly a question of "What do i feel like doing?". For me the answer is almost always vandalism or newpage patrol, though i occasionally feel like writing a new article. Everyone had theur own preferences, so just have a look around, and see if there is something that sounds fun. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey man

I'm new to wikipedia, I didn't know. Also I was trying to be constructive by offering what Neil translates to. Revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.201.42 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The historic meaning of "Neil" would definitely translate to dyspraxic asshole.... Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

arthur paris, Golf specialist

Hello mister. You deleted my editing from yesterday on François Calmels Golf Pro page. I just corrected that the championship that you said he won is not the French Championship of Golf but "Coupe Mouchy" which is considered the toughest amateur competition of Golf in France. I does take place in Fontainebleau Golf Course. I did understand you do not want the link so i will modify the same way as i did yesterday but without the link directed to the concerned Golf Club in hopping you do not delete tomorrow. Take care. By the way : i'm like you i hate people breaking the rules. And i have authority as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.149.95 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas there,

The external link in the article body was indeed the only reason why i reverted the edit, as it is often an attempt to promote a particular entity. Besides this your edits were just fine, so please do go right ahead!

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Excirial, It is the THIRD time i am changing the WRONG infos about François Calmels that i do know cery well. I used to be his caddy. He is NOT : 1M90 but he is 1M80 which makes a big difference. He did not win the French Championship in 2004 but he won Coupe Mouchy which is NOT the FRENCH CHOMPIONSHIP even if it is considered as high as the French championship. I donno what to do with you??? Tell me how i can provide correct info the community?? please help. Wether i'll talk to the administrators. I do my last try tonite. Have a good rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurparis (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Arthur,

Have a look at the page history where all edits made on a page are logged. As you can see I didn't edit the page after the 14th, which is the day the above discussion started - Instead you ran into another editor who reverted the changes. I am not entirely sure why the edits were reverted without a stated reason in the edit summary, since I cannot detect any vandalism at first glance.

One think i would advice, is that your use a reliable source that backs up your changes. All pages, and in particular pages that are biographies of living persons must have reliable sources backing up their claims. This is necessarily because as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia aggregates information from other sources into a single article. Since everyone can edit one would otherwise never know who edited an article, and if the information they required would be reliable. For a little help on referencing, have a look at the WP:REFB page, which gives a quick summary on how to do this. I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Images

I am having difficulty understanding free use of images. If an organisation owns the copyright of a photo, and would like this image to be used on Wikipedia, and are happy to relinquish copyright on the images so that they can be used, how should they be categorised ? I currently have recieved messages regarding uploaded mages such as:- "Replaceable fair use File:SMG wikipedia PARADE3750x530.jpg - Thanks for uploading File:SMG wikipedia PARADE3750x530.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please remove the tag." David WILSON 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.robert.wilson (talk • contribs)

Hello David,

The WP:NFCC is the policy that deals with the usage of non-free images, and is intended as a baseline for dealing with images that are copyrighted or otherwise not freely available for whatever reasons. This policy is based around the united states Fair use law that copyrighted material may sometimes be used on Wikipedia without permission, provided some criteria are met. (For example the image on Tank man meets these criteria as it is irreplaceable).

However, non free images are used as sparingly as possible in favor for completely free content. In this case the image you uploaded is a "generic" image as i like to call them, which should be easy to replace with a completely free image. Since Wikipedia is completely open for everyone content that can be reproduced without limit is always favored over copyrighted content. For example, there might be copyright issues if people would decide to print a page, or if someone would decide to sell DVD's with Wikipedia content on it (In that case the not-for-profit criteria would be violated). In essence only public domain images, or images licensed under GDFL or CC-BY-SA (Or weaker) are allowed.

If you own copyright on an image and wish to fully release the copyright of this image, you can contact OTRS (See link) to verify that you indeed own the image, and to log the copyright release on the image. As you might image a freely editable encyclopedia has to be very careful with copyright (Copy + Paste is incredibly easy), so in cases such as these copyright is taken quite serious. Once the image is indeed removed from copyright the image should be able to be used freely. Just keep in mind that releasing copyright means that everyone may use the image for whatever purpose. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OccupyLasVegas

There Occupy Las Vegas page is the subject of a content dispute at the moment, as is apparent by the many questionable edits with citations from a self published site, and many follow-up reversions. I'd like to ask that the page be temporarily locked until an amiable agreement between parties can be arbitrated.

Sincerest apologies for bothering you about this, Surfzoned (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Surfzoned (Sebring)

Recent block

Hi, could you offer your perspective at User talk:Artisticidea? Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do so in a minute. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Section copied from Artisticidea

Based on checkuser evidence and the fact that it seems only one edit is similar to the alleged master, I don't think these are the same person. I'll leave this up for someone else in case I'm missing something glaring, but I think this block may have been in error. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I was writing the same thing - per CheckUser, I do not consider the two accounts to be operated by the same person. WilliamH (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've invited the blocking admin to comment. WilliamH (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I initially placed this block on the basis of the Duck test. User:Ludwigjim was repeatedly editing the text on the federal reserve article to include the "private, for-profit corporation" text, along with a link to a fringe / conspiracy theory website - After reverting this multiple times the editor was reported to WP:AN3. Just two minutes after this I noticed Artisticidea placing the same style of text in the article, after the account had been dormant for a few weeks. Due to the timing and the edit similarity this seemed to be a rather clear case to me so went ahead and issued the block.

However, if a checkuser check returns that there is no relation between the editors at all, the only possible conclusion is that this block must have been an error, moreover because Artisticidea other edits seem just fine to me. Artisticidea - my apologies for this one, as it seems that I am the one at fault for this mistake. As both other admins seem to agree that this was simply a bad block i will remove it at once; And again, my apologies for the error on my side. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sodomize

In the article on the death of Moammar Gaddafi it was stated that might have been "sodomized". Later in the article (under Cultural Impact) the same incident is referred to as "poked or stabbed in the rear". In order to be more precise, more neutral and more consistent I changed "Sodomise" to "poked or stabbed in the rear", but you changed it back without giving any reason for that. You just mentioned that my change seemed unconstructive, but you did not change the second reference to this event. There are several reasons for my change. The notion of sodomy is unprecise. The first of all we do not know precisely what happened in the town of Sodoma. The second is that the whole concept is religiously flavored. The religious interpretation might be different in Arabic contriesand English speeking contries. The third is that what happened might not fit well into the definition of Sodomy as given in the article on Sodomy ("anal or other copulation-like act, especially between male persons or between a man and animal"). Maybe Gaddafi was already dead when this event took place and if that was the case what happened may should be described as "dishonoring a corpse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entropeter (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I initially reverted the edit because - at first glance - the edit appeared to be vandalism. "Being poked in the rear" and similar sentences are often vandalism, so when seeing the change i reverted it as such. Had i taken a better look at the context of the edit it should have been clear that, in this case, the change is of course entirely fine. Add the above explanation to that, and i would say that the change is actually for the better.

