User talk:Hillelfrei/Archive 2

RedWarn
Greetings! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed for the fastest vandalism reverts in the west (yee-haw!). If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn page for installation instructions. Your feedback is much appreciated! JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds cool. I'll pass on the beta for now, but I would be happy to experiment with it once you have a later version. Good luck! -- Hillelfrei • talk •  05:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you :) Have a great day. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference problem again
On 23 April you kindly fixed what is now reference 5 in the article Harris Lebus. Now 'Bender the Bot' has come along and reversed your good work, so that the web site is no longer available. Could you re-correct and tidy up the reference and maybe prevent a re-occurence with the bot?BFP1 (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey I tried going to the URL in ref 5 and had no problems, and I confirmed this on multiple devices and browsers. I think the problem for you may be the specific browser you're using, since the link is a link to a PDF and your browser may have issues linking to PDFs. Maybe try a different browser (I recommend Google Chrome) and see if that allows you to access the link. Let me know if it still doesn't work,  Hillelfrei  • talk •  14:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks On ref 5 there are 2 pdf access points. The first one which previously worked gave:

'Secure Connection Failed. An error occurred during a connection to web.archive.org. The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified. Please contact the web site owners to inform them of this problem.'

The second access point (which never worked) goes to a Haringey, London site saying 'Page not found'.

I tried downloading Chrome but stopped it as I did not want to make it a default browser. I have tried Windows Edge but it did not work. On the 'View history' I went to a previous edition of the article (before the bot intervened) and that no longer worked. I have now gone back to the current article and to the first pdf access point it now works on both Amazon and Edge! Hooray! Very confusing. Maybe there was a blip on a server. So I have not completely wasted your time, do you think you could remove the second pdf access point which consistently does not work?BFP1 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi again The original URL is actually meant to be displayed next to the new one even though it doesn't work. Look at the info under the "Internet archives" heading at WP:DEADLINK. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. --  Hillelfrei  • talk •  17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again . I will look up WP:DEADLINK. Thanks for aesthetically rearranging the images into a neat row. It has enabled me to move the row up to nearer the relevant text. This row now neatly separates the text relating to the earlier 'high quality' phase of the firm from its later more utilitarian mass produced phase. You have been most helpful.BFP1 (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, let me know if you need help with anything else. Hillelfrei  • talk •  20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Block templates
While adding block templates to user talk pages is obviously being done in good faith, there are many reasons why an admin may choose not to leave such a template on a blocked users talk page. If you believe a template was missed inadvertently, please contact the blocking admin and as as opposed to adding a block template yourself. Thank you, -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, my bad. Hillelfrei  • talk •  20:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No one can be expected to know everything, especially around here :) -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse
Dear Hillelfrei, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users who just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:
 * Helpful scripts you can install to make Teahouse responding easier,
 * templates to use and, of course:
 * the question forum itself.

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.


 * Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please check again
You can see that there are many spelling mistakes from the editing of user:Suppasi, also the sources don't say anything about "common misconception among Han Chinese". They are sourced, but not well sourced. You can also see how he broke the fourth wall by writing such thing like "Would we call this a break from tradition? No, we don't, so neither should the Qing modifications be called such." on the article.--185.54.231.30 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll undo my revert. Hillelfrei  • talk •  19:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Hillelfrei, please also check this article. I believe this has the same problem.--185.54.231.51 (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Undid that revert as well. Thanks for your patience, editors who deal with vandalism go through a lot of edits per day and mistakes happen from time to time. Have a great day. Hillelfrei   talk   15:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference problem again
Hello again. Regarding the Harris Lebus article, I clicked the External link and a page came up OK. Within this there are links to further sites which did not work. The later when I tried the External link again, both on Mozilla and Edge, 'Not found' came up. This is similar to what was happening with me before. I wondered whether you could check and see if you have the same problem? Also reference 9 does not to lead anywhere useful. I will try to improve that. Finally, I have been trying to expand the article so that it is no longer a stub. Has that point yet been reached? I appreciate the time you spend on helping other editors.BFP1 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I have now modified reference 9. BFP1 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey . Are you referring to the external link titled, "Harris Lebus local history website"? Hillelfrei   talk   18:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I added an infobox, I would say it's start-class now so feel free to remove the stub template. Hillelfrei   talk   19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the info box. Yes I cannot get "Harris Lebus local history website" or reference 11 that I added. Nor can I get a number of non Wikipedia Harris Lebus related historical items on the web. I seem to have a selective block. I can often get them initially but then get 'Not found'. If you can get these then I will assume others can and leave it at that. I will remove the stub template. I am once again grateful. BFP1 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * For me, the "Harris Lebus local history website" link displays this, and reference 11 displays this. Not sure why it's not coming up for you. Your welcome - and I also appreciate your own work on the article. Hillelfrei   talk   20:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * When I click on your links above I get the web sites OK, but when I click the equivalents in the article I get 'Not found'. It is so frustrating. Can your versions be put in instead? BFP1 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What's up . There is no "your version". All I did is click on the current links in the article. What I just sent you was a temporary link to a screenshot I took of my screen so I could show you how it looks on my end. I can see how you find this frustrating. I am not a tech guy so I have no idea, but it does seem to me like it is not too complicated to figure out the issue which I suspect is on your end, not with the links. I recommend shooting a question to VPT with the situation and include the links you're having trouble with. They should be able to figure it out. It takes up to a couple days for them to answer and they only answer like 80% of the questions but they'll probably be able to help you out because I feel like this is easily fixable. Hillelfrei   talk   22:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for all you have done. BFP1 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit reversion
Hello, Hillelfrei. Can you please state why you reverted this edit. I am not the one who made the edit, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with it, considering the non-NPOV statements and punctuation error.Fezzy1347 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Wikipedia is not censored. If something is notable, it is included whether or not it reflects badly on the individual. That is what NPOV means. It appears that Aaryn Gries is known for her racist comments on that TV show. That's not "non-NPOV" as long as it stated in a neutral tone and sourced well. (I just went back and added another citation). In fact, if an editor removes that content, that might be "non-NPOV" because maybe that editor does not want this individual to be reflected in a bad light despite the notability of it, and that is in fact not neutral because it only includes positive elements of the individual and does not sufficiently cover the negative aspects. Please let me know if you still don't understand or you still think I'm mistaken. Kind regards Hillelfrei   talk   18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks SMirC-smile.svg If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia feel free to ask.  Hillelfrei   talk   18:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A message from Ed6767 about RedWarn


Hello RedWarn tester! I hate to reitterate, but thank you so much for being willing to test RedWarn, I really appreciate it.

In the past few updates, I have added AIV (admin) reporting, a preferences panel, themes, customisation options and made many, many bug fixes and added many features based on your suggestions and feedback.

Unfortunately, recently feedback has run dry.

Even if you do not use RedWarn at the moment, or you do (tysm), I would greatly appreciate feedback of any kind. While I go round Twinkle users, sounding like that broadband salesperson in the mall that nobody ever wants to speak to, I'd like some updated feedback from recent and current users.

Any sort of feedback below would be greately appreciated!


 * Your first impressions when you tried RedWarn?
 * How have you used RedWarn as time has gone on?
 * Would you value customisation features, such as macros or shortcuts, such as adding your own quick revert reasons so the tool can fit your exact editing practices?
 * Any suggestions for how I could promote the tool to a wider audience?
 * Would you appreciate a more developed and thorough user guide?
 * Any theme suggestions?
 * Anything you'd like changing?
 * Something you've always wanted to see in an anti-vandal tool? (I might add it!)
 * RedWarn app?
 * A way to introduce Recent Changes patrol to new users to make using RedWarn or other tools less daunting?
 * Any bugs, gripes, or things that just really annoy you about RedWarn?

Click the button below to begin a new section on the talk page

My goal is to create the most user friendly moderation tool, and that's why I need your feedback to help make this truely the most favorable anti-vandal tool. While we will never elliminate vandalism on this site, we can get closer to fighting it quickly and easily.

Many thanks for your continued support. Ed6767 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you do not wish to get these feedback reminders, let me know on my talk page.

Re: Nokia tune edit
Sorry I forgot to log in or provide an edit summary - I removed a poorly-worded vague statement which has had "citation needed" tags for almost a year. It seemed like a waste of time to revert my edit without considering the content that was removed, as someone else reverted your edit anyway. 84.203.4.15 (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. In the future, please explain the reason for your removal of content in your edit summary. You could write something like "Removed unencyclopedic and unsourced content". Edit summaries are especially important when removing content from articles because unexplained removal of content is almost always vandalism. Your edits were definitely justified in this case though. Kind regards Hillelfrei   talk   15:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edits
Hi Hillelfrei,

On the 26 April 2020 you reverted content I had added on to a wikipedia artilce. I've got factual information directly from the person the article relates to and they would like the information integrated into the wiki page in a fair non basis way.

How do I go about doing this please?

