User talk:Merlion444/Archive 1

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 2

Concerning about an edit in Christopher Langan

First off, I am not the one being non-neutral. The other person, who continuously kept typing that CTMU had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, despite the fact that it has (as clearly stated in the article) is the person who is being non-neutral. - Kronos777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronos777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said in this edit that "This is actually in complete violation of Neutral point of view, but when it comes to Wikipedia, I guess they just don't give a shit". You must be violating the neutral point of view policy. I tend to 'so-called' agree with SuperHamster when you are disrupting the article in your talk page. Merlion 444 05:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding such content as attack page or vandalism

When an editor post negative comments on a person, who is not an editor of Wikipedia, on his/her user page or create an article about that, is it considered an attack page (WP:CSD#G10) or vandalism (WP:CSD#G3)?

-- Merlion 444 09:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack, if it meets the criteria explained in WP:ATTACK. Negative comments in an article with appropriate references to reliable sources, however, are perfectly acceptable. Chzz ► 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you hate Chris Smith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.100.35 (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that I hate Chris Smith, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is also not anyone's web host. Merlion 444 04:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for the Barnstar. Atif.t2 (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong

When I tag Michele Tabernilla for speedy deletion with CSD A7, I found out on the revision history that there is only me requesting speedy deletion. I did not create the article and the original author is unknown. What is wrong? Merlion 444 07:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now it's Ellehcim 101 who created the article. He/she's been warned about speedy deletion. I suppose it's a glitch. Merlion 444 07:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work :)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Keep up your great work patrolling the new pages. You're doing a really good job of getting the right CSD (from what I've seen). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still need to improve on my skills in order to have a good experience in patrolling new pages. Merlion 444 07:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you're doing a really great job, trust me. But naturally, we're all still learning :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tereza Maxová

Hello Merlion444, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tereza Maxová - a page you tagged - because: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. So Why 12:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I just thought there are no references on the article. Merlion 444 12:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. This is a common mistake people make with A7 (read this link for more information!). This criterion you used does not require references to be present, it only requires that importance or significance (not notability!) is indicated in the article and someone who was on magazine covers usually can be considered significant. Instead, try tagging the article for the issues it has (for example using {{unreferenced}}) or try improving it yourself using services like Google News. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. PS: When using {{talkback}}, do simply add {{talkback|Merlion444}} to the user's talk page. Do not use {{subst:talkback|Merlion444}} or copy the code from Template:talkback. Regards So Why 12:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback?

Hi Merlion, :) I just had a quick look at your contributions; keep up the good work! Would you be interested in having the rollback feature? You can read about it here: Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I'd be happy to give you access, if you're interested. Maedin\^talk 16:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like to have this feature. Anyway, I could use Huggle if I had that feature. Merlion 444 16:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have enabled rollback on your account, congrats! Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Cheers, Maedin\^talk 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

talk page semi protect

I do not want to semi protect my talk page because the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead. I would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage. —Dark 09:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In which case, I'll respect DarkFalls wishes and not reprotect his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Differentiating between removal of content and vandalism in this scenario below

{{helpme}} When an editor blanks a section of a page or the entire page and replace it with nonsense, is it considered vandalism or removal of content? -- Merlion 444 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If it really is utter nonesense, I'd go for 'vandalism'. If it's mostly just blank, I'd go with removal. Check Wikipedia:Vandalism for details on what is and is not considered vandalism; if in doubt, remember that you don't have to use templates - you can always try 'chatting' to the person, see what they were up to. Try to assume good faith - sometimes it really was a mistake or just a 'test' ~~MaxiPop (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~~Oops, that was me; sorry; PC was logged in as someone else and I didn't notice :-/ Chzz ► 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Was looking through recent changes and saw some vandalism done to Magic, was about to revert when I saw you beat me to the punch. Recognized the username, so... cheers, from one Singaporean RCPatroller to another! Keep up the good work. :) BlazerKnight (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are a little too quick on the speedy deletion tags?

