User talk:L235/Archive 1

A barnstar for you!

 * Goodness, thanks! Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, just realized that the more successful someone is at doing CSDs and PRODs, the less edits they have over time, because all their edits get deleted ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply to 'What's the point of this edit?"
Just linking the date and year with the appropriate page. That's all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoQ1991 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Hi there! Yes, as Kinu said, "Per MOS:UNLINKDATES, dates such as this (i.e., parenthetical dates of birth) are not to be linked". Also, when sending someone a new talk message, send it on the bottom. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them here. We all were new to Wikipedia, and it has a lot of weird rules. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry, I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoQ1991 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, remember to sign your posts with ~ --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. StevoQ1991 — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

One source
Much before you welcome me, know the guidelines. You are clearly abusing that tag.

Such tag is not required if article is hardly 500 bytes or less(apart from the reference itself).  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please link a relevant policy when stating that the tag "is not required if article is hardly 500 bytes or less". Furthermore, even if the tag was not required, any person may still, at their discretion, tag any article with one source with Template:One source. As for welcoming you, I apologize for that. I wasn't aware that you were an established user as I saw the red user page link and assumed you were a brand new editor, at which point I went back to editing. Please remember to WP:AGF. --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I copy here the Twinkle documentation on Template:one source: : article relies largely or entirely upon a single source--Lixxx235 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, that was not really a opinion but basic sensibilities that we use during the page patrolling or page review. If multiple sources have been added, you will probably tag it with "additional sources", in short words, it will never end. Other than that, these are WP:BLP articles, one source is required for each of them. Per Template:One_source, you have to address about the source first, if it is either unreliable or not supporting the given information as much as it should. If your issues are correct, then we can accept such tag, even now the article is very small. We do have articles such as List of countries by external debt, List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate, they largely depend upon the single source. But since they speak enough about the given information or subject, there will be no need to tag them.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok then, I agree with your conclusion that one source should not be used unless non-reliable is used also. However: 1. That is not a guideline, as you implied by "know the guidelines" 2. 500 bytes has no meaning; it's not a small/big article distinction, it's whether the article's existing source(s) are reliable and conform to WP:V or not, and based on that, I am inclined to nom it for deletion, as there really is no point to it; reliable sources isn't valid if there's one reliable source, and one source is invalid unless the first source is non-reliable 3. Using standard rollback |here was a gross misuse of the permission, as rollback is not to be used except obvious vandalism, and vandalism must be intentional disruption 4. Your entire first two posts are seriously against WP:BITE and WP:AGF 5. Your mention of WP:BLP was flawed, as all articles must be supported by outside sources, but BLPs can be PRODed for not having a source. Notwithstanding all that, friends? --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the 3rd point, but I had hit it by mistake, I don't really use rollback as I provide reason every time. Yes you can nominate them for deletion, but I don't know what you meant by "and one source is invalid unless the first source is non-reliable", BLPs can be proded for not having sources, correct. Sources like imdb, allmusic, etc should not be used as references, though they are pretty reliable. Last point would be, that WP:Bite doesn't apply here :) I hadn't warned you, my sole concern was to notify you about the OneSource tag.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay then, friends?--Lixxx235 (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not, Happy to meet you!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad choice, as now you'll lose about an extra half hour a week answering questions ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked that you've been registered for years, how come you got active recently?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 05:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, dearie me, that's a long story... I... decided to become active, I guess. I had already read most of Wikipedia policy, arbcom rulings, etc., months ago, and was only previously studying them for my personal entertainment. I guess I wanted to get involved.--Lixxx235 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Small Secret
Here's some small secrets to get the ability to revert more vandalism.
 * Tools like Huggle and WP:STIKI are always useful. Though you have to be careful about them, as they may cause a bit of people angry at you because you accidentally clicked the wrong version. They are automatic for the most part. (Especially Huggle) Both require rollback, but Stiki can be requested permission, and you can use it without it.
 * The abuselog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog <- This is what I did for a bit, the only edits I believe you can revert are the ones with a 'diff' link. Though do take note there are false positives and to be cautious in reverting.
 * Happy reverting! (And sorry for stealing your reverts! :3) Tutelary (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Huggle is the reason I'm trying to get more article space edits- so I can get 200 and have a reasonable chance getting rollback. Thanks for the tips! --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd personally request permission for WP:STIKI, as it is an effective tool and could aid you. It doesn't require rollback.

