User talk:2001:db8/Archive

Welcome!
Hello 2001:db8, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Ocaasi c 13:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to know your way around here quite well, but just in case it was only beginner's luck, feel free to ask a question. Cheers, Ocaasi c13:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits were not unconstructive
I merely added a descriptive adjective to better specify what type of scientific research was conducted  Ind igo child  02:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh that, I thought you were talking about something else. Nevermind then.  Ind igo child  04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

IPv6 deployment
In fact, much a large part of the Internet already supports IPv6, but does not use it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
In the future, please reply to a message directly on your own talk page to keep discussion centralized. Don't split it across multiple pages. Jasper Deng (talk)03:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Note

 * Re this: Try OPEN. Oops, misread.
 * My IPv6 analysis for Wikipedia was mentioned in this week's Signpost. You're more than welcome to comment on its talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, never thought of it! Hey, feel free to add more concerns to the concerns section if you'd like!Jasper Deng (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman
Maybe we can try and reach a clear concensus on the talk page about how to describe Zimmerman? We don't know if he's Jewish, we cannot call him Caucasian when he's only half and the Hispanic description is problematic because some people apparantly feel very strongly about this (for dubious reasons). Multiracial is the safest way to go, because most sources support this description. The edit war has to stop, that's for sure. In any case I am glad you agree on this. Most appreciated. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you shouldsign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: And yes, "semi-violated" 3RR as I'm not sure whether my WP:BLP revert was appropriate or not. I think it was, based on the forming consensus at that time. It's up to you to judge that.
 * Yes, the block of both of you included my judgement of that situation ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you should look at the other users who performed 4+ reverts, without even trying to follow guidelines. I should not be penalized more than users who did not self-report their activity; either my block should be removed, or you should review and appropriately penalize users involved in the edit war equally. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 10:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not have a look and see that both editors involved in the edit war have, indeed, been blocked identically. This is not being "penalized"; it is protecting the project.  Although I acknowledge that you are trying to protect the article, dispute resolution processes are to be invoked prior to your own breaching of 3RR.  24hrs is a very minor block.  It's a good time to prepare discussions ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There were > 2 editors involved in this edit war. I only came in towards the end. I have no problem with you blocking me; I have a problem with you not equally blocking the other user(s) who seemingly violated 3RR. (How else would that other user get to 7+ reverts?) I guess the solution is to not self-report, and not be the last person to do 3 reverts + an admittedly-questionable (but reasonable, based on talk page consensus at that time) BLP revert. You can see very well that I STOPPED editing the page at that point, and STARTED contributing much more extensively to the talk page in an attempt to discuss with the primary edit warring party. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 10:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, which edit-warring editor have I missed with the blocks? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Jun 2012
I decided to stop editing after the previous admin's inept summary decision to ban me. I may edit more in the future, or I may not. However, I advise any Wikipedia editors to remember...you're just contributing to a project that other people run, and maybe you'll get banned over silly stuff. You certainly won't get recognized for anything, other than by yourself...but that's always been good enough for me, until I ran into an admin who was more interested in bans than the content and usefulness of Wikipedia. (Hey, and I could just delete the above text, but I choose not to. I'd rather have it in my "permanent file.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Edit warring and things like these scared me. I just went along with the system and didn't let them get on my nerves. Don't let that small incident spell the end for you. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get scared by Bwilkins' closing of the thread on his talk page. He's not working for your best interests by making that comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm more amused and saddened by it than anything...an admin shouldn't be making statements like those made in the closure reason, while officially acting on behalf of Wikipedia...so if anything, it works against his best interests! I was especially amused that the admin went back and edited it to add MORE personal attacks on me after the initial message there. But it was definitely time to give up that argument... I've just never had to interact with an admin before, so it was frustrating to run into one with whom I disagreed as much as was the case. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

have a fish
 Br'er Rabbit  08:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

