User talk:GravityUp/ArchivesCB/2015/July

Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield
Dear Dspradau, Sorry if I was rude earlier. I do not want to start a fight. But, I was wondering why no one wants Emma and Andrew as each other's partners. They have been dating for four years and even lived together if I'm not mistaken. So, I don't understand what this commotion is all about. If you would be so kind to explain to me, thank you.

Sincerely, LoanaTASMlover LoanaTASMlover (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why your edits were removed was because in the partner line in the info box it states "Do not add Andrew Garfield here. This is meant for a life partner, not a significant other. Consult the talk page before changing" You were doing exactly what was not requested. Please consult the articles talk page before you change this. Thank you! -- Dspradau   → talk   16:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Got it :D
Dear dspradau, Okay, thank you! I was not sure what life partner meant, so thank you for clearing that up! I won't add that anymore. Sorry about that! :)

Sincerely, LoanaTASMlover LoanaTASMlover (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

you make a mistake
I've done not vandalism. I added an important information to the voice about samoyeds. Samoyeds dogs are not Hypoallergenic ! Is bad to diffuse false thing about a breed of dog. I had Samoyeds all my life and I was a breeder. ATTENTION: there is the wrong legend that Samoyed is an Hypoallergenic dog, he is not hypoallergenic at all, so take a samoyed if you are allergic to dogs is not safe. Is better to know this because many people takes Samoyeds thinking that are hypoallergenic and then they leave them. Never take a dog if you are not sure! Dogs are for life not for Christmas ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markho68 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

why you continue to delete my entry??
Excuse me but do you like to spread false informations? Samoyed is not an Hypoallergenic dog! And this is scientific. Why you delete something that is for the safety of people and of the dogs ?? Markho68 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated in my edit, "While it may be that these dogs are not hyper-allergenic, there does not need to be a PSA style paragraph stating such." I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but I suggest you bring the topic of hyper-allergenic properties up to the articles talk page. The paragraph you wrote reads like a Public service announcement. I'm not disputing the information. It just needs to be written correctly. -- Dspradau   → talk   17:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok so please write it in the correct format for me if you like, but not delete it please. Unfortunately Samoyed is not in the list of sure hypoallergenic breeds and because is 30 years that I have Samoyed, and I was also a breeder, I've noticed that every allergic person met my dogs had diseases. Markho68 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited the page and paragraph to reflect proper writing style while still getting your point across as well as adding a source. -- Dspradau   → talk   18:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much my friend this is what I mean for collaboration. Good team work :-) Markho68 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dspradau
Resolved

The changes made by myself on João Rodrigues Cabrilho page concerns the correct writting and spelling of his name, he WAS NOT Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, that's the Spanish translation for his only and real name João Rodrigues Cabrilho, since he was a Portuguese national. If there is some problem with this issue where should I present my argument?

Thank you,

Pedro Marques Alves
 * Hello. The page already mentions the Portuguese variant of his name. Per (Portuguese: João Rodrigues Cabrilho; 1499, death – January 3, 1543). If you feel like this should be different you should present your argument on the articles talk page. Thanks. -- Dspradau   → talk   02:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=672825739 your edit] to Pop icon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * | isbn     = 0-252-06468-2}}

Resolved

Qur'anism page
Hello, I am working in absolute best faith to restore the Qur'anism page to its former state before the user reverting my edits vandalized the page along with other users. Is it very disappointing to me that the page I worked very hard in correcting is arbitrarily restored to an inflammatory, inaccurate, and egregious state which says muslim women look like burglars. The page in its reverted state is rife with grammatical, spelling, and factual errors. There are no citations which I was adding in, I removed broken websites and added new ones. I wrote a new and factual introduction closely matching the old one with an academic citation. I re-added the tags the vandals removed. I re-added the tags at the bottom. The Qur'anism article is currently being used to push an agenda. I am only working in best faith to improve the article from its current abysmal state. I am sorry if I broke any rules unintentionally, but I truly only wish for the page to be the best article we could possibly offer.
 * From what I have gathered, your edits have been in good faith. I have requested an AIV against the other editor. As far as I can tell, you have not done anything wrong. -- Dspradau   → talk   21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, I am sorry for any trouble I caused you or any rules I broke. I truly only want to restore the article to a state with factual information and proper English,  I was very surprised today when I found this article on Wikipedia with obvious factual mistakes evident to anyone versed in Islam and terrible English.  I want to make the article better than it was before the vandalism took place.