In short, my mistake here, and it seems to be the second mistake on that day (At least the second someone gives me a nudge about) - I guess it would be wise for me NOT to try vandalism patrol when feeling sleepy again, since the error ratio seems to go into the unacceptable area. For what it is worth, apologies for the mistake and the incorrect warning. I reverted my edit to the article, as the "vandalism revert" rationale obviously does not apply there. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Queen of England

Hi. i think that this how i talk to you on here. i got flagged for vandalism and i did not do anything bad! i just ut a word in italics, because it should have been that way in my opinion! please let me do stuff like that!!! -Meghan :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartestGal4Ever (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Meghan,

It seems that cluebot reverted your edit since it seejmed to be vandalism. Possible because of the amount of quotes in it, and likely because you were already at warning level 3 when it made the revert. I hope i don't have to explain why these other edits got you to warning level 3? In either case, please don't vandalise, even if it is intended as a joke. It will only result in a block along with the work to clean this up. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)}

Bot request comments

Hey, thanks for joining the discussion. To be totally frank, it was just unclear to the bot op how many edits should be done for the test. If it had some bugs I'm sorry, but the whole thing has been confusing and it hasn't helped that there has been a lot of yelling (don't mean you). The conversation for designing the bot task went for about three weeks steady at the Village Pump for proposals, so it feels disappointing for Petr to get yelled at more after we tried to take our time in discussing it before he coded it. I am asking him if we can have the bot self-revert the test edits, since that seems like the least amount of effort on everyone's part. Let me know if there is anything else that needs fixing, or anything else I can do to help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

n/a

Refering to a edit made on the subject of John Glenn High School(Indiana). I was taking off a edit that was done to bash on the efforts of athlets at this high school. As was done by another person to take away from the athletics program at this school, which actually won the all sports award from our confrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JgRadio (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And i presume that the motto translation for the school read "We just have Josh, he beats all, even god."? No, somehow i seriously doubt that would be the motto of a school. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

86.182.147.162

I believe he is a sockpuppet of User:CharlieJS13. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite likely, seeing the comment and the IP range it origionates from. The IP has been blocked, so little else i can do. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

USER:173.67.255.130

Hi - Concerning your warning to USER:173.67.255.130 about the recent blanking of a section of The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) , I should point out that this IP has done this several times before to various sections in the same article, all without any explanation - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The IP has also blanked this section of another article without explanation, which went unwarned, in addition to this vandalism.

With all due respect, isn't something a little more preventative than a polite warning to this user called for? Repeated disruptive behavior such as this should at least result in a lengthy block, if not an outright topic ban to prevent such disruption in the future. The two previous warnings issued to this IP don't seem to have had any effect. Am I wrong? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a few things that come into play here:

• Myself, and perhaps a majority of the vandalism patrols use Huggle to combat vandalism. Huggle automatically selects the appropriate warning level when reverting, which will be "Reset" every 3 days. This means that after 3 days Huggle will automatically start at level 1 again.
• IP addresses are often not static. While some addresses are statically allocated the majority are dynamically allocated to different users. Hence, the user who did vandalism 1 might not be the same as the user who did vandalism 2. To make things even more interesting, sometimes there are many people behind 1 address, or we might be dealing with family members and so on.

One of the primary advantages of Huggle is its speed, since it just takes one button press to revert and warn, and it will equally allow near automatic blocks when someone vandalises past the maximum warning level. As huggle displays them i check the previous blocks, but due to the possible dynamic nature of IP addresses they are nearly always blocked for about 72 hours max, unless it is absolutely clear it is constantly the same user (And even then they might just change ISP's, which voids their IP ownership). In general it is simply much faster and most foolproof to give out short blocks unless it is clear that there is a prolific vandal or sockpuppeteer behind the IP. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed you reverted manually after reading the article. I watch the article fairly closely myself. Being a regular user of Huggle, I understand your first point perfectly as I almost never check a vandal's history after I've reverted them - they get a "revert with warning" button the first time, and if they continue re-inserting the vandalism while I'm still watching, they get progressively sterner warnings, and then I dig into their history. As for your point about possible non-static IPs, I don't believe that's a valid reason not to block for repeated vandalism and disruptive editing, which is the case with this IP. When IPs are blocked, there is usually an accompanying note stating that if the blocked IP is shared, and anyone besides the offending person who used that IP wishes to continue editing, they should use another IP address.

That said, do you now, being an admin knowing the history of this IP, and realizing the likelihood that such disruption will occur again, think a block is called for? Or should we wait to see if the vandalism/disruptive editing continues - then block them? I would argue for the former on the basis of blocks being preventative rather than punitive in nature, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. Thanks.

ADD: I see the IP has struck again here and here. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that if an IP vandalizes, it will eventually get blocked. One of the prime examples are IP's that belong to schools, as lunch breaks seem the ideal time to vandalize Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for those IP's to be blocked for 6 months or a year at a time simply due to the likelihood that they will be blocked over and over anyway. In case of regular IP's that may or may not be dynamically allocated, i tend to base the length a block on a two factors. First is the vandalism to good edit ratio (If the IP seems to make both good and bad edits blocking it may affect good editors, thus it may be wiser to use a shorter block). Second is the amount of vandalism that comes from the IP. More vandalism means a higher chance for a long block. If an IP only produces vandalism and does so frequently (For example, each time within a few days after a block ended) the next block will be longer and longer.