so many wilful users on this article ;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with 2012 Oak Creek shooting you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiveSidedFistagon (talk • contribs)
 * Since this unsigned editor has not replied to a question on his/her talk page as to what was supposedly vandalized, I assume this is a good-faith error directed at another vandal that I was reverting and warning myself, at the same time. (Though this editor was a bit inept as far as followup goes.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please consider registering a named account, as you obviously know what you are doing here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a named account. :) Though I'm not sure you can create new accounts with similar names, now that IPv6 is enabled site-wide. (2001:db8::/32 is the IPv6 documentation prefix.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, trout time, didn't read carefully enough, it's been a long day.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good Compromise on Oak Creek shooting
Thanks for suggesting a workable compromise (I still disagree that details were unnecessary), too often editors strike out too much information instead of trying to shape it into better format. Litch (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we could compromise. My problem was mainly with noting details about Stormfront, the racist gathering, and the band, which could be BLP contentious...e.g., perhaps other members of his band aren't white supremacists. (Even if they probably are.) The ref also notes that the apparent link is based on conjecture given the band name/location as found in forum posts (which could, say, have even just been posted by a fan), so I think it's safest to just go with the minimal we have there now, since the other details aren't hugely relevant to the article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey
. Just wanted to say it's been a real pleasure working with you on 2012 Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting. Have a beer on me. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can always use a nice mug of a German-looking beer! It's been a pleasure working with you as well; thanks for being so helpful and civil (definitely more so than me...I've likely bordered on edit warring more than once.) I've gotten tired of editing breaking news-type articles before due to a specific editor or two, but almost everyone's been cooperative so far on this one, which is always nice! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 20:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not my usual area, but I've been enjoying it. I find that I'm this guy sometimes. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 U.S. diplomatic missions attacks title
I believe that the "U.S." should be taken out of title, because a German embassy was attacked too. Message me on my page to reply.  JC  &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; Contributions 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Re
I wasn't aware of the Requested move section on the talk, thanks!  JC  &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; Contributions 03:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you comment on the title rename I proposed? Since the reactions to the film don't only include unarmed protests, the title should reflect the attacks in Benghazi and Afghanistan, which were both initiated using the film as a pretext. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

New Move Request
The current move request on the "2012 diplomatic missions attacks" page is a mess. Also, it has already been moved once (removing "US"). Do you think we should start a new Move Request? Or is that not going to work?-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry....
The reverted comment was an improvement over all the drama that preceded it. Cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That final warning
If you are concerned about removing it because you think it'll look improper on your part, I'd be happy to remove it. It's obviously not an accurate warning.--v/r -TP 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, but thanks for offering; I kept it since the rest of the thread was relevant. An incorrect warning doesn't bother me much, since anyone with sense would likely notice it as such as you did. :) (Time to archive that older stuff anyways...) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 12:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: your edit summary on Hurricane Sandy
The bot is controlled by User:Legobot/Current hurricanes, which at the moment is picking up from the page you linked in your summary, which Anonymouse321 pointed out to me. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Winter Storm Brutus
I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutusand offer your input. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

fix
Thanks for this fix. I was still trying to figure out how to rewrite it all when you posted it. Ryan Vesey 21:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Creek - 20 and 6
Someone changed the opening sentence of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to "On December 14, 2012, 26 people, including 20 children and six adult staff members..." from the correct 20 and 6. You can edit it. Just cite the "comparable quantities" portion of WP:NUMERAL: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". I'm also going to letSandyGeorgia know. You can reply here; I'll follow this thread. ;) --76.189.123.142(talk) 23:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Grr. That crap annoys me way more than it should... :) Reverted it again and stuck back in my hidden comment...which was removed, despite no talk page discussion past earlier consensus.– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, annoying. Good job. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN for February 2013 nor'easter
--Thanks for all your help in getting the article Main Page-ready!  Spencer T♦ C 05:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not much else to do when that thing still has me stuck in my house. :) Thanks for your editing help as well for the same! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