Talkback
ToBk (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
S'alright. These things happen. Britmax (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Lixxx235. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A 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 New admin school/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! &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 19:14, 18 May 2014 (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.
 * Good going, whenever you exceed 2000 main space edits, you can request for the status of reviewer.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Quick question, where does it say recommended 2k mainspace edits for reviewer? --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just checked that you have already asked for the reviewer right, I think it was pretty fast though. 2000? Well, I think the limit was 500 when I had requested for reviewer right, and it took about 10 days or almost 10. I have supported you on your request.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. I'm not sure, I thought the reviewer requirements looked easier than the rollbacker ones: only requiring that you "regularly edit", "have a reasonable editing history – as a guide, enough edits that a track record can be established", and do a bunch of reading and being familiar with policies. Lixxx235 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is usual. I had similar thought, but I had more than 2,000 edits. Now there is a guideline that you cannot have Autopatrolled right if you have created less than 50 articles. After I had made about 51, I requested for it. Guess what? It was declined, even though I had 54 articles at that time, and the reason was "few of your recent articles required page moves(title change), make 10 more pages, and wait, you will have this right". Now if I am going to pass a guideline that 50/50 pages must be rid from page moves, one will ask "where you read it?" Hmm, it is by experience. 9 more article to go, I can probably create them under 1 day whenever I have to.
 * I don't think that they should reject your reviewer request, they shall delay, but even if they reject, you can probably apply again after 10-20 days, and indeed it is better to have 2000 main space edits. These are technical matters, no one will hold stick at least here.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Recruitment Centre
Hi Titusfox,

I would just like to inform you that the WikiProject Good Article Recruitment Centre project has been but on hold until further notice. The decision comes after it was noticed that there was a lack of commitment from some of our recruiters as well as the recruitees. We will be working on revising to the program in order to make it more efficient and productive so we can teach user interested in reviewing Good Article nominations better.

I am telling you this because I noticed you added your name to the list just a few hours ago. If you are still interested in being recruited at some point in the future, please leave your name on the list, however, if you are no longer interested, I ask you to remove it or contact me on my talk page. Thank-you.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, I saw that on the page, and decided to put my name on the list anyways, so when it gets revised someone'll tell me. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Patience
Do please be patient with requesting permissions. I noticed that you went to an admin's talk page and with a neutral comment, attempted to get them to go check them out the backlog. While done in good faith, I would not recommend it. I had my request for rollback fulfilled about two weeks after I made it (where I was given reviewer rights as well). It is in the admin backlog category, and they probably know about it. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

1959 British Grand Prix
This edit was neither a test nor vandalism - in fact it was a vandalism revert. You made need to refine your usage of Stiki. --Falcadore (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you have done, if you'd been in my place? AGF revert of innocent? --Lixxx235 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not have done anything. The edit was a legitimate reversion. --Falcadore (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

talkback
-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Combined tables
I combined two tables into one on American Airlines Group. There were two separate tables for US Airways Express and American Eagle, so I combined them to show the combined fleet between the merging airlines. Please put back my edits, as I spent a lot of time working on this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.109.146 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for telling me --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Email from blocked user
You can forward it to me, with a note explaining what the relevance is. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Help, please
If a user sends me a mail saying that they are editing against policy, is it required to report it? Is it recommended? Is it barred as breach of privacy? Thanks. --Lixxx235 (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If I understand you right, you received a message saying that a user is planning to make or is in the process of making prohibited edits?
 * You probably ought to report that at WP:ANI. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Or see below what Daniel Case said. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Janakpurdham article
Hi there

Thanks for correcting me .I tried to add the bit of imformation i had about the place .I have personally visited those schools and colleges i wrote about and i have pictures to verify my information.I can provide them to you if u want so that you can help me add those informations in a professional manner. I will try and improve my skills in the future and hopefully you wont have to delete my inputs.