As for our example IP, i would not have blocked it for a long time. The IP mainly produces vandalism, but it only does so, say, once a month. This means that, for the block to have any effect, it must be longer then this month (For example 3 months). In that case it is often more efficient to clean four edits once every 31 days - the block would barely deter the editor who can probably move to another connection in that 3 month timeframe, and if the IP were ever reassigned the new owner might be stuck for quite a while. Keep in mind that new editors know nothing of Wikipedia, and may therefor not create an account or understand what to do. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick check of IP's history reveals one blanking on 10-1, and fourteen blankings on five different articles in the last 24 days, not counting this bit of vandalism. This is much more egregious than "four edits once every 31 days", don't you think? I believe in this case, the value to WP of blocking this level of disruption outweighs what might happen to the offending IP in the future. BTW, the IP appears to be a residence, not a school or other public location. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The main point of import is the amount of days the IP is active, not the amount of edits on an active day. The IP has 3 active days in a month, and as of such a block would either have to be unreasonably long for the amount of vandalism, or it would be so short it would likely have no real effect. Note that any IP who vandalizes past the threshold is blocked, and if the IP seems to turn into a long-term problem where it is likely that the editor is constantly the same it can be blocked a long period of time as well. But as said before, long term blocks (As in months) should be handed out with care. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! As entertaining as it was I prefer the way it is now, haha. —Entropy (T/C) 22:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome! And indeed, that was one of the more "Creative" attempts to vandalism a user page. One does get bored of all the penis stuff after a few 100 of them. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mopeyennui

It is troubling that somebody other than me in editing my namespace. Could you please prevent your bots from reverting my space when I decide to actually use it? (I was testing tables.) And yes... I know I am not logged in. It's intentional. 67.49.113.192 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are not logged in you will show up in the list of edits that huggle displays (Regular users are whitelisted and therefore not shown). Since you are an IP editor on another editors user page it "Appears" as if you are removing large sections of content from another users page, as one cannot really verify if you are the user in question or another person entirely.

Seeing the past edits you made ill just go ahead and believe that you are in fact Mopeyennui, but may i suggest creating a user subpage called sandbox - for example User:Mopeyennui/sandbox? Pages with that name are usually used for tests and experimentation, and tend to be less prone to reverting then a userpage is, since unusual edits tend to be more common on them. In this case i got the message and i will know not to revert again, but another user might just as well see an edit and think it is vandalism again. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the recent vandalism to my talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are more then welcome of course! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete Page

Hi, you recently contacted me about undoing my change to a delete request. If i honest Im new and don't know how it works. I built my first article and as I was adding to it someone tried to delete it? HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that you figured how to respond to the deletion discussion in the meantime. AFD discussions are used to determine if an article should be removed, which is done on the basis of arguments presented by the editors responding to the open discussion (Which are, in turn, based on the various policies for article inclusion). Unless the nomination is clearly disruptive (Intentional incorrect nominations, consistent tedious nominations for example) anyone may nominate article's for an AFD. During the time the AFD runs the discussion may not be deleted, nor may the AFD message be removed from the article. Don't worry though - if a subject it notable, and the article is of decent quality, it will be kept. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

sovyetler biriği

sscb sence mihver devletlerinden miydi yoksa müttefik devletlerindenmiydi akıllı kardeşim--88.235.181.201 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless the question \ comment is written in English, i fear i cannot reply since i cannot read or speak the language used in the comment. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:JentinaChapman

You're an admin right? can you do both a user IP check on mine and JentinaChapman's as Kww has got it in his mind that me and her share the same IP and he's blocked someone he shouldn't of had as she's an ex-rapper turned model truned mum who's got Gypsy in her family, and once you've done the check could you tell him that there's no match and unblock her as one of my friend's got her on Facebook and both him and her are doing their nut about it and I don't think it's right to let someone suffer 'cause of it. 86.142.233.1 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's at least remotely possible that JentinaChapman is CharlieJS13 or Pesf instead of MariaJaydHicky. Their editing patterns and areas of interest overlap. The idea that a blocked IP that admits she's the user I blocked arguing that the edits are really from the famous singer (who apparently hasn't got a Facebook page, anyway) is a bit ludicrous. I've reblocked the IP for a longer duration.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kww, i supposed this one is  Done then. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

H. Jon Benjamin page

Hello,

I'm the user with IP address 173.88.142.89 who made changes to H. Jon Benjamin's name earlier today. I was acting on behalf of a member of his family who told me that the name on his page incorrect. I understand that this explanation is not sufficient and that you have no way of verifying this information. However, I am finding it difficult to find a citation for this information. Are you aware of any resources that may be helpful here? What kinds of evidence do you think would be sufficient to make this change? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thugasaurus Rex (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence is always presented in the form of reliable sources, which can be used to verify any claim made on the page. In this case i agree - it was rather difficult to find a mention of the first name, but i eventually found several references, all of which stated "Henry" as the first name. The most reliable article is probably an article in the LA Times (link) which states his fist name.

As for changing this, i presume this might be difficult, as wikipedia is based on reliable sources - so unless a counter source to the above is found, there is quite little that can be done. I presume that if any official site would mention the first name it may trump the newspaper article. For example, had The about section on the comedy central site mentioned it, i presume it could be taken as a reliable source. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Check sources

Hi, I removed portions from the Socrates Café article that are without reference or where the reference does not support what's written. Thanks for your good faith in being constructive though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Iso,

What i mostly reverted for, is because you made a Copy-and-paste move of the article Christopher R. Phillips to Christopher Phillips, which left a broken DAB page, and an overwritten DAB page page behind (WP:DISAMBIG). For copyright technical reasons pages may not be copy paste moved, as this breaks the history of the page which is required by the CC-BY-SA license Wikipedia uses. If you need to move a page thus should instead be done using a WP:MOVE.

For now i performed a WP:HISTMERGE on the Christopher Phillips, Christopher R. Phillips and Christopher Phillips (disambiguation), which means that i deleted and split the original article, moving the disambiguation edit history to the disambiguation page, and the article edit history to the article page, which repairs the history of the page. Note that this can be a bit tricky to do at times, so please, if possible, use a WP:MOVE to move a page. If there is another page blocking your move, just place a request at WP:REQMOVE, so that someone can delete or move the page where needed :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I respect you and Wikipedia a great deal and understand the reverence with which you deal with edits. But the main problems is there is just no such person named Christopher R. Phillips, the author of the Socrates Café book is Christopher Phillips without the R. So what I did was that I created a page for the author and a disambiguation page because all the other Chris Phillips are known as Chris rather than Christopher. I have also removed many portions from the author's page and the Socrates Café page where references are deceptively made because they don't actually support what's written. So, I guess what I am saying is, I am not vandalizing even though it might look like I'm going crazy scrambling things up. It's simple to me, when the knot is badly made, you have to unmess the mess with the same zeal.--IsoMorpheus (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Iso,

Don't worry - the reverts were not for vandalism on the page itself, as i agree that sometimes an article simply needs to be weeded down to remove the rot. The reverts i made were more of a procedural nature, which i might not have relayed correctly, so i presume it is best that i explain.