edit warring inclusion of contentious material, with no discussion on talk page by said editor
With regard to this edit, you are of course invited to participate in the discussion. You are not, however, free to mischaracterize the inclusion of this content as "edit warring" nor that it was done without discussion. In fact, it was done with discussion, and an apparently satisfactory compromise was reached between the two parties whose "edit war" you witnessed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that's been contentious over the life of the article, and I noted that the user who had just readded it 3 times hadn't participated in any discussion on the talk page, thus reverting it to what had been a stable version for some time. (But I missed the new discussion that popped up in that section, which I've now added my own bit to.) Edit: And didn't realize User:Slawekb redirects to you... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming
I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Binders full of women until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

How do I discuss changes to "major" templates?
I edited Template:Recent event and created Template:Recent related, since I was getting sick of seeing Template:Current applied to anything newsworthy, even when an event had clearly passed and it was just the media or whatnot catching up. Recent is much more accurate. I wrote a brief summary at Template talk:Recent event, but don't know if there's a more appropriate place to discuss such template changes. Where should I propose/discuss such things? – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The village pump probably. I would recommend either WP:VPR (proposals) or WP:VPP (policy). Legoktm (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thane building collapse article
Hi there!

Thanks by the way for all your edits - I had previously did a compare across a number of edits and didn't realize how many great edits you made until I started doing research and looked at the changes line by line. You made a lot of great edits to make the article sharper, clearer, correct and wikified! Thanks!

One question for you: I've been trying to find a source that reports that the parents of the 10 month old girl have been located - and I cannot find one. Everything I find says that the search for the parents was in vain. There was one source, though, that said someone had stepped in to care for the child (I think a hospital worker). Do you have a source that reported that the parents have been located? (I'll watch this page).

