User talk:Cheerful Squirrel/Archives/2021/June

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hey, Cheerful Squirrel, I just wanted to extend an official (as much as such a thing exists) welcome to Wikipedia. Looking through your contribs, it looks like you have a fairly good handle on things already, so I'll spare just dropping a templated welcome on you, but I've included one in the collapsed section below, just in case you find some of the links helpful. If I may add a few more--I see that you're starting out doing counter-vandalism work, which is always welcome. There are a couple of useful tools and pages for countervandalism work: the administrator intervention against vandalism board is a good place to report repeat vandals for admins to evaluate and block, to prevent them from doing further damage. If you choose to start making reports there, the associated guide might be helpful to read first. Since your account is brand-new, you won't be able to use Twinkle yet (you need to be autoconfirmed, which means your account must be at least four days old, to use it), but once you can, it's very helpful for speeding up the reversion process. Anyway, as the canned welcome message says, feel free to ask any questions you might have; the Teahouse is a good place for such questions, as you've hopefully seen, but my talk page is always open as well. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 04:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Cheerful Squirrel, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!


 * Very kind of you to write this detailed and personalized note. Thank you very much! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello new user, I have noticed your contributions and they are amazing! Good job fighting vandalism and adding stuff to articles. I wish you well!

Have a nice day! Pyramids09 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very sweet of you, thank you very much! :) Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Vektroid
When you see rather extreme vandalism such as on, please leave a warning message? A good warning history helps get the vandal to stop or to be blocked. Much appreciated! Thanks Adakiko (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Many warnings seem to be a waste of time, but some can help a lot. Wisdom is knowing the difference - something I could use much more of. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Formal notification, no worries
Hi ,

Regarding your offer at Special:Diff/1030051742, just to formally ensure that a notification has happened:

You are now formally "aware" of the sanctions in these areas.

Enjoy editing and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

3O neutrality
From WP:3O: a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants. a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and edit history.) (emphasis added). Here's how I might have phrased it:. Hope this helps! Leijurv (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, done! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, I'm M.Bitton. I noticed that you recently removed content from D'Lo Brown without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 90% of the edits from that user were vandalism, I'm trying to figure out what to do. The full discussion is on WP:ANI. Here's a permalink: Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish you mentioned in your edit summaries. Thank you for letting me know and feel free to revert at will. Best, 23:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cupertino Union School District, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You restored material that was removed as being unsourced, with the summary "removed section on "transportation as no citations were provided"/ How do you justify restoring this material with the summary "unexplained content removal"? It was not an unexplained removal, and the removal of the unsourced trivia was fully justified. Meters (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The transportation section has no sources, agreed, but did you see the sources for the Recall of CUSD Board Trustee Lorien Cunningham and Critical Race Theory Controversy sections? Would you support putting them back in? Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The other sections have nothing to do with the fact that you restored unsourced content with a false summary. Don't do that.
 * I've already removed the section on the recall petition. Wikipedia is not the place to promote some fringe group['s agenda. If reliable independent sources cover this then maybe it would be worth mentioning, if it goes anywhere. For now, it's just sour grapes by a vested interest group.Meters (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this resolution. I'll be more careful with the edit summaries. Cheers, Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion sufficient discussion
The two requests you made at Third Opinion have been removed because neither of them had been thoroughly discussed as required by that process. A single comment by an editor is not a thorough discussion, some effort must be shown to state positions and then respond to them and then respond to the responses. If a stalemate is reached, then dispute resolution may be used (all forms of moderated content dispute resolution have a thorough discussion requirement). If an editor will not discuss, consider the process set out at DISCFAIL. There are also many area-specific noticeboards and help forums which may be used if you just need to have a question answered about policy or procedure. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you! Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Chehalis, Washington revert?!
Hey, Cheerful Squirrel...

I guess you've been around a lot longer under other names but wow...like holy wow...you removed my entire edit because I added a line break? I mean, that's it...I separated the opening paragraph from one into two. And my entire +2,000 edit has to go!? Which also reverted a second follow-up edit?!

Like, total wow. Not even joking. Gonna need you to fix that revert.Shortiefourten (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a break for a week or so and get some coaching on how to do better. I'm really sorry about this. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries...I knew you'd change it back. I was joking/laughing as I wrote to you, I mean, how could you not, over a spacebar move! Good luck in your future coaching!Shortiefourten (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Why i removed that stuff from the CUSD page.
Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right area for me to post this, so if it's not, then please let me know. I removed the part on transportation because the user in question did not cite any sources. I even wrote that when i made the edit to explain why i was removing it. You can check the "view history" section to see why i did that.

With respect to the portion on CRT and the superintendent, i removed them because the user in question cited dubious sources and went back and reposted those sections after it was previously removed for not citing any sources at all the first time around. I'm fairly certain that they have an agenda and are trying to make the district look bad.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I think the above explanations are valid as to why those sections should be removed. For that reason, I'd like to have them removed again please.

Thank you.

~NotBobbyBrackins — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotBobbyBrackins (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I really appreciate you checking in with me. I did actually see a citation in the material you removed. I'll tell you what - I'll restore your changes for now, and I'll ask a third editor to weigh in on what we should do. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we talk about this more? It looks like some of the material you removed has a citation. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed it the second time around because the source (IMO) is not a reliable one as it is from City Journal, a publication of the Manhattan Institute, a right-wing think tank. If sources like that are indeed allowed, then i'll accept that.

Regarding the Windows Vista article
Hi, I'm writing here because I believe that some mistakes have been made regarding the article. In the article, I've removed some content due to it not applying to the product as officially those updates were never released for Windows Vista and instead for Windows Server 2008 and while those updates can be installed to Windows Vista, these were never officially made for Vista and never appeared in the Windows Vista Update client so therefore I believe it's inaccurate and disingenuine to put these updates in the page due to that reason. The IP editor suggested that the BlueKeep updates that I've kept were also in this camp which is not true as Microsoft has officially released them for Windows Vista as seen in this KB:. The other updates listed do not list Windows Vista as a supported OS for them. Vista2003 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I reverted my edit. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, we've all make mistakes and it looks like you were having a bad day there. At the end of the day, as long as you learn from this, I don't have any problems with it (after the accidental revert has been reverted of course). Vista2003 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)