Wikipedia itself is, as any other work, released under a certain copyright license which dictates what people may and may not do with the content. Wikipedia itself is dual-licensed as CC-BY-SA and GDFL, with the former being the main license as of late. One part of the license requires that if another person wishes to copy content from Wikipedia, an attribution to the original source has to be provided (EG: A mention that the content was copied from Wikipedia). Now, license technical this can be a bit tricky at times - since a page is written my a lot of persons this entire page edit history has to be trackable for copyright reasons.

Now what happened was the following - If you copy-and-paste move a page to another location, the page history will not move along with it. So in the page history it would seem as if you wrote the entire page, which is technically a violation of the copyright license used. Instead, if you perform a pagemove using the move button (see WP:MOVE), it will move the entire history of the page along with the content to a new article name, thus complying to the copyright policy used. In order to fix the copy-and-paste move i performed a so-called WP:HISTMERGE, which essentially means that i have been cutting up and moving the history of the original page around so that the respective edits ended up in the history of the page they belonged in (Which is why Christopher Phillips suddenly contains the edit history of both the original and the new page.)

Now, i know this is just a lot of copyright mumbo-jumbo, but unfortunately it is important. In simple terms and without the legal "Why" reasons - If you need something moved, use the move button which is on the top-right of the interface, under the "Down" arrow next to the favorite star icon. (Or, if you are like me and you are using the old Wikipedia look, it is a tab on the top-left, above the article title).

I hope this explains a bit, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If I sound belligerent, please know that I am not and that on the scale of con- & destruction, I tip to constructive side. Wikipedia's user interface, especially on the ease of use of copyright management is actually anti-democratic, which, as you know, is principally ironic. And, as I'm assured you must know, copyright exist for many reasons but most of which, on Wikipedia, is the establishment of responsibility and accountability; and with the current interface or lack of an interface, it's curbing these two pillars of accumulative excellence.--IsoMorpheus (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Want to reupload a logo I deleted

How do I reupload this logo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ROTEX_Global_Logo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1. I put it up and then deleted it bcz the article wasnt ready. Now the article has been approved and I would like to reupload. THANKS!! --Jlird808 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The same way you uploaded it - there is no block on the filename or image itself, so you should be able to re-uploaded it without a problem. However, to make things easier, i simply undeleted the image for you and updated the article to include the image. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...just my luck. Now that everything's been approved and uploaded I'm being told that we want to use a slightly different logo!!! I would simply upload the file itself and give it a diff name but I feel like I've done this before and had issues with it. Is there a way to just "swap out" the .jpegs? Or should I just delete this one AGAIN and reupload a new one? I have it here on my desktop. THANKS AGAIN!!--Jlird808 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Jlird, Sure there is a method for this - since you have the autoconfirmed permission you can simply upload a new image over the existing one. For this you can go to Special:upload.On this page you can directly upload a new image. Select the exact same filename (ROTEX Global Logo.jpg) as the destination, and the upload will overwrite the original file. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

You're doing a splendid job today reverting vandalism - keep it up! WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, i always appreciate the kindness! Sorry for not responding earlier - i was just so busy playing whack-a-mole now that cluebot is sleeping that i barely glanced at my talk page other then to search for vandalism. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Tireless anti-vandalism work today. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hopefully Cluebot will be back soon, so that the tireless part will be his responsibility again! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Norwalk, CT page

Good afternoon and thank you for maintaining the Norwalk, CT wiki page. I work for Ventus in Norwalk, CT and we are trying to add our company to the ‘Large and distinctive companies’ section of the Norwalk, CT Wikipedia page. I noticed you removed the additions and I’m curious what it is we need to do in order to accomplish this. Thank you for your help and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.251.33.38 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A very good afternoon to you as well. I just had another look at the Norwalk, CT page, and found that the section in question was quite clearly in need of a cleanup due to the way it was set up. As you may note, i removed all the companies that only consisted of an external link, or had no specific page on Wikipedia itself. This latter part is what i would call a requirement to be listed on a page that details something different then a company or a core aspect of the company (Such as this page about a geographic location).

As you might imagine there are a lot of companies in each regio, and not every single company may be notable enough to be mentioned; For example, if i would have a one person butcher shop listing it in the section would be as easy as listing any major company. One easy check is to see if the company itself is notable enough to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. If it has an article (Which isn't removed for not being notable) it likely means that it must at least have some form of significance that cannot be determined from external links alone. If your company would have a standalone article of sufficient size then i would say it warrants inclusion. But before writing an article, please read WP:42 and WP:COI. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing question

Hi Excirial,

This is the first time I've tried to edit anything on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help me out. I tried to edit the page for Chcicago Children's Museum earlier and noticed you reverted the edits. After reading the rules about editing, I completely understand and I apologize for the hassle.

I would like to add some info about what CCM actually does vs. just a few lines about our history and several paragraphs about our location. Can I still do this or am I currently blocked?

Thank you for your assistance.

Chad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmertz2642 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Chad,

First and foremost, no, you aren't blocked as evident by your post on my talk page. Had you been blocked then you would have been unable to post anywhere except your own talk page (The page where the warnings were placed), and you would not have been able to register an account from that IP adress. I would say that is a good thing because i never really like blocking editors who aren't straight down vandals (Adding swear words to every article) or spammers (Buy this, buy that, here is the link!).

As for editing the page, well, first and foremost i would advice reading WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:W2W and WP:RS. Note that with "reading" i actually mean reading the "This page in a nutshell" section and skimming over the content in order to understand the idea behind the policies. Of course you are more then welcome to read them entirely, but i am aware that it is quite a bit of text with quite a bit of explanation and examples, which not everyone needs to understand the page itself (Nor does everyone have the time to read so much text at once).

As for editing, you may edit the page in question, but please be very wary of any kind of opinion or bias in the article, as articles are supposed to be neutral and encyclopedic. I would advice having a look at the Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts page. The article's on this page are article's that have been recognized as good article's, and are therefor good examples to follow in case you wish to alter a page yourself. There is a section specifically for museums on the page, which may prove to be handy. If you have specific questions you may want to drop my on the Wikipedia-en-help IRC chat channel. Note that it is operated by volunteers (As is all of Wikipedia), and may thus not have people helping during all times of the day. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

You must be hungry, reverting vandals is hard work. Wasbeer 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you vary much as well! Don't worry about my stomach though. Vandals make a pretty neat meal once they have been hit with a tenderizer hammer. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That certainly gives a new meaning to the saying, "I eat [insert name of annoying thing] for breakfast!" SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Speed of Light

Hi. There was technical problem with your revert.[8] Although the before and after columns of the diff seemed to look OK, the actual page didn't. Some kind of glitch. Could you take a look? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the page just needed a good old WP:PURGE to set it right. The template seemed ok, so i just copy-and-pasted the infobox from an older edition to it and saved it. As you can see, no new revision was created (As the pages are identical), but the infobox fixed itself. Of course, someone could also have been playing with the infobox template. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Excirial. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raviagni1234.
Message added 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Filing Flunky (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Already got a trout from AlexandriaB about the duplicate case on IRC. Oh well, redundancy and great minds think alike, i'd say :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha

You certainly are on the ball, you're getting them faster than me. :P -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots and lots of practice makes perfect i'd say. ;) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Excirial -Utica NY page

Hi Excirial!