Doddsy2020 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi on Wikipedia content must be verified by published independent secondary reliable sources (books, news outlets, journals, etc.); personal communication with the subject is considered original research — which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, especially if it relates to a biography of a living person (in this case it does). If the material you wish to add is verifiable -- and just as importantly, accessible -- then we can help you out here. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar ☆ talk  10:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi
You sent me a message regarding editing a page for a federal judge. I edited it because it highlighted one of over 3000 cases led by the judge and is an accurate portrayal of his career or significant cases. I also added relevant picture and facts to support other users that were reverted too. I edited those back so please dont remove them again. Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliztu (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello . I think you're mixing up the reverts to your recent edits on Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. Your message seems to imply that I removed facts and images that you added to the article. What really happened is that you removed content from the article without an edit summary, and I added the content back to the article. This was my only edit, as you can see, adding content back, not removing. What I think you are talking about is the reverts to your other edits, and that was done by another editor, Jerm, who you can reach at their talk page. Hillelfrei   talk   01:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi
I have found the information you shared veto useful indeed and thank you for not biting my head off for making mistakes while trying to learn!

Long live Wikipedia, long live!

Thanks for a warm welcome! May I ask a question now again?

How do I promote my work from sandbox to publicly available?😳 Ike (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey . I appreciate the willingness to communicate but I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which contains neutral articles which contain independently and reliably sourced information.


 * Wikipedia is not a website which you can use as a place to advertise your company.


 * I really am not trying to sound harsh, but the fact is that your draft is exactly what Wikipedia is not, and it lacks what Wikipedia is. Fixing it would mean making it completely neutral with no puffery, and ensuring all information is cited properly with reliable secondary sources and no original research.


 * However, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages you from attempting to publish the article as per WP:COIEDIT. This type of thing makes almost every administrator here wary. It is pretty much everyone editor's pet peeve when people come here to advertise. I personally recommend you drop it now.


 * I'm sorry we can't be of more assistance. Please don't be upset - imagine a set of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Would they include an article such as your draft? Obviously, that's not the type of thing you would expect to see there. Here, even though this is a website, for all intents and purposes, it is an encyclopedia which only contains encyclopedic content. I linked to a number of articles in my message so far, but please read WP:SOAP, it is the most relevant policy to this situation which you should see to understand what I mean.


 * Please don't hesitate to get back to me if you have any questions. Kind regards, Hillelfrei   talk   15:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I do understand, please delete it on my behalf. Clearly I do not understand what this thing is all about and I am very sorry!

I repeat; please delete my account with immediate effect! Ike (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

IRC
Hi there! Thanks for your interest in the IRC help channel. I had a moment and wanted to also suggest that you join which is a general chat channel for the English Wikipedia. You're welcome to hang out there, if you like. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best wishes! Waggie (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Yesterday I registered for a cloak, how do I know if I received it? Also, you mentioned a helper chat where helpers can communicate. Can you send me the link for that? Thanks again, Hillelfrei   talk   00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ficino
I deleted the nonsensical bit in the Ficino article regarding the place of woman in the celestial hierarchy. First, the extremely vague sentence doesn't make sense. It cites to a 250+ page book and doesn't include a page number. There is no need to include such nonsense in the Ficino article, which is why it was rightly deleted. Second, how is woman positioned in the celestial hierarchy? Celestial hierarchy refers to the Heavens, in which God, angels, etc. dwell, not the material realm which man and woman occupy. I suppose this is more so about putting a gender bend on Finico. And if you're going to do that, make sure your interpretation makes sense. I ask that you remove it or revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.153.174 (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey. Thank you for your clear and patient message. You are correct - I have reverted my undo. In the future, please explain the reason you remove content, especially cited content, in your edit summary, because it is not feasible for editors who are going through hundreds of edits and reverting large amounts of vandalism from the encyclopedia to be responsible for checking the validity of content and sources which are removed without an explanation. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, I'm more than happy to help. Hillelfrei   talk   06:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Hillelfrei. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AHillelfrei enabled] 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 Administrators' guide/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!  Anarchyte  ( talk •  work ) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (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.


 * Thank you Hillelfrei   talk   16:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ellen edit
✅ In future you can use Special:EmailUser/Oversight to have full oversight applied ASAP. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Hillelfrei   talk   21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ethan Nestor (Yep)
Hello! Thank you for your help and guidance in the Edgenuity article. I recently went back and added new information and sources, as I've gotten better at editing them. I've always wanted to write an article about Ethan Nestor (Crankgameplays, you might've heard of him), but I see that a number of people have tried to do so but the article is administrated and can't be created. Is there a way to get this article created, with heavy surveillance, perhaps? Are there certain criteria I need to meet to do so, or is this article not an option in the first place? Thank you for your time.