Resolved

Wording
Resolved I geuss this is how you talk on Wikipedia, sorry if Im messing with your stuff, I dont mean to offend. its just I noticed you said there is approximately a 1:1 ratio of male to female then immediately contradict yourself in the next 2 sentences. approxomately excactly, so if there is a minor difference in the number of men and women in the world, you cannot say aproxomitaly, please make a minor change to the article on that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave812 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The word approximately is defined as "used to show that something is almost, but not completely, accurate or exact; roughly". I believe the word choice is accurate. I don't see any contradictions.-- Dspradau   → talk   22:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, you are correct, apparently I was using the word wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cave812 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's OK. Have a great day!-- Dspradau   → talk   22:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Conduct
Resolved I'm fine with you removing my comment. However, if folks like the person the comment was directed at are given free rain on the content of Wikipedia then it will never truly be a collaborative environment. The other party believes themself to be an authority on content, that cannot be challenged. I believe they have no business in their position with the attitude they display. TheRealEricB207 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with a user check out this. Don't resort to attacking others. It will result in a block.-- Dspradau   → talk   22:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a big problem with the other user and I intend to report them when I am at a computer, and can more easily navigate the system.TheRealEricB207 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bank of New York Mellon
Resolved I am not vandalizing. I am trying to make good faith edits. Keep it up, and I will have you blocked!!!!! 184.56.123.49 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That revert was a mistake on my part. I will remove my warning. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Have a great day!-- Dspradau   → talk   23:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not very civil from your part, IP. Please read WP:AGF. Plus IPs cannot block users. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!!!!!! 184.56.123.49 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. Try to keep things a bit more civil next time. Happy editing!-- Dspradau   → talk   23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

BITGOLD
Resolved Well If wikipedia helps people to scam other people, i need to stop this, i used bit gold cause of wikipedia feedback, and I am being frauded. Do you work for bit gold or what? they are acting like animals lying. they changed my account password without advising me. And are investing transaction they had confirmed on my account? after i sold my bit coins they are ruining my shop so WHY you say it s vandalism? It s vandalism to let people scam other people
 * First off, I do not have any affiliation to BitGold. Second, Wikipedia is not the place to rant about your personal opinions of a topic. I would contact BitGold and discuss your issues with them. Thanks.-- Dspradau   → talk   00:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it's not personal if they act like this it's a scam.I wouldn't have joined this scam if it wasn't for this site, so the less i can do i INFORM other people, this is what is made for inform other people.And if who made that bit gold article did it to scam people.I have contacted them more than once.THEY say they will reply in 2 moths. While playing with my money.So i inform people.You prob get payed from them this is why you care so much to have a notification when the page get changed. or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodZeus1 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is meant for factual and well cited tidbits of information. Not for the content you added. Again, I am not affiliated with BitGold. If you feel you've been scammed. Maybe consult a lawyer?-- Dspradau   → talk   00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you might have some form reason here.I'll make it right an informed tomorrow.Plus in 2015 if i can stop people from being a scammed i do it. You say it's informative, but it's not telling the trust.They call it an app for transfer but it s the only thing they can't do since after they confirm a transfer they wait 20 days to block your money and say it wasn't confirmed they where lying.So i feel th need to inform people so it want happen the same to them, i can contact a lawyer and still try to help people not get scammed, don't you think? This people are getting money and not paying back taking 2 moths to think about things they won't even tell you. I do all i can do to stop them report to Facebook and twitter their pages inform their visitors inform people who visit their wikipedia page. I am even starting a legal procedure against them that's for sure.But i ll end up spending my money to have back my own money cause they want to scam me.GREAT
 * I wish you the best of luck in your future en-devours. I understand you are upset, but unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss your grievances. Just like the saying "innocent until proven guilty", the content in the article will remain in it's "innocent" form until proven notably guilty.-- Dspradau   → talk   00:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Papyrus edit
Resolved Why is my edit of the 'Papyrus' entry deemed vandalism? Was there even any examination of my edits or of the claim made by the reporter?

PLEASE see the 'Papyrus' entry and Frosty's talk page concerning my first edit to 'Papyrus'. In all, I made two edits. The first one was changing 'thin' to 'thick' in the first sentence of the page. Frosty objected and reverted the edit, and I pled my case. After that, I realized the problem was with not being specific enough with the edit. So I changed 'thin' to 'thicker-than-paper'.

How is this vandalism? If I really were to vandalize a page, wouldn't I be doing a lot more by editing or adding more than one word? It's a bit silly for me to go around changing one word that really doesn't damage the article, isn't it? Especially since this is the only edit I've done today, and have done in awhile.

PLEASE ALSO see the policy page on wiki vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism). None of that applies to what I've done. I've been sincere with my edits, and do really believe the edits make sense. My edits have been in "good-faith" (see Vandalism). But "careful consideration" has not been made to "differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing." "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful" (again, see Vandalism).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.142.124 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I forgot to add that the first sentence in the page goes: "The word papyrus refers to a thin paper-like material made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus."

If it's already described as a paper-like material, how is 'thin' a constructive modifier. That's just redundant, since everyone knows paper is already thin.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.142.124 (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm assuming you are . I did some digging into the article and from mid-August 2007 until October of 2013 the adjective used was 'thick'. After October, it was changed to thin without any sort of explanation by an unregistered user. So, with that said, feel free to change it to what you desire. I'll explain to you why it was reverted. First off, a common "technique" vandals like to do is replace various words in an article to their polar opposite meanings. (ex. male to female, best known for to worst ect.) Second, your edits did not have an edit summary. Having a concise edit summary explaining your edits would have been beneficial to show your intentions. Third, another user, who probably noticed the same conditions I just mentioned, felt like your edit was not in good faith. Because you are editing as a non-registered user, your edits will be a bit more scrutinized. I appreciate you bringing your concern up to me. I've been doing this for almost ten years and I always enjoy having people actually coming to me with their concerns rather than edit warring. If you think you'd be interested in editing more, may I suggest creating an account? Again, thanks for contacting me and happy editing!-- Dspradau   → talk   07:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)