User talk:Drt1245

Welcome!
Hello, Drt1245, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Yamaha XT 225 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Yamaha XT225. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Question re XMOS COI
Good day Drt1245. Thanks for contacting me regarding a possible COI - it comes up every so often. I put a reply on that page that I hope clarifies the COI issue, and are happy to discuss notability. Henk.muller, 15 March 2020, 17:19 UTC

Question re TVP page
Hi Drt1245. I was doing something else entirely and bumped into your notification that I'd made a mistake on the Textured Vegetable Protein page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Quixote9 --sorry, I've forgotten how to do a wikipedia link and it's not immediately obvious :redface:). I wrote it a while ago and at this point I don't remember what I contributed. Could you point me to it? If I made a mistake, I'd like to fix it! Quixote9 (talk) 07:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Kevin Cooper

I deleted those quotes because a lot of the information was flat out wrong. The cigarettes and footprint matches were NOT consistent, the people in the house gave inconsistent statements on where the hatchet was and only answered in the affirmative AFTER being spoken to by the mother of Chris Hughes. In addition Lilian Schafer directly said that they would NOT have seen the house in the summer; the jury saw it in the winter. Many of the state's claims were also outright lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C0C:560E:AC2F:DE22:5A74:ACD0 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , You removed two cited quotes that came directly from the courts. Wikipedia is not the place for you to do original research. See WP:OR. -drt1245 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

response to warning of disruptive editing by user domskitect
Sir, Maam, thank you for your warning on disruptive editing of the page panic buying. You undid my revision several times without adequate explanation, even after I added evidential refeerences as requested, but following your persistent agression, I deleted my contribution entirely, as you seemed so determined that I should. I posted my objections to your actions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panic_buying#Panic_and_buying_-_real_impacts_on_the_disadvantaged. I regard your contact as a form of bullying inconsistent with wikipedia's guidelines on dealing with disruptive editors. I expect you to address the concerns I and others have regarding both the ethics of panic buying and the etymology of the word panic, so that we might collaboratively resolve the matter, by working some contribution to the page panic buying, which will add value and insight into the phenomena, at this time of global crisis. Domskitect (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. Give me a break. I am not bullying you. You repeatedly added content in violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines, ignoring my warnings on your talk page to stop. -drt1245 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Stop Reporting Me
Stop Reporting Me For Putting “And Is Currently Dating Mariah Worthy” It’s the truth so stop reporting me for Vandalism. Mariah s w (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company
Regarding the line this is not a typo|Motocycle. I'm not intentionally changing this spelling, it appears to be happening when I'm editing other parts of the text. Im not sure if maybe my spellcheck did this and I didn't catch it. But you have recently made repeated edits back and forth in multiple sentances regarding this spelling error (Yourself going back and forth between Motorcycle and 'Motocycle'. Where and when do you want to see motocycle? Lastcalls (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not entirely sure. Motocycle is definitely used for the company (Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company) that existed from 1923 to 1953. I'm not sure if it was used prior to that (which is why I changed it back and forth). drt1245 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn
Hello, Drt1245! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.


 * Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
 * Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.


 * Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
 * Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.


 * Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.


 * Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.


 * Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!


 * and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 50 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767  talk!  14:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop undoing irreverent content
You have been undoing content which you did not fact check. Please do your fact check before undoing any content.

I'm referring to Location library. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.92.98.26 (talk • contribs)
 * Blocked, website blacklisted for their efforts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading
The source of the arabrometer poll was not about it it religion church yourself rather about people who identify as religious or less religious and the pew one from Algeria does not state atheism either this is a direct misleadment CircassianBilyal (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry U checked pew source is correct thank You for fixing my mistake CircassianBilyal (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding revision
Hello Drt1245,