Thanks much! Happy editing!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 04:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough cleanup you've been doing as well! Regarding the girl, see Talk:2013 Thane building collapse; I replied there. (And I'm watching that page, so feel free to reply there.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, great! I think we're in good shape now. I've been cross-checking this compare from my edit at 22:02 6 April to now - and the net-net looks pretty good! I hope that you think so, too! Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Numerals
Good work, at the bombing article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Stupid OCD tendencies make me cringe every time I see that changed back... :) (I added a hidden comment before, guess I'll put it back if it continues to change.) Such a minor issue, yet it annoys me! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here. So thanks for doing the heavy lifting.  BTW -- we differ on OR; I'll leave my thoughts on the article tp.  Don't take them personally, please.  Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. It's been nice to work with editors who've done a great job of improving it without any policy-related drama, despite the huge number of edits. 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts, as User:Asdfsdfsdf. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose I can sympathize with you to some extent, since you seem to be sincere, but unfortunately, apparently you cannot appeal a block because of someone else misusing your account/IP address. I'm not a huge supporter of that rule, but it works like that. Sorry.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   04:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not had much interaction with this editor, but did just have highly positive interaction with him where he performed good work for the project (see my note above the block). And, subsequent to me, the same was noted by another established editor (a sysop) -- see his subsequent kudos, above).  We have rules.  But another is AGF.  And ... I recently reviewed an unblock of an editor where the community/unblocker considered other contributions.  If he can be released from the corner for time served, I think that may be appropriate.  (Plus, fill in here "blocks are not meant to be punitive" and whatever other standard phrases people throw out in these situations, but it is my prior point that leads me to leave this note).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Honestly, I wouldn't begrudge a reviewing admin for leaving this in place; I was tempted to just ride out the block, since it is a pretty dumb situation and I'm not sure how much sympathy I'd have from the other side... – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that 2001:db8 is telling the truth here, and request that the block is shortened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the individual in question has agreed not to drag third parties like Wikipedia into stupid "jokes", so I don't believe there's any further danger of vandalism from my IP. (Apparently, earning me a one-week block was a "win.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange edit
Hi, I have a question regarding this edit of yours which I find strange: you change a referenced statement, remove the reference, and then add a citation-needed template. Why? AxelBoldt (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was clarifying the exploding bomb per a report that I couldn't find a ref for quickly...I'd meant to go back and stick in a proper ref, but forgot to. Oops.– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits
Hi. Welcome back. Two comments -- a) one doesn't need square brackets around ellipses within a quote (they add nothing, and should not be there); and b) no need for a "footnote needed" tag in a lede, where the footnote appears in the text below that the lede summarizes. Good to have you back.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I have to thank you for corroborating my editing history. Point noted on the ellipses. I really need to read through the whole MOS at some point since I'm pretty pedantic about it myself... :) And I completely missed that the statement I cned was duplicated and referenced in the body. Oops. (And did the same thing on another article just shortly before, but caught that one! Excessively lazy editing on my part.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, my friend. Welcome back.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"By whom"
Hello! Since you seem to be a knowledgeable editor, why don't you just fix my wording in the Boston Marathon bombings article instead of just tagging it with ""? I don't want to keep guessing what's the acceptable form since you obviously already know it. Be bold, you know. ;) Cheers, &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It just needed someone listed at all rather than implying everyone; I ended up using "by some", since I didn't feel like trying to summarize the reasons, although that would be better if you feel like editing it further. (E.g, "criticized by some as an overreaction because X, Y, and Z.") You already had the specific refs summarized out (in fact, I re-summarized one before noticing it was already summarized!), other than the FBI interview from RT which wasn't actually relevant. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! It seems that other editors already improved it a little further too. :) &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit blanking
Hey, sorry about blanking out your comment- I'm a little new to making edits, I've made a few in the past but clearly I'm still learning. :-/ Fjf1085 (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. :) I assumed good faith as noted in my edit summary. We were all new at editing at one point; like I said on that article's talk page, be bold! Edit things, and don't worry too much about messing up; someone else can always correct any mistakes, and my view is that it's better to fix things that you think are broken than to hesitate and let errors stand. Let me know if you have any other questions...I'm not a particularly "experienced" editor myself, but I've certainly run into similar pitfalls with screwy accidental edits and the like!– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Completing the Move
How do we get the Kidnapping page moved exactly? Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It has to be moved by an admin. Hopefully, some admin will determine we have consensus sooner rather than later...but we may need to wait the full 7 days (until the 15th) for the proposal to run its course before a consensus decision is made. (And even then, it might be the case that the reviewer thinks there's no consensus, and we get stuck with the horrible title even longer. But hopefully not.)– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugg, maybe we can get an Admin to look at it.Have you seen this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
 * I imagine there are plenty of admins watching the page; there's really no way to get it brought up for a speedy review. Chances are, folks have decided it's too contentious to close quickly and to let it run the full 7 days. (Also, as others have asked, please try to format your comments properly...when you reply, you should generally use an extra ":" to indent one block further than the comment you're replying to, and remember to use ~ to sign things. Read WP:THREAD if you haven't. Preview before you submit and you can see if it looks right.)– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-listed thread
Hello. I re-listed a thread where you had commented and I did hope to hear your opinion on the internal comment overall. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking for input on this rather than just removing it. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You're certainly welcome, and I value the hearing of additional insights; always! My76Strat (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOLD
I know we've had our disagreements on the Boston Marathon bombings article, but your recent edits regarding this guideline are borderline trolling. This and this are beyond the pale... don't undo those again. Your interpretation of that guideline is untenable. Don't undo obvious convention on any articles before this has wider discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize how widespread your disruption on this issue was. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After noticing this thread, I can't help but echo Shadowjams admonishment here. Sometimes it's hard for me to be as direct, but the sesquipedalian pandering and the candid perfunctory prose arrive at exactly the same conclusion. You are basing your efforts in good faith on an absolutely "untenable" interpretation and you have to open yourself to hearing the explanation of where your misunderstanding lies. If you don't even believe there is any possibility that you've misunderstood a thing, there is no reason for me to even try to explain. I tested your amenability to such a possibility when I last stated to you. "I do think you are missing some nuance [regarding] the guidelines". Unless you asked me to explain that statement, there would not be a reason to try. I still think you are missing the same nuance, and it is causing you to egregiously err. --My76Strat (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How is applying guidelines with clear explanation and being willing to discuss them in a reasonable manner trolling? Attempting to comply to the MOS with policy-based arguments is not "trolling." In the case of the Boston Marathon bombings article, Shadowjams never explained why the two examples were not identical (frankly, I wondered if using almost the exact wording from a negative example in the MOS was itself trolling, but I will continue to assume good faith.) My76Strat never expanded on the specific issues I had raised with the previously proposed alternative, which I took the time to clearly address point-by-point. But let's ignore that particular article for now; interpretation there was decided some time ago, and not just by me, and we've all spent an excessive amount of time discussing that one so far.