I contacted you about your reverts on the Utica NY page just now. Could you explain the revert? The page is a total disaster so I removed a doubled link, and several of the items on the bloated "Signature Events" section.

The article starts of with the title and after the basic paragraph you see "Geography and climate"? I moved it and "Demographics" below history and more useful initials figuring the huge graphs and charts were a little much. What other cities could we find on Wikipedia that follow this odd and cumbersome formatting like this? It just seemed odd and glaring and has caught my attention for some time now. The folks in utica have an obsession with their Wikipedia page they discuss it on the local "Topix" page. They also place a huge emphasis on weather in their area both local news stations open with news and withing 7 minutes begin discussing at miniumum 15 minutes of weather with a recap after sports after that. And that's on a warm summer evening. Ditto the news paper to some extent. I'm not kidding so it seemed some of that weird enthusiasm has managed to find its way with enthusiasm onto the wiki page here.

If you look at Utica's page you might notice all the NFPs and minor minor local organizations have all been listed also in discordance with like articles on the Wikipedia. As well as a (to a local at least) lot of gross embellishment, itself a Utica trait of notoriety there. I drop in from time to time and make sure they aren't claiming their Auditorium was the "Inspiration for Madison Square Garden" despite its architect building an almost identical design some years earlier in NC etc, and a strangely inordinate number of other like wives tales I heard from them living there over the years and later learned were completely unfounded and untrue.

That Utica page has become a sort of untended battlefield between reality and their imaginary land Excirial. If that sounds strange I'm sorry but to someone with a little experience on the place that's not strange at all that's just "Utica".

So I'll check in and see what you decide sometime, I see by your barnstar for helping out that you'll make a good choice or keep it in mind when you see someone expect go try to tighten that page up it looks ridiculous... if you compare it with a like-sized similar city's Wikipedia article. Everyone in town with the slightest claim to fame has their website listed and embellishments in full force trying to get in on the act like it's a free website. There is not enough normal, plain history and facts as you'd see in a normal Wikipedia page. Just count how many businesses are listed on the page alone. It's something like a cross between apublic edited version of one of those junk content farm "Business Listings" sites and a "Myspace" page. If you strike changes to that much bloat and incorrectly sequenced charts and "Demographics" it just grows until the huge stack of lists as you see there and easily stands out as inconsistent with what you'd expect to see on a typical cities page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.24.237 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas there IP editor! (As Herostratus suggested, please think about getting an account. Calling someone "IPEditor" just sounds so cold)

I think i remember reverting this page, and if i recall correctly is was one of quite a few into a very neat spree of vandalism, where the editors would blank either sections or the entire page. Based on your edit and the edit summary you left, i assume that it might have been a bit of collateral damage in my attempts to keep the bad faith blanking out (The sections you removed are HTML tables, which show up in huggle as if massive amount of content are removed). Quite frankly, in restrospect, i don't think that the revert was one that i would repeat if i would see it again.

Having taken a look at the page itself, i can see why you removed the table with the amount of snow from the page. Even if it didn't look somewhat odd (Thats just a matter of integrating it into a page), i suppose that it could be seen as quite a bit of over-coverage of the topic. I doubt that anyone looking at an encyclopedic article detailing a general description of an area would be looking for the amount of snow fell in 1985. I also support moving the climate section somewhat lower, since it would seem less important then, for example, the history of the town which you moved to the front. I did keep the small census table in since it wasn't really in the way, and i personally thought it might be nice to go alongside the history section, to show how the population of Utica fluctuated over the course of history.

Other then that, please do feel free to keep editing the article. The revert and warning case was more a misfire on my part then anything else, and should thus not be seen as a judgment of the edits you made, especially not since the above explanation you gave sounds very sensible indeed. Aabove all keep in mind that i have no more right to decide what a page should look like then anyone else, and that naturally includes yourself. The only time when i to do that, is when someone is deliberately messing things up and thus needs a whack with a mop. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Gary Speed Newcastle section...

Can I ask why you have reverted this piece?

As, as far as I can see everything I put in is factual, relevant, needed and reliable for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarra78 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looking back i don't really agree with the content the edit added since it seems somewhat biased, though it is not in the area where it would have warranted a straight-out revert. The main issue i have with the added content is that it is entirely an opinion expressed by the player in such a way it would bias the article. Consider that every player on the team had this sentence on their own page - it would hardly be a neutral statement. Since you are not directly quoting the article but rather paraphrasing it, i would suggest rewriting it to somewhat more neutral wording. "Broke his heart" and "Was happiest" are a bit too dramatic for my tastes.

Also, keep in mind that it should add something to the article. The section on newcastle is five lines large and it summarizes a period of 4 years in that amount of text. Would a statement that he loved that period most really be important enough to incorporate and add a line or two for? Perhaps a statement similar to "A childhood Everton fan" in the section above would suffice to detail his love for that period. But really, I'll leave that to you, though i advice it might be convenient to raise it on the talk page. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting Camaro's edit on my page :) Reliable Forever^talk 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are more then welcome of course. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

SmartestGal4Ever

Hi, i am kind of mad at wikipedia at the moment. We cannot fix info that is wrong on here! i mean, isn't that the whole point of wikipedia??? my friend was on her wikipedia account and called me because it would not let her change some false information. She was just trying to make wikipedia be more accurate on all of their information. I contacted you throught this page a little bit ago and well the only reason that i was on that 3rd level vandalism is because my brother came on ym computer and thought that it would be funny if he changed the queen of england to my name! So this system is not very fair in my opinion. My civics teacher tells us to speak our thoughts about this kind of stuff, and i feel the need to speak. One of my teachers even said that she could not change some false info on wikipedia! I am speaking my opinion, so please take this into conciteration. If your info is wrong because people come and change it, well, no body will care! no one goes on the website for stuff like that! Everyone knows that all of the info is wrong here already, so why would you even care at this point? Thank you for listening.