Apologies if I'm going about this incorrectly, I am new to using Wikipedia in this way. This message is regarding edits I made to the Wikipedia page for the Long Island Serial Killer. Thank you for explaining the rules re: censorship - though it was not my intention to do so. I merely sought to bring clarity, and accuracy by using the term "sex worker" instead of "prostitue" as the words are synonymous but one is more descriptive and less confusing. Eucalyptuscreature (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding revision
I can see now that you are keen to be the censor, despite saying that you are stopping others from censoring. People have repeatedly tried to make adjustments to the repeated use of the word 'prostitute' so that sex worker becomes more used in the entry yet you repeatedly change it back. It's not the 1900's and sex worker is the correct term to use.
 * Well, thankfully you are here to educate the rest of us plebeians as at to what terms are "correct" and "incorrect". I am eager to learn where this was decided. The term 'sex worker' is vague and non-specific; it refers to a number of different professions. The term 'prostitute' accurately describes the victims, and is used in the cited sources. I find it very amusing that you consider using precise, accurate terminology to be censoring, but replacing it with vague, ambiguous language (as long as it's "correct"!) is not. drt1245 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop reverting things that aren't vandalism
Hello, I notice you've been reverting a lot of edits by the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:199:C201:FD70::/64 that aren't vandalism. Why are you so actively monitoring the edits of this IP range? At User talk:Brocerius this IP claims to have previously been Jerzy, a former admin who I know from way back ... yes I know he has an eccentric style but he does not deserve to be treated like a vandal. If you revert any more edits by this IP range without good cause, you may be blocked. Graham 87 06:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone and looked at his edits from late last year ... which are a lot weirder than the very recent ones ... and I've come around to what is presumably your view and blocked him and his IP's. See User talk:JerzyA. Thank you for your persistance and sorry about the harsh words above, but maybe next time it might be better to note your concerns about such a long-term case at somewhere like the admins' incidents noticeboard. There's also a lot more going on than I'd known previously ... see his entry (which I just added) to Former administrators/chronological/2019). Graham 87 10:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did post to a noticeboard a while ago (perhaps not the correct noticeboard?). It was ignored - no action was taken and no one responded.
 * Can you please explain why you made the following edits?
 * Why do you think that adding three consecutive by whom tags in in the article introduction is helpful?
 * Why did you add these incoherent comments to articles?
 * Does spamming vague tags with incoherent comments improve articles?
 * Changing disambiguation pages into nested lists does not conform to MOS:DABGROUPING
 * Poor grammar
 * When you saw that I was making edits you disagreed with, why did you go on a revert-spree, instead of attempting to discuss it with me first? I realize the irony of me saying that, but unlike the editor in question, I actually respond to questions on my talk page. I would have been happy to explain the situation to you. -drt1245 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the noticeboard you posted to was unfortunately the worst possible one for that kind of complaint ... it's only for reports of very short-term, very obvious vandalism. reports last there for four to eight hours, in this case four, as you may know. In contrast reports on the admins' noticeboards are usually up for at least 24 to 48 hours and those noticeboards are much better-patrolled by a wider variety of editors ... somebody there may well have recognised the username Jerzy and taken action. One thing not in your favour though was that the Jerzy incidents in 2019 happened just before the greatest constitutional crisis to hit Wikipedia in over a decade, so they may not be fresh in peoples' memories (they certainly weren't immediately fresh in mine).
 * To sum up a response to why I reinstated so many of Jerzy's edits ... to me he's sorta like a weird uncle ... you grow up relatively used to his idiosyncracies and it takes an outsider to point out how crazy he actually is. I wouldn't describe his comments as incoherent ... maybe tangentially relevant, yes ... but perhaps that's just because I'm used to Jimbo Wales's talk page, which is more readable now but used to regularly contain rants like this (see Wikid77's comment), which makes Jerzy's contributions seem sage-like in comparison. Jerzy's comments were far more appropriate on a talk page (if anywhere), but this comment indicated that he had trouble using talk pages with his setup. I've self-reverted/modified most of the edits you mentioned. I actually didn't know that nested lists weren't allowed on disambiguation pages; I think they may have been more common in the past. This is a relatively weak point but diffs involving changes to line breaks are extremely difficult to read with my screen reader, though I'm told sighted people have trouble with them as well.
 * As for why I came down on you like a ton of bricks, I'm ashamed to admit that the basic answer was stereotyping. I saw you as a relatively low-edit-count vandal fighter ... and when I think of those, I think of users like this (also see this thread), but you're not like that at all ... and I should have checked your talk page and your contribs to notice that you've been here a while and respond civilly to other users. Also the fact that you don't have a user page didn't help my mental image of you; people with even rudimentary user pages are generally taken more seriously than those without them on here.
 * Again, thanks for your help and sorry about my earlier edits/comments and the problems they caused. Graham 87 17:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review all of the edits of mine that you have undone, and decide if reverting it actually improved the article. For example, London Fog (nightclub) is now broken. -drt1245 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored London Fog (nightclub), Algiers Motel incident, and Insignia back to your versions. You can feel free to do whatever you like with the rest ... for example Hartford–Brainard Airport was probably fairly bad either way. I'll be off to bed soon. Graham 87 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I fixed a couple more. Thank you for correcting your mistake, and thank you for blocking the problematic editor. -drt1245 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And as Drmies pointed out at User talk:JerzyA, there was also User talk:JerzyTheRetired ... Graham 87 05:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can also report I found nothing else on that range, no other socks, that is. Drt1245, I know it's old, but in this case I would also have reverted you, probably, since the edit was well explained, even if it was wordy, and your revert didn't have an edit summary. Even "longterm disruption from this range" would have been helpful. (The three tags aren't great, but the edit was substantial and not so easy to assess in terms of quality--and "quality control" is not typically an administrator's job.) Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Caroline Simmons
Hi, can you help me understand what you thought was impartial about the sections I added to Caroline Simmons' page and your tips to help me publish the updates to her career and biography of her 2018 and 2020 races that would be unobjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki75195 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Content like She actively supports and encourages other young women to run for office and she has made supporting small businesses and female-led businesses top priorities is not supported by a reliable source, and is clearly an attempt to promote a candidate. Excerpts from a candidate's own website posted on Ballotpedia are not a neutral source. Also, please consider that if you have a relationship with the subject, you may have a conflict of interest. -drt1245 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