Furthermore, I'm applying this guideline as it's been applied by consensus on many other high-traffic articles with similar structures. (For what it's worth, I didn't originate that hidden comment; I picked it up from other editors who had been applying the same policy on previous articles that I was editing, after I was reverted myself for incorrectly bolding a title and pointed at the policy.)

I find it more disruptive that you would go and apply your own interpretation across whatever instances of a policy disagreement you can find in an editor's recent history, reverting edits without an edit summary when you are clearly involved in the policy dispute yourself. When there's clear contention between editors on the interpretation of a specific guideline, the solution is not to go and apply your own interpretation, but to discuss it with that editor first and seek further input if needed.

I'll agree that a couple of those may have been borderline calls, such as. (Note that WP:BEGIN addresses this case of a list specifically, though.) But on an example such as, I find your need to revert every instance you could find indefensible. Can you please explain your specific objection to the latter case, which appears to be a rather ludicrous revert to me? I can't see any reason other than that you decided to look for anything with BOLDTITLE in my edit history and revert it.

My76Strat's suggestion that I don't believe in the possibility that I've misunderstood the guideline is based on discussion from a single article, which I argued in particular since there was agreement over the policy earlier in the article's life. I firmly stand by my interpretation of the guideline in that instance, but I am quite open to discussing the guideline as it applies to other articles, such as and. Perhaps those were overapplication of the policy as well, though I tend to think they were not as they removed redundancies. (PerWP:REDUNDANCY.) As for the Moore and Joplin articles, I gave my precise policy-based reasoning on the talk page; as you can see, I further edited the Joplin page to try to improve it after the other editor stated it was less readable. Your contribution there was basically to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT and revert without constructive input.