~Meghan P.S. I think that this is how I contact you, so dont accuse me of "vandalism" for this. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartestGal4Ever (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas Megan,

Besides the litany on "Wikipedia being incorrect anyway" which has already been refuted in some studies, i really cannot do a lot for you without more information. Since Wikipedia received around 200 edits every minute it is entirely impossible for me to guess who your friend \ teacher is, and what they tried to edit. As of such i cannot comment on why it was reverted in any way; If you could specify the edits in question i could have a look for you though.

As for the changed in the Queen of England article, there is a nice article on this which is called WP:BROTHER. Everyone is responsible for their own account, and if it is abused action is taken against it in the form of warnings and - eventually - a block of the account. If i would be following the rules to the letter i would actually have to block your account right away, since it was apparently compromised by a third-party, in this case your brother, as little as 9 minutes after it was created.

Also, if the statement If your info is wrong because people come and change it, well, no body will care! means that you assume that adding false information isn't that bad because there is other false information, I'll respond with the analogy that murder and theft are outlawed even though it happens more then once. In other words, if something is incorrect that is not an excuse to make things worse. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Trent Jones, Jr.

Our reverts crossed in the mail. Sorry. I also reported them to WP:AIV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, it can happen and i rather wander into another vandalism patrol then into a vandal. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And they are blocked for a week. Perhaps that will get their attention. Best. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why delete ratioanle on User Talk page

you have deleted fair and reasonable rationale, and answers to questions asked by an editor on the User talk page User talk:165.228.61.164 Why did you delete my responses to distort the biased view of the editor? I am trying to correct errors. I am the owner of the enterprise in question, and think i would know more than an anonymous editor. 165.228.61.164 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Even the comment above this one is an example of it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I report vandalism to an administrator, such as yourself?

For example, yesterday afternoon, one of the sites I watch, Spit (landform), was vandalised by 68.191.254.214 (Talk). After "un-doing" his edits, I clicked onto his Talk page. May I suggest that you do the same? It makes interesting reading. Why are un-registered, anonymous editors alowed to operate? It makes no sense to me.

He seems to be a serial vandal, who is repeatedly warned...and merely goes to another site, only to be warned again. Having just previewed this posting, I see that both the ID number AND the(Talk) are in red. Yesterday the former was red but the latter was blue. What has happened? Gareth Griffith-Jones 09:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk • contribs)

Is this correct..? 68.191.254.214(Talk|contribs) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

The matter of whether or not anonymous editing should be allowed or forbidden is actually a topic that has been discussed since the creation of Wikipedia itself. General consensus is that anonymous editing should be allowed, since creating an account has few restrictions on its own, making it only a minor speedbump if one wishes to vandalize. Equally several studies have found that, while 80% of the total vandalism is done from IP's, 80% of the edits from IP's are quality edits. At the same time editors tend to be more likely to become involved with the project if they can do a few minor changes (Such as fixing a typo) without having to register an account first.

As for reporting vandalism, we have WP:AIAV for that. One can report vandalism from accounts on this noticeboard once they pass the threshold for a block (Meaning that they have at least been warned a few times). The IP itself is - quite annoyingly at times - a dynamic ip. This means that the IP address is dynamically assigned to a different user every session. As of such the user editing from the IP might be a different user every day, which is one of the reasons why it may be switching between good and bad edits at times.

As for the red link, this is due to the link being incorrect (Or rather, the link is correct, but it doesn't link to the talk page). User talk pages are linked by adding User_Talk: before the name. For example [[user_Talk:Excirial]] links to my talk page, and [[user:Excirial]] links to my user page (I added NoWiki tags around them to show them - otherwise they would have turned into actual links). The part before the : is actually a so called zone which allows for grouping similar pages together, so that all user pages, talk pages and templates have their own location where they can be easily found.

I hope that the above helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Excirial,

It certainly does help, and thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply.

With regard to the latter part, can you direct me to where I can learn more about the use of the various symbols and unusual keys that have a specific use on Wikipedia, please? For example, I have just noticed how you increased the left margin with a single : ...so I try two, and it works!

With best wishes from the UK, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

There are several pages that may be handy in that regard. First and foremost there is the WP:CHEATSHEET which lists and displays the effects of the most commonly used commands, and is therefor handy as a quick reference. A more complete version of the cheat sheet can be found at Help:Wiki markup, which lists virtually all options there are, but is, therefor, a lot longer and therefor more suitable if one needs a rather specific feature. Another page which you might find helpful, is WP:HELP. This page categorically lists all the help pages and is therefor quite convenient if one is looking for some specific help.

With sufficient time the help pages make a good read as well, but due to the sheer amount of pages it contains it may seem to be to much to handle. In that case it is always remember to remind one specific policy while editing - WP:BOLD. This policy can be summed up as "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold", but "Be not too bold.". Any change made can be undone, so there is no real harm in making mistakes while editing. Of course there is a certain limit called common sense, as randomly deleting the content of multiple pages is generally a bad idea. And as always, if an editor leaves a comment on your talk page that is unclear, feel free to ask them, me, or the WP:HELPDESK.

With kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Excirial,

Once again, a sincere "thank you" for your interest and considerable assistance. I am learning so much with your guidance...not bad for someone who will be 70 next Spring...and I am impatient to read more and more.

One small thing, can one edit an existing "_TOC_"?

Best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

Indeed, i have to admit i was rather impressed when i saw your age listed on your userpage. Most people your age (Not trying to generalize here!) have a rather hard time learning computer basics, so it is indeed pretty impressive that you handle the (quite complex) wiki syntax so well. New, as for the question - a TOC (Table of Content) is automatically generated on the basis of the headings on a page. As as example: I currently have an 11 header TOC on my user talk page, as there are 11 level 2 sections (Section with two == on each side) such as this discussion on my page.

If i were to add additional headers it would automatically create another section in the TOC. Equally if one were to use level 3 or level 4 headers (Denotes respectively as === and ==== in the headers), one would have sub headers under the main header in the TOC. For example, the Google article has 6 level two headers, and 15 level three headers which generates the multi-layered TOC. If one wishes to edit the TOC one only has to change the headers on a page. Title changes and header levels are immediately altered when saving a page. Some more detailed help on TOC's, as well as advanced commands (Such as hiding or forcing a TOC to show), can be found at WP:TOC.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Excirial,

I loved your last "Quote of the moment" and the today's is a great one too.

Once again, thank you for the explanation. I thought it better not to indent this communication, but rather to start afresh.