SCUM Manifesto
Hi, I semi-protected the page for a week as it looks like a new IP user (or perhaps the same one on a different IP address) made an edit. Still, this doesn't strike me as obvious vandalism and the user(s) is/are articulating a reason in the edit summaries at least. I left a message on one of their talk pages encouraging use of the article talk page to discuss a content dispute, and I'd ask that you consider doing the same, even if it is a pro forma comment to note "for the record" the nature of the dispute and providing a source for the existing framing. Thanks.  Go  Phightins  !  11:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Long Island serial killer
Hi Drt1245, I have requested protection for the article as looking through the history this has been going on for a while now, as you know. Please do add any additional comments, corrections, etc. to my request you believe are necessary, if you are so inclined. Your diligence is admirable. S0091 (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was declined. Again. I previously requested page protection here and was told to "discuss with the user", as if there was a consistent other user to discuss with. -drt1245 (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's frustrating because you are right, there is no consistent editor to engage with in any meaningful discussion. The one attempted in November ended with consensus weighing toward no change. S0091 (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have again requested page protection. This appears to be a very small group of IP's who cannot accept the truth of the victims trade and are determined to change the description to a fashionable and non-specific wording. David J Johnson (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: March_2021
Hi!

I received this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michell09475#--Michell09475 (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)March_2021 message from you

Can you please explain why you consider our link spam? Current link is dead/broken and way back machine takes long time to load. We provided a mobile friendly & fast loading page with similar information to the original. If you think is spam, please let me know which part is spam and we will address it.
 * Wikipedia is not to be used to promote your website. Archive.org is the preferred method of dealing with broken links. -drt1245 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User experience is much worse, takes long time to load, page doesnt work on mobile and images are missing. Can you please explain where is the spam part? this is just a better experience for the end user. If is not, please explain why you think is worse... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michell09475 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I thought wikipedia is to be improved and to make it better, why would you revert something that is improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michell09475 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep the threats to yourself
Block yourself. A Wikipedia user was adding unfounded names and places to a historical figure, how about you adress that? Since when is a biography of the son of the person in question in doubt.2A02:A466:1107:1:8561:3D64:FBBE:D5BD (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Apuleius Changes
Hello Drt1245, I was wondering why you canceled my edits regarding the Amazigh origin of Apuleius. I would appreciate your clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.230.41.202 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)