My proposed remedy for this is that we discuss all of these examples on an MOS talk page, and look for community input there as to proper application of the MOS in these instances, which should hopefully help clarify the general application of the policy for all involved. Would the two of you agree to that? I think it would be more constructive than just going and reverting things you don't like from another editor's contributions with no warning or discussion. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should go to a full RFC. If I caused you grief in any way from the comments I made, I apologize and did not intend for anything like that to transpire. I am very preoccupied this exact moment, it seems my email has been hacked and my password may have been jeopardized so I need to address this matter further, as a priority. Cheers.--My76Strat (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it; I didn't take any real offense at your comments, and I can understand the need for somewhat stronger wording after our previous discussions deadlocked. I'll open up a discussion on the MOS talk page when I get a chance; I think that's a more appropriate venue for this than a general RFC, being MOS-specific, though let me know if you disagree.– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Please provide your views there so we can hopefully get useful input and clarification. Thanks. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 16:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * After reading further, that doesn't seem like the right place to post it. I've summarized the relevant content at User talk:2001:db8/BOLDTITLE and posted it to the DRN at Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you feel a regular RFC is preferable, I would be happy to withdraw the dispute and do that, since I'm not fully sure what the best venue for this is. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe your current assertion of "correctness" regarding the interpretation of the policy is at odds with various input from WT:LEAD. I do not intend to edit any of the specific disputed article ledes for now (I added a wikilink at List of English monarchs following another edit, but that's about it; and I hope you'd also refrain from re-ledeing Boston Marathon bombings without consensus to change it), but I feel that the two of you are asserting WP:OWNERSHIP over the interpretation of policy here. Thus, I no longer intend to refrain from editing other articles that I may randomly come upon. Frankly, I've been pretty patient here in heeding your "warning", since it only relates to our personal interpretations of the MOS. You're welcome to drag this to AN/I or whatever if you find any further occasional edits in my history that do not comply to your interpretation of the guidelines, but I do not feel it reasonable to defer to your interpretation after a good-faith period of dispute resolution and now-ongoing WT:LEAD discussion where I voluntarily refrained from making further such edits (and am still doing so where I was reverted against good faith.) But again, you cannot WP:OWN interpretation of this policy when there has been past consensus and now other contention over your interpretation. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi 2001:db8. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thanks! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek
I'm not entirely sure how these talk pages work. I'll do my best. Reading the Christopher Pike page, it contained a spoiler for Star Trek: Into Darkness. I changed it to the false name that Khan uses during the movie for the first half so that it was possible to get the information, yet wouldn't spoil it for the casual glancer. I am changing it back, and while I appreciate your kindness in your response, continuing to make the change will only serve to inconvenience both of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by75.45.177.8 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. As for spoilers, please read WP:SPOILER, which explains that we do not include spoiler warnings or otherwise restrict them. Basically, we assume anyone reading such an article will realize it may contain spoilers. ("It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood, however I am neither encouraging nor restricting the spoiler. The change is correct for all intents and purposes-perhaps even more so, as we believe his name to be John Harrison when he kills Christopher Pike. John Harrison links to Khan's page, and it reflects the belief of the viewer and the characters at the time of the action —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.8 (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, and good luck editing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you, and to you too — Preceding unsigned comment added by75.45.177.8 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located atSpecial:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.  INeverCry   17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 17:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

1788 Election edit
I agree with your edit putting Jay and Adams back in the "Presidential Candidates" section (I'm actually the person who added them there a few months back). My concern was that having them both in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential sections was confusing, and that as Washington was elected unanimously, it would be safe to categorize them as simply Vice Presidential candidates (this is the position McCullough's "John Adams" and Mecham's "Thomas Jefferson: the Art of Power" take). Since the method of electing the President did not make distinguish between Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, I realize this is an ambiguous issue. Do you have a suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by70.61.54.235 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You know more on the issue than me, having been the one to add them and being familiar with the references. A reasonable thing to do would be to look at how the articles for following elections are structured, until the electoral college reform was made to distinguish between the offices (maybe you've already done this.) Though, that doesn't necessarily mean the other articles are correct. Did any candidates at the time declare or specifically campaign for the separate offices at all, even though that wasn't how the electoral system worked? If they didn't, then maybe it would make sense to combine these into a single "Candidates" section, noting Washington was considered the "primary" candidate for the various reasons, etc. (Though if the references categorize them separately, then we should too; basically, reflect what the references say as well as you can and explain any inconsistencies.)
 * I don't think having candidates in multiple sections is an issue though, as long as it's clearly explained why they're there. (Couldn't we still do that today, say, if a candidate ran on one party line as president and another as vice president? That might vary from state to state, and of course would never reach the electoral college since they'd realistically have to be tiny third parties.)
 * You might also want to consider creating an account, especially if you're going to be editing the same topic over time! – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The article on the 1800 election (the last and most complete election article on the pre-12th Amendment electoral college) has the candidates listed in a general "candidates" section similar to what you suggested. I will review the sources to make sure this is the most applicable option for 1788-89 in particular and act from there. Thanks for your help and advice!Nathaniel Greene (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Morsi
The reason I removed the large amount of text from his profile page was that the information in the text (while true) it does not require to be at the beginning of the page. Meaning, it is not required as information to define who the person really is. It could be added at the November 2012 declaration section and not before. It also gives out names of political figures and movements that are much of a topic of debate as to their legitimacy. It also neglects the other point of view of political figures who were actually for the declaration. This means that the text is biased. It should not be at a defining spot of who the person in question is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.165.126 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe it should not be at the top, then it should be moved elsewhere on the page...not removed. (But you should try to summarize the information back into the lead, in condensed form.) I agree it does seem excessively detailed for the lead section. As far as disputing the legitimacy of those figures and movements, you should discuss it on Talk:Mohamed Morsi. If material from other relevant points of view is left out, you should certainly add it in (properly referenced, etc), and bring up any concerns about bias on the article's talk page as well. Neutral point of view is one of our key policies and covers such issues. Keep in mind that this is a fairly high-profile article, so you should be aware that any major changes may be contentious.– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Censorship
The edit was accurate and based on US history and culture, not a magazine article by someone who is neither a US citizen nor historian. This flippant censorship is the reason I explain to all my students that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for papers or knowledge, except to point to legitimate sources.