I started Freezer Queen which is a perfectly good article for Wikipedia. Did you mark it for deletion? Whoever did, as a result it was wiped out before I could eat lunch and run an errand and check back. I lost my original work. It was a perfectly acceptable article from the beginning and there was no valid reason to mark it for speedy deletion. It's fine to pride yourself on being quick on vandalism, as you do above, but IMO you should slow down and more carefully consider deletion tags, if in fact you so marked Freezer Queen. DanielM (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I'm being a little idiotic. Merlion 444 05:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For your mistake

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hope this doesn't happen again... Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 07:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking

Hi there. First off, thanks for all of your Huggle work! I'd just like to inform you of the following situation: occasionally, a user will completely blank an article. The instinctive response is to revert, and this is almost always the correct thing to do. There is only one situation I can think of right now where you shouldn't, and that's if the article's creator is the one doing the blanking. This is usually an indicator that they want the page deleted, and don't understand how to go about that. Instead of reverting, it's usually a better idea to keep it blank and tag with {{db-author}} (CSD G7). This is in response to your warning here. Best regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 23:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I might be too quick. Sorry. Merlion 444 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Plip!

Per above, I gave you the trout earlier on so I shall be gentle with you this time, it's a minnow for you now~! --Dave1185 ^talk 09:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the content into another language

{{helpme}} When somebody change the content in an article into another language, is it considered vandalism or something? -- Merlion 444 10:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism carries an implication of bad faith. Someone changing content into another language probably wants to be a good faith editor who simply does not understand how things are done around here. Use WP:UNDO instead of rollback with a reason why you undid the changes and leave them a nice message explaining that Wikipedia has different wikis for every language and that they should contribute the translated text there. Wikipedia:Translation has a number of interwiki links to other language's Wikipedias which have a similar guide, so if you can identify the language and if it has such a guide, you can provide the user with a direct link there. Regards So Why 10:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. What article are you talking about? If someone adds information in other language than english to the article, I would use some translator - for example Google Translate to see what the text is in english and decide after that if it's vandalism or not. Some people can't speak english, but they still want to improve Wikipedia. That kind of changes are not made in bad faith. Ilyushka88 talk 10:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Any article. Merlion 444 10:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism...

Your userpage seems to be target of persistent vandalism.... Anyway, Cheers... Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish somebody semi-protect my user page and if under a situation when vandals keep vandalizing my talk page, he also semi-protect it for a while. Merlion 444 14:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax... but if the vandalism persist, you might want to consider bringing this up to any Admin for assistance to SPP your discussion page so that it is off limits only to IP vandals and newly registered users. Also, you may want to read this → Wikipedia:Deny recognition ←. Other than that, have no fear because we are watching your back for you. Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 15:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done I've put an infinite-time semi-protection on your userpage, seeing your request here (Dave directed me to your talk page). If you would like the page to be unprotected in the future, feel free to request at WP:RFPP or at any admin's user talk page. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Merlion 444 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand by and watch while someone suffers, and that's why I help you. Also, I've removed that troll/vandal magnet header of yours, it's a like a beacon attracting unwanted attentions from those vandals. Didn't you read WP:DENY? --Dave1185 ^talk 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to read that. I'll do it now. Merlion 444 08:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You better go read lah... otherwise, it will not be the trout or minnow, it's roti-prata or the chapati for you the next time~! Cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 08:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of one userbox

My 2 cents... I think you might want to remove that vandal don't like you userbox, if I was a vandal then that would be like a homing beacon for me. If you have read WP:DENY, you will know what I meant by that and the choice is yours. Have a nice week ahead and cheers~! --Dave1185 ^talk 15:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. Merlion 444 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you heed my advice... and don't sweat it, being in the hostile mood will only serve to let those vandals have the last laugh. Relax, take it easy and move on... per WP:DENY, they'll leave you alone once they know that you mean business and you're denying them the recognition which they are craving for. Goodnight~! PS: You can leave me a message if you need any more help, I can be found usually at the page of Republic of Singapore Air Force. --Dave1185 ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jowaine Parrott