Le Panini (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey . This type of protection, when an administrator blocks creation of an article, is called salting. It is used in cases where people repeatedly tried to create an article, but the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.


 * In this case, if you have read Wikipedia's notability guideline for people thoroughly, and you believe that Nestor is notable, you can leave a message on the talk page of the the protecting admin,, explaining the reasons you think Nestor is in fact notable, and you can ask them to consider unprotecting creation of the article.


 * I do want to give you full disclosure and tell you that in my opinion, the admin will most likely say no, because a key point of Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is that the subject of the article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I looked into it a bit, and I have to admit, this is a very borderline case. Nestor is covered in sources, but I would not say he has significant coverage. In addition, some of the websites in which he is featured, such as Dexerto, are not considered reliable. If it was up to me, I might turn my head and allow the article to be published, but someone with the high level of responsibility as an admin would most likely not allow the article to go through for this reason. You are free to try, but don't get your hopes up. Regards, Hillelfrei   talk   02:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Operating Department Practitioner page on Wikipedia
Hello Hillelfrei,

This is actually my first time editing anything on Wiki so am still getting used to the actions and requirements. The changes I have made so far were mainly for grammatical and punctuation errors so surely should not require citing sources? So.....as far as citing a source for any changes I have made, I am unsure at present what it is you mean..... However I would just like to say that I am an Operating Department Practitioner and as such am registered with the HCPC. I work for the NHS at a District General Hospital and have done so since 1998.

Any further information from you regarding the changes I wish to make would be appreciated as there is quite a bit wrong with this article.

Thanks. PaulP.S.Hawkins (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thank you for your calm and patient message. I appreciate your willingness to communicate.


 * What I meant about citing sources is that all information on Wikipedia has to be cited with reliable sources. So, for example, you wrote on Operating department practitioner that "National ODP day (United Kingdom) is the 14th of May and the inaugural year of this celebration was 2018. ODPs across the country use this day to raise awareness of this 'hidden' profession." Please include a source that says that this is true, because otherwise, anyone could just edit the article and make up a fake date. We need a way to verify that your content is true. Once you find a source, you can use this guide to learn how to cite the source in the article.


 * Another issue with your edits is referring to these practitioners as "highly skilled and dynamic healthcare professionals". This is called puffery, and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Since this is an encyclopedia, articles should be written in a neutral tone, with no positive or negative wording.


 * I hope this helps. Feel free to re-add the content based on my feedback and let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Hillelfrei   talk   17:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hillelfrei...I appreciate the info and will take some time to get the sources before re-editing. The comment about being 'highly skilled' etc was not mine however, all I did was move it to the start of the document from where it was originally. Grammatically, it made more sense. I do understand however the removal of it due to 'puffery'. Thanks again.....Paul P.S.Hawkins (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

1674
Hi Hillelfrei, I was just fixing a misplaced line ending. 72.141.53.221 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed. Hillelfrei   talk   18:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Maggie De Block
please explain why edit was disruptive. of first three sentences in article, two are about subject being voted most popular politician. phrase "most popular" is used three times in first three sentences! what politician article read like that? how is that not promoting subject in subjective manner? those sentences not even cited. why you attack editors and call them disruptive? Pitcher curtis (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You are completely right, my apologies. I have now removed the content because they were wild claims with absolutely no source for them. Kind regards, Hillelfrei   talk   01:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you for acknowledging, fix article and remove warning from talk page. please try avoid rollback good faith edits. many thanks.

Pitcher curtis (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit
Thank you for your message. I have a reliable source for my addition but my information was delete before I added the citation. Would it be better to add the citation at the same time I add the information? Please let me know.Jahvon Blair (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . That would be better - feel free to re-add the information and include a citation. Thanks, Hillelfrei   talk   16:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located 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:  Anarchyte  ( talk •  work ) 17:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, 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.

Playhouse Disney
Please be careful when accepting these type of edits, the IP was removing information without any sort of explanation. I already reverted their edits, but please take note of this for future reference. Thanks. CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, will do. Hillelfrei   talk   02:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Misclick
Looks like this was a little mislick. Sorry about that! --   LuK3      (Talk)   21:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all good Hillelfrei   talk   21:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
I see you recently accepted a pending change to May 19 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. All new additions without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and un-accepted this edit and backed it out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, please do not accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me, I’ll keep that in mind. Hillelfrei   talk   06:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)