Regards sonigama Sonigama (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sonigama, and thank you for your contributions. However, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. I am sorry that that information is unavailable for the Wikipedia community, however, to prove the information you are posting is notable, it should be published in advance as a secondary source. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Check the user TheRedPenofdoom
The user whom you just messaged is vandaliyzing the wikipedia pages from a long time. If you check his contribution you will find that he only reverts the changes and is vandalyzing the pages. Please do check brother and also you can find the user comments on his talk page. With regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.202.238.150 (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Struck in order to maintain context to conversation --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Dear Lixxx 235 While I am grateful for your input on my recently-started article on Alstonia boonei,I am curious as to what it is in it that you find ungrammatical. regards Flobbadob (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)--Flobbadob
 * Hi Flobbadob, the article is good. I just noticed the lack of spaces between sentences, and was also wondering about when to use abbreviated families in science. I just didn't have the time at that point to correct that myself, and also the knowledge on abbreviations on scientific families. Thanks for posting here. If you want to, you can copy edit it yourself and remove the tag. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * TheRedPenofdoom is not a vandal. Lixxx235, he did something to you?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 11:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I know TheRedPenofdoom is not a vandal, the IP is harassing me and them. I reverted most of the edits of the IP, but somehow I missed this message to me. --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Link me?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 15:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To what, OccutZone?
 * The page where you and TheRedpenofDoom were targeted by the IP.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 17:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The best example would be on this page, OccultZone:, , and are diffs of them leaving messages to harass TheredPenOfDoom by accusing them of vandalizing, which they knew RedPenOfDoom didn't do, and harassing me by continually posting here without reason. User acknowledges sockpuppetry and block evasion. --Lixxx235 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer userright
Hello. Your account has been granted the "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:
 * Reviewing, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Congratulations!  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, OccultZone! --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The young and the Restless- Gina Tognoni
Can I ask why you deleted the sources that I added from TVGuide and TV Line about Gina Tognoni joining Young and the Restless? Were they not two valid sources confirming the fact. I knew TV guide was the place where the news was first confirmed. I noticed that there were sources for the other debuting actors and no sources for Tognoni, so found two valid ones and added them. So, I was just wondering why you deleted it? also, it looks as if the IP that it says you reverted from is not this IP. i found that a bit strange. Thanks!184.160.203.195 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Samusek2
 * Oh, sorry about that! I somehow thought that you were removing that source, instead of adding. Tip: don't use huggle when you have to be in a meeting in 2 minutes. Also, the reason it shows a different IP is because residental IP addresses change regularly. If you want to have a stable contrib history and a stable talk page, you can register for an account for free. Cheers! Thanks for reverting! --Lixxx235 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, on my way --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity Catchphrase
Hello Lixx, it's me again. I just saw your revert of my edit to Celebrity Catchphrase. As you can see by the edit history, I found the official press release from the ITV Press Centre announcing the broadcast of the 2nd of three Celebrity Specials, so I added the information in the source onto the page. Then i noticed that the page was semi-protected and that I would have to wait, so I did. I thought I would be fine, as all the information was there in the source, but mysteriously it was reverted. I tried again the next day and the same thing happened. I spoke to The Q Editor and explained what had happened and as you can see on my talk page he apologised and reverted the edit and fixed it up, but he did not add the airdate mentioned in the source, so I just added it in.

Did you not read the source? Did you not see that it clearly said "Transmission 1 June 2014" on it? I was just adding that date in both spots needed under "Series 19" and Celebrity Specials". You do know that it is a UK game show? I have used the network's Press Office for source material for other programmes? Can we fix this situation?184.160.203.195 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)samusek2
 * Thanks for telling me. If it's fine by TheQEditor it's fine by me. Sorry about that- I was just patrolling SPECIAL:PENDINGCHANGES and saw there was a signifigant backlog, so I was trying to go quickly. Thanks! Lixxx235 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