I know this will be deleted as son as it comes across, but there is no readily apparent means of communication, other than posting. I will never use my knowledge or experience to correct another Wikipedia entry. I will, however, continue to inform all my classes of the inaccuracies and illogical censorship.

As for generic edit blackouts by IPs, ISPs use dynamic IP assignment, so that may serve to censor the wrong person altogether. Of course, that is the Modus Operandi of Wikipedia, it seems.

Delete away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.0.164 (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replacement of sourced information with unsourced, speculative content is not helpful. If it is accurate, then you need to provide sources, and should provide an edit summary as well. If you do indeed teach classes, surely you should understand the need for citing references, and attributing contentious statements rather than presenting them as facts. There is no "generic edit blackout".– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

1876 edit?
I haven't made any edits to the 1876 election article. You must have me confused with someone else. 99.162.56.32 (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Two edits were made from your IP address to United States presidential election, 1876, which blanked material for no apparent reason, shown here: . You can see the full history for your IP at Special:Contributions/99.162.56.32. If you are on a shared or dynamic IP address, you should consider creating an account to avoid such notices.– 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of rollback
Be careful when reverting edits with rollback—the tool should only be used for vandalism, not good faith edits, like this one. In cases where a good faith edit needs to be reverted, revert manually (or use the undo function) so that you can provide an edit summary explaining why the revert is necessary (I may be wrong, but this looks like a good edit to me, other than perhaps not having a source). Thank you! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warning. I'm just starting to use rollback, and that was indeed a good-faith edit that should have been properly marked as such in the edit history. I'll be more careful in the future. (I guess one out of a couple hundred marked incorrectly isn't horrid, but the goal should obviously be zero!) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. =) - Amaury (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Mick Molloy
Dear 2001:db8 why do you keep undoing my changes to pages e.g Mick Molloy. All i am doing is correcting and adding new info to these pages i know the people and they would like real info about them on here. Please stop removing my edits the internet is for truth not for one minded people like your self pushing there agenda. Thank you and have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.95.1 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edits removed large amounts of information that was well-sourced, replacing it with information that was vague and/or did not make any sense. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The edits came from the people the pages were about. the old info was wrong. Stop changing the pages to false or libelous information please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.95.1 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you believe there is libelous information, you need to read No legal threats and contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not what Wikipedia is about. Why do you keep changing pages you know nothing about? All the changes i made where true you can search any other site on the internet and find the same info. All i was doing was fixing wrong info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.95.1(talk) 05:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

 * I wouldn't normally leave a talkback, but the story is oldish so I wasn't sure if you'd notice my reply with new evidence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey 2001:db8

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guidehere, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)