The article Jowaine Parrott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Needs citations to prove notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sorry, I removed the speedy tag, because the text alleged notability. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference between close paraphrasing and complete paraphrasing

{{helpme}} I know close paraphrasing of a text is not acceptable when it comes from a non-free source. But would it be okay to completely paraphrase the non-free text (like writing in your own words)? -- Merlion 444 08:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely - that's what most articles consist of. Almost all referenced information is non-free - books, newspapers, etc. Just don't rely on a single source, and of course make sure it is a reliable source.

If you need further help, just use another helpme, talk to us live, with this, or contact me on my talk page. Chzz ► 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to help, but probably others were too quick.

In some cases when a new page is not in English, I am trying to help tag it with {{notenglish}}, but other users must have deleted the page per CSD A2 before I did that action. They must have been too quick. Merlion 444 03:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar on behalf of all the the vandalism you have reverted, thank you. South Bay (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Merlion 444 07:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I was right about to give him that. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

And now with a little copyright problem and close paraphrasing

An article on Hasan Aksay was initially a copyright infringement (I put the copyvio template, but it was removed) as the original website states the copyright symbol. The editor responsible claims to change the text, but still is a copyright infringement with close paraphrasing (I put it for PROD, but it was removed). Now what? Merlion 444 08:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Playvix

I've changed your hoax tag to a copyviol. It doesn't appear to be a hoax - Playvix is referred to in places as 'scumware'. Peridon (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I thought Playvix was a fake. I didn't know it was real. Merlion 444 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The trout goes to self. Merlion 444 04:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Corinna Bille

Please remove the delete tag. I am just starting to build that page. Due to my busy schedule it will take a few days this week. thanks.--Letters101 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tippsoc

Didn't really mean to change your db-spam. Getting tired and thought I was dealing with the copyright speedy. Sigh. Eeekster (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but the article is more of spam than just an unremarkable club or a copyvio. Merlion 444 08:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with your db-spam. Just didn't realize what I was doing and probably should get some sleep. Eeekster (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, have a good rest, and maybe you will be more alert when you wake up. Merlion 444 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi, you are doing great huggle job but in the article Gautam Gambhir, you have exceeded the 3RR limit which says that in ever page, you can revert revisions only three times. Please read WP:3RR. Violating this rule may result in blocking or removal of rollback. Thank you, Srin ivas 12:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts on the page include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] all occurred in a span of 15 minutes. Srin ivas 12:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But the IP address is vandalizing the page. It's my job for undoing the edit. Please see WP:3RR#Exceptions to 3RR. Merlion 444 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Exemptions are rarely considered. Note that there many people fighting vandalism along with you simultaneously. So, after three reverts wait for some other person to revert then, again you can revert the page. And good to see that the Gautam Gambhir vandalizer has been blocked. Srin ivas 13:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I know. I was just too stressed so I hurriedly reverted the edits. Merlion 444 13:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

:P, Srin ivas 13:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:3RR doesn't apply for vandalism it seems. Sorry, Srin ivas 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fatemiye University of Medical Sciences, Qom

Hello Merlion444, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Fatemiye University of Medical Sciences, Qom - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 20:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The trout goes to self. Again. Merlion 444 04:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy declined: Holton, Oxfordshire

Hi. Just to let you know that Holton, Oxfordshire does not qualify for speedy deletion under the criterion you chose (no context). If you still feel this article should be deleted, please consider taking to AfD, PROD or by another speedy deletion method. Cheers. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to have happened a number of times before. I might suggest reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion before nominating further articles. Cheers, Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Even if a new page is very short, it may not qualify under A1. Trout again. Merlion 444 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Baby Shakes

Hey there. Please see the article talk page with why I tagged it as G3 at first. I didn't do any initial research on it first, and thought hoax when I noticed a couple of the labels that couldn't possibly exist. By the time I got back to change it, it had already been done. :) Cheers! ArcAngel (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Royalbroil, on ArcAngel's talk page:

I see assertion for meeting WP:BAND as the article says they were on a national US tour, so I declined the speedy deletion. Speedy needs to be extremely obvious with no assertions of meeting notability standards. I think you should list it at AFD or PROD - maybe someone will improve it. I had a little time (finally!), so I was checking the speedy deletions. I hope that you are doing well!