I read, with great interest, your reply to IsoMorpheus(Talk) yesterday, because I had been wondering about the subject of moving WITHIN an article... (NOT the whole article elsewhere, or move over a part of another article ... but say, hypothetically, the fourth section to become the sixth.)

Returning to my original subject, as I understand it, an editor who has not registered, or an editor who has not logged in, will be allocated, automatically, a numerical IP address which, being dynamic, will be different every time. If this is correct when, if ever, will the offender read a posted warning?

I look forward to hearing from you. With best wishes, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

The above reply to IsoMorpheus was mostly related to copyright, and the process of moving an entire page to a new location. If a section is moved from within an article itself by copying and pasting the data this is (thankfully) registered in the history of the article itself, so the "Move" procedure is not needed for this type of change. The move procedure only applies for moving entire article's to a new article name. Moving sections just requires editing the entire article with the edit button on top of the page, and then copying and pasting the section to its new location.

As for the IP address, this might be a little bit more difficult to explain, as it is more related to the infrastructure of the Internet itself. Once you sign up for internet access, your Internet service provider (ISP) will assign you an IP address that allows other machines to identify who is asking for data or websites to be returned. Compare it with the good old paper mail - without an address on the envelope the mailman will not know where to deliver the letter. The same sort of scheme is used on the internet itself, to determine where packages of data have to be delivered.

There is one difference though - In the mail example we assume that the user is always living at the same address which is almost always correct. In internet terms, this would be a static IP address (One address is virtually always the same user). At the same time an ISP might be doing things differently - suppose they have 2000 IP's hand out; In the static example they can only have up to 2000 customers since every IP has its own "Owner". As you might imagine this is somewhat limiting - not everyone is online at the same time, which means that the IP's (Houses) may be unused at times, which is a waste. Instead the ISP may decide to assign IP's dynamically, which means that an ISP may give a random IP every time a person asks. Compare it to vacation - if you rent a bungalow you are assigned one that is free, and that may not be the same one you were in last time. The duration of this lease may vary - some ISP's will give a new IP for every connection, other rotate at timed intervals such as once a day. There is one last allocation scheme that may be interesting - at times ISP's may just have one outbound address trough which every single user connects (And the ISP tracks within their network who is who). Compare it to a mailbox where the mailman dumps all his mail, and the users sort their mail and deliver it within the building itself.

Now, as for the question. If a user has a static IP he will always see the messages since they will almost permanently own the IP. If a user has a dynamic IP he will also almost always see the messages, provided that they are send while their session lasts. If the user leaves right after the first edit, or if the message is late it might happen that the user who sees the message is, in fact, not the person that was the subject of the message. This is a lot of fun with the "Postal Box" example since there may be a ton of editors on that address at the same time. As for preventing bad edits - Static IP's are easily blocked, and dynamic IP's that reset at regular intervals can also be blocked easily (The offender has to wait, for example, a day before retrying). If this really get bad due to users hopping on the various IP adresses by resetting their session, we can block an entire range (ISP's generally own ranges, also called blocks, with subsequent IP numbers in them). In that case account creation and anonymous editing is blocked, while logged in edits can edit normally. Such a blanket option is of course somewhat of a last resort, as it may block up to 65536 IP's and thus possibly as many users.

I hope this helps, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good evening Excirial,

I have made a blunder this evening. I replied to your last missif (above) and posted it (I thought) at 18:59 hrs GMT. I have just returned to my office after dinner, to check my watchlist, and discovered that I had been on my User talk page, and not on yours. Should I re-post on your page?... Can I move it to you using the method you use?... >Sync. Would you be able to move it to your page from mine?

With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good evening Excirial,

Thanks to your detailed explanation, now I can understand. It seems a shame to me that Wikipedia allow a visitor, who presumably does not wish to be accountable, to have access to the content of many Wikipedia pages, if he/she is able to alter, delete, defile, etcetera, at will. An enormous amount of work must be created daily just combating these actions when they are either malicious, ignorant, stupid, or childish. I do understand that the majority of edits are well-intentioned, and that the casual visitor could be put off, if forced to register.

Just copying and pasting with the mouse... I had not thought it could have been so simple. I have been adding content to my user page, and then practising what I am learning. It shouldn't matter then, should I foul-up. If you have the time and the inclination, please visit!

With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

I just found the section on your talk page and moved it over here. What i do with these section is little more then just copying and pasting the entire conversation back and forth between talk pages to keep then "Synchronized" (With the edit summary being short for that word). Note that this is simply my preferred way of handling conversations on a talk page - other editors prefer replying to another talk page, or leaving a message that requests that the sender of the message visits their talk page for a response. Personally i just prefer readable talk archives where one doesn't have fragmented and cryptic conversations with only replies stored.

As for the edits, perhaps some interesting statistics - The English Wikipedia received, on average, about 220 or so edit every minute (3.5 or so a second), of which on average 10 a minute are vandalism (About 1 every 6 seconds), though numbers can peak at 300 edits and more a minute and 20 or so vandalism attempts a minute. A lot of these edits are IP users making a harmless correcting such as correcting a type, rephrasing a line or similar. Not every edit is the same quality, but most are well intended.

As you might imagine, that are a whole lot of things that need to be checked, and luckily there is quite some infrastructure in place to do so. There are - among others - some automated bots that revert vandalism (Catching up to 50-60% of all bad edits), there are special filters that block common vandalism, and there are some editors such as myself working with specialized tools to clean up the remainder. These tools are thankfully so effective that 2 or so editors can handle the average workload the English Wikipedia generates (Quite often the response time averages to around 2 minutes, and sometimes it is less then a minute). Even so there is still quite some room for improvement in the manual tools, which means that there should still be quite a bit of stretch in the amount of edits that can be handled. Some vandalism naturally passes trough regardless, as it is either difficult to detect or missed by the patrols and automated programs. In that case we have to rely on people watchlisting article's, or people working on them to filter the last scraps out.

As for editing, i will - provided that i have the time - see if i can offer some advice regarding your edits. Of course, if you have any questions regarding editing (Whether a concrete question or simply on a "Is it possible to..") don't hesitate to ask! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Excirial,

I understand now how you can deal with the enormous amount of work. Nevertheless, you are clearly highly adept with the system available, and also seem to have tremendous patience dealing with me and whoever else comes on your talk page. I do appreciate the trouble you have taken with my questions, and "Yes", I much prefer the continuity of conversation as a result of the Sync. method.

