User talk:Deunanknute/Archive 5

AIV
Thank you for your interest in keeping Wikipedia free of unwanted content. Please note that Administrator intervention against vandalism is for reporting  clear cases of vandalism only. If you are unsure what  constitutes vandalism, you  may wish  to  visit  WP:CVU and enroll at  WP:CVU/A to  learn more about  it. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

my book Myra-Hati
Hello Deunanknute, it's my first time writing on wikipedia, so if you could help me creating an appropriate article about my book and show me how to make it gain some notability, I will be very grateful.

Thank you :)

Just a curiosity: Do you work for the wikipedia?

See you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Paivas Souza (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for gaining notability. Topics must be notable before an article can be written about them. This link (WP:BKCRIT) explains the recommended minimum notability for books. If your book meets one of these criteria, we can start on an article. Otherwise, Wikipedia may not be an appropriate place for it.
 * And, no, I don't work for Wikipedia. I'm actually pretty new here. Deunanknute (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

use of Rollback
Please be careful on how you use Rollback. Rollback is only supposed to be used in limited circumstances.
 * To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
 * To revert edits in your own user space
 * To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
 * To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
 * To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page.

Your use of it here is not one of the limited circumstances. You should have explained why you reverted those edits by either using WP:Twinkle revert or the undo function. Misuse of the tool can lead to removal of the tool. -- GB fan 01:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was using it to revert widespread edits that consisted of vandalism. User:OJOM made multiple nearly identical edits [] [] [] [], adding large amounts of information copied from Beirut_Memorial. I'm not quite sure if it's a COI, undue weight, or NPOV issue. I tried discussing it with the editor [|here].
 * I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at this users contribution and talk history. Deunanknute (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be edits that they are doing that are vandalism, but I would not call the edit I linked to above vandalism. Here is another edit you used Rollback and it is not vandalism either.  Please read WP:Vandalism to understand what constitutes vandalism.  -- GB fan 01:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look at the intermediate edits by that user to the same page. Yes, he did revised his own before I did, but I was undoing edits to multiple pages, and probably hadn't refreshed the user's contribs page before this revert. Deunanknute (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for your use of Rollback. You need to make sure the edits you are reverting actually meet one of the limited circumstances where it can be used.  I don't think anything else needs to be said here.  -- GB fan 02:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What was exactly wrong with my editing?
I'm trying to find out what was wrong with my editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coach Elerick (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look HERE You can see the changes/deletions I did. I removed promotional content per WP:NPOV and puffery per WP:PEACOCK, and I removed non-notable alumnae per WP:NLIST. I also, recommend you look over WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG for information on articles about schools, and WP:COI for information on editing articles for which you are connected to.
 * I know it may seem like I'm slamming you with tons of rules, but the basic gist is; articles on Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased and contain encyclopedic, verifiable content. If you want changes to be made to an article for which you have a personal connection, it's best to ask another neutral editor for help. I'm willing to help as I can, or you can leave edit requests on the articles talk page, or go through WP:EDITREQ Deunanknute (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Coach Elerick (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ?????
I understand there are certain rules Wikipedia has but I'm trying to figure out where I was being biased. I work for the school and graduated from there and a lot of the information listed is incorrect which is a problem I've noticed with several of the other schools in Columbus. I have no personal connections to any of the notable alumni. They all either graduated years after me or decades before. The schools enrollment is way off and the rivalry with Eastmoor is as strong as ever even though they became Eastmoor Academy in 2000 and the Victory Bell is currently sitting ten feet from my desk. Whomever posted a lot of the information on the site is highly misinformed or is doing it from what they've heard from others. Even the notable alumni information is questionable and missing pertinent details.
 * Here is the relevant section on listing of Alumni. Here, and here are examples from two of the top high school articles (rated by article quality, not school quality) alumni categories. The rest of the changes I made weren't from you, but as I said you have a conflict of interest with the article as a whole. If you can edit it in a neutral manner, go ahead but please follow the relevant guidelines. Deunanknute (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are some great high school Wiki articles. Guessing those were the result of a team effort or someone who knew what he/she was doing. BillVol (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of people put a lot of work into them, and then a lot of people picked them apart for them to get how they are. I just wanted to point out that they are great representations of article structure, and serve as excellent examples, not necessarily to match, but to move towards. It's sometimes easier to look at another article, than to read all the guidelines. Deunanknute (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was me, D! BillVol (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got the two conversations crossed. No harm done, just please remember to sign comments with four "~"'s
 * Oh, and I'm talking about alumni/notability with both of you. No wonder I got confused. Deunanknute (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Essay
This is what's wrong with Wikipeda! Too many people here who don't understand the guidelines and what they apply to!!!! 65.24.40.85 (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to your recent edit warring, please see WP:EDITWAR for the guidelines that I was following when I cautioned you about your reverts. Deunanknute (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat
Thank you for reporting the legal threat to AIV. In the future, you will want to send those requests to WP:ANI, as it will recieve much faster attention. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think Twinkle has that option, and I forgot. Deunanknute (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alien (film)
Hello please change the plot to say the year 2122 again for the page Alien film here is proof of the year http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/USCSS_Nostromo

It says The ship was destroyed in 2122 when its engines were set to self destruct by Warrant Officer Ellen Ripley in an attempt to kill the lone Xenomorph that had gotten loose aboard the vessel. The ship and its cargo were completely destroyed in the resulting explosions.

message from User:Tin foil electra


 * As I stated in the edit message, the year does not come from the movie. When the movie came out the year was left ambiguous. The website you cited is a wiki, and like Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The site does refer to "Aliens: Colonial Marines Technical Manual" as a source for the year, but this was published in 1996, well after the movies release. Also, the book is not "official cannon" and the author "Lee Brimmicombe-Wood" even admits to making up/creating/assuming many of the fact in the book. Deunanknute (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)