The article is kept because of my mistake. Merlion 444 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

And thanks for all your hard work reverting vandalism too! :) Jdrewitt (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Talk Page

I reported the IP....My god you are very quick too...I appreciate your speed in deleting Vandalism.. :) arunkumar^{checkmate me} 11:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Merlion 444 11:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Andre Roemer

Andres Roemer is an evil piece of shit. The changes I have made to his page only insinuate the true nature of this guy's character. He is a well connected political figure in Mexico who was accused of rape by his own daughter! I have personal knowledge of who he really is. His "credentials" are as unsubstantiated as anything I wrote about him. Let it go Merlin444. The world is a better place if there is a voice that speaks about this evil motherfucker.

If you need more proof of my claims, contact me and I will provide you with my sources.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbinnikolas (talk • contribs) 15:35, November 23, 2009

I think articles are supposed to be written in a neutral point of view, especially biographies of living persons. And no personal attacks. Merlion 444 08:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be taking a Wikibreak soon

Because I am addicted to Wikipedia for some time, I am going to have a Wikibreak, however, I may pop in occasionally during the Wikibreak. Merlion 444 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

About ClueBot not operating

Hi. I see that you have noticed that ClueBot is not operating. The only ClueBot running is ClueBot II, and if you look at the pages User:ClueBot/Run, User:ClueBot_II/Run, User:ClueBot_III/Run, User:ClueBot_IV/Run, and User:ClueBot_VI/Run, ClueBot II, which is the only ClueBot operating, has a period (.) after the word "True", while the other ClueBot's don't. I've been wondering if it would be a good idea to put a period at the end of the other ClueBot run pages so it says "True." with the period at the end so they would operate. Do you think it would be a good idea? Also, the reason I'm asking you for advice is because Cobi hasn't been editing for a few days. Anyways, do you think that my idea is a good idea? Do you think it would make the ClueBots operate? --Ha dg er 20:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about programming, so I do not know if it is a good idea or not. -- Merlion 444 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried it, but it didn't work. --Ha dg er 06:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably the subpage "/Run" in all ClueBots is fully protected and only can be edited by administrators. Maybe try putting {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the "Run" subpage and request that the period be added after the word "True". Merlion 444 06:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that they aren't all protected. User:ClueBot III/Run is semi-protected, so I tried adding a period at the end of "True", but unfortunately, it didn't fix the bot. --Ha dg er 06:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe there's something wrong with the code of the ClueBots except ClueBot II. Merlion 444 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalker

If you are okay with retargeting Wikistalker from Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding to Cyberstalker and putting a hatnote similar to

Wikistalker redirects here. For cyberstalking as it pertains to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding.

at the top of Cyberstalking, we can close WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 27#Wikistalker as having found consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This time you won

Thanks for this one! Favonian (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Premature praise for Huggle — it seems to have lost contact with the IRC feed :( Favonian (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Protecting your space

I changed protection as you wish. I'm not sure what do you mean by putting templates - you should be able to do it yourself (?) I'll go offline in few mins, thus please ask another admin for changes - no need for any approval from my side. I see in my watchlist that user:Zzuuzz is going around and reblocking "your" socks for years, as someone found and blocked they open proxy. No, I don't know how that works, please tell me (or point to a page) how its done. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies is the page, but I still don't fully understand it. Materialscientist (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)