Our original contact followed my reading your edit timed at 20:21 hrs. GMT, on November 22, 2011, on a page on my Watchlist, Stieg Larsson (he is the deceased Swedish author of the books known as "The Millenium Trilogy".

Your edit summary reads: (Reverted edits by...to last revision by Gareth Griffith-Jones(HG)).

Now I understand that you probably have no interest in Larsson or his novels.

It's good to know that you are there to help.

Kindest wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Excirial,

Just to say that my last comment about Stieg Larsson above, on second reading this morning, could sound a little obnoxious. I apologise for that, and hope you read it as it was intended, that is as a general remark about whatever it is you happen to be reverting/undoing at the time. As for this specific reversion, one date for the Period had been altered from 2004 to 2029... he died in 2004. Clearly, vandalism, but what if the alteration had been conceivable?

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Griffith-Jones,

No offense taken whatsoever - seeing the conversation we had till that point it would have been quite odd if the remark was meant in the "obnoxious" sense of the wording, as you would call it. As for the revert in question, you just managed to hit one of the most annoying types of vandalism to deal with - minor changes that could be logical. Quite often changes are made that change a birth date by one year (Or similar numbers), and god knows if that is actually correct or vandalism. In those cases we tend to rely on the reliable sources in the article, which is why sourcing is so difficult. Once a reliable source is added that information is more or less "Set in stone" until an editor supplies another reliable source that challenges the information added. In other words, if there would be a source in the article that states a certain year that information would be considered leading. Even so, this type of vandalism might be missed at times since it is much less obvious then the word "Poop" in an article about nuclear power. In those cases it more or less depends on the people watching a specific article to correct it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good evening Excirial,

I would request your input on two discussions that are currently running on Talk:The Sopranos, namely, Infobox, actors and, Italian-American, adjective hyphenated. The former has become a "tennis match"..! Can you help us to reach a conclusion, please? The latter seems to have migrated from The Godfather (the novel) and the problem here is the confusion between when it is in the noun form and when in the adjectival form. How will it ever be solved? I look forward to hearing from you again.

With best wishes,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your outstanding ant-vandalism work. Since ClueBot NG is currently down, there has been a huge spike in vandalism, which you beaten me to it at least 5 times. Good job and happy editing! -- Luke (Talk) 22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hopefully our programmed friend will be back soon though, as tat would save quite some work. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Article stability

Hi, as this shows that article has reached a point of completeness and stability where no major additions are made by IPs and all that happens via IPs is vandalism. When revised edits existed that helped, but now I think it is a good idea to semi-protect it for good to save everyone the effort of reverting IPs. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping for indef, but if you keep an eye on it in January, we will see. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, i agree that there is quite a bit of persistent vandalism with no good edits whatsoever, so protecting it would do little harm. I semi protected it for a month, to (hopefully) discourage the more persistent vandals from targeting this specific article. If this picks up again after the protection expires, it can always be extended to a longer duration, such as the 6 months Courcelles placed on it before. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed up on that revised edit story, but as a general note, I think Wikipedia has changed from 5 years ago, in that many articles have now reached a point of stability and IP edits do not do much for them. And given that the number of IPs is large, I think in time, more protection is needed across the board, not just on that article but elsewhere. I suggested that on VP, but the revised edit item sidetracked it. Anyway, I should type that on VP again at some point I think. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there have actually been quite a few discussions about that exact same change - so many that it is listed as a section on the perennial proposals page and besides that there are essays such as WP:IP!=VANDAL and WP:HUMAN on the issue which discuss the other side of the coin.

As for the protection length, i tend to be more cautious then some on long term protections. In essence i think it is most times preferable to place a protection with a duration of 6 to 12 months after which the page will be available for editing again. If things go awry it can just be protected for another year with little effort, while also making sure we don't have a set of "eternally protected" article's that no-one checks to see if the protection is still needed. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like there are enough people discussing those issues. So it would be best for me not to get involved in those and think of content instead. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about reverted edits for Chicago Children's Museum

Hi Excirial,

I'm writing to ask why my recent changes to the Chicago Children's Museum page were removed. I changed incorrect information about the number of visitors served, added information about additional free admission to the public, and included information about what the museum actual does as an institution. Some of the language did come from the museum website, but I was careful to try and take out any bias/marketing-type language. Please let me know what issues you had with the changes, so that I can include this beneficial, factual information to Wikipedia users.

Much appreciated.

Chad

Hiyas there Chad,

This time you actually didn't run into me, but into another editor (([user:JeremyA|JeremyA]]) as you can see in the edit history of the page ([9]). The edit summary he provided states it is a copy and paste of the text found on this page which is correct as far as i can check.

The problem with copying and pasting text directly from other websites, is that this is not allowed under the copyright laws and Wikipedia's own policies on copyright. Par WP:COPYVIO only texts that are explicitly licensed under the CC-BY-SA or GDFL license are allowed to be placed without at least some alterations. The museum's page clearly states "© 2011 Chicago Children's Museum" which means that copyright is reserved, and text therefor cannot be directly copied. It may be used as an inspiration for your own text, but it must be sufficiently different from the original text not to fall under the copyright policy. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback Dashboard upgrade

Hi Excirial,

Thanks for signing up for the Feedback Dashboard response team! I wanted to let you know that the tool just got an important update (see here for details). I also wanted to invite you to the IRC office hours session that Steven and I are going to hold this Sunday, December 4. Hope you can make it and share your experience/questions with us! Thanks again, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

About the deleted page.

Hi Excirial, Thank you for deleting the page. But I want that deleted page deleted forever. Why and how does the title exist still? I just wanted to run a test. It's already done. Please, now delete everything of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehediarif (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If a page is deleted, it is technically not removed from Wikipedia, but is instead made invisible to anyone who isn't in a permission group that allows viewing deleted pages (Thus, a page can also be restored at any time). The deletion of the page itself is equally logged in the deletion log, and due to this a red banner stating the deletion reason is displayed whenever you access the page title which was previously removed. There is no way to prevent this other then deleting the log entries, and this is simply a no-go except in very rare cases. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Type in Free Willy

The protected article "Free Willy" contains a typo - "Norway" should be capitalized, but is not. Despite the vandalism, this should probably be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.74.161 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiyas there 70.90; I naturally agree with that change, so this i now corrected. In the future it might be more convenient to add the {{Edit semi-protected}} template to an article's talk page if you cannot edit it because it is semi protected (Just copy it, including both brackets), along with a short explanation as to what should be changed. That way more editors can see the request, just in case i decide to go on a week vacation or something and therefor won't see a comment in a while. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)