CVUA
I'll be glad to take you. But do mention what are the areas you wish to improve. You are not a newbie so I don't think explaining from the scratch would be useful. The prime issue with anyone would be differentiating good faith and vandalism edits. For instance, this edit was actually a good-faith edit but you reverted calling it vandalism! I'll be glad to help you out. I hope you have twinkle activated, if not please do now. Cheers,  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  07:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, AGF/vand is the biggest issue for me. I've got twinkle. --Lixxx235 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Adminship
That was pretty thoughtful of you asking if I wanted adminship. I still have thoughts to become an administrator and were you asking me if I wanted to become an administrator? If so, how would I do this? Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply ask someone willing to nominate you for adminship at WP:RFA. I am willing to do this, and you may also self-nominate, but you probably want a more experienced user(by edits). --Lixxx235 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had to go, but here are some of my personal tips for you: get more active doing administrative tasks- vandal reverting, reviewing, AfD/AfC, etc. get just a few more edits- maybe 8k? With that, you should get admin by an overwhelming majority. Just my two grains of salt. Thanks, and good luck! --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, did I say "two grains of salt"? Whoops. I meant to say "my two pennies, which you should probably take with a grain of salt". Tiring day, I probably should be on a WikiBreak but couldn't bring myself to. --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no requirements for becoming admin, but people do have opinion that how the admin should be.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lixxx, you mean 8k in total or 8k more? I think 8k more would be better choice.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not nominate this user for an RfA, as they'd probably have a high chance of getting a WP:NOTNOW response. Get more experience, create more articles, contribute more, all the usual stuff. Tutelary (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Highly, sometimes the incompetent RFA end up moving into some type of draft.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 04:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no further comment here, both these users are more experienced than me and know more about the process. I was primarily reviewing sucessful archived RfAs and saw that Ashbeckjonathan might be a good candidate. --Lixxx235 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

hello
Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinavatra (talk • contribs) 10:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLixxx235 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oscars
I don't get why you keep reverting my edits from the 85th Academy Awards. Was it something wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.66.228 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain the edit, this looks like vandalism to me. Thanks. --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the winners names in bold instead of the dagger, remove teddy bear from Ted, added "Be Our Guest" to the fifth section of the performers notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.37 (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Chitala chitala revert
I've "re-reverted" your edit to Chitala chitala. Please be careful with huggle, thanks. In your revert you removed citations (only one citation and not a single in-text before), re-added incorrect information (due the confusion between two species, see article) and re-added a photo of the wrong species. Even if you had disagreed with any of this, huggle is strictly for WP:VAN (I guess you already know this, but just in case). Regards, 62.107.220.107 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am aware that I am supposed to be careful with Huggle, and also that it's primary purpose is anti-vandalism. However, it does have a good faith revert button. Anyways, about the edit: sorry if I interpreted it wrongly, but it seemed an awful lot like vandalism from the interface from Huggle- blanking large sections, reference name "seriously fish", changing categories. Sorry if I misinterpreted it. Please fully explain the edit here. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check my edits to the page before your revert, you'll see that I did include edit summaries on two of the three edits. One of these, as well as the one where I did not comment, were WP:MINOR, and very few editors provide summaries for those (as a check of Special:RecentChanges easily confirms). The one that indisputably needed an edit summary did have one, clearly explaining why I made the edit. I'm not sure what more you're expecting, as every single sentence in the article has a citation. However, if there is anything specific you're uncertain about, feel free to ask and I'll be happy to explain. Unless I hear more from you on this matter, I'll assume the revert was one of those mistakes that even the best editors make on occasion. Cheers, 62.107.220.107 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. If you want an edit to be marked as minor, register an account and become autoconfirmed to check the box, or in the edit summary, cp+paste something like "This is a minor edit". I will not comment on merits of the edits, as I am supposedly in a meeting right now and have to pretend to be interested. I am wondering: how do you know all this WP policy? You seem well versed and seem like a former registered wikipedian. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited as an IP for a long time. As my IP changes every week or so (I have no control of it), it might not be obvious. I'm not entirely sure, but think it's a dynamic IP. If my memory serves me right, the one I had before the current was 62.107.215.207. I suspect the WP:FISH regulars know me by now, as only the last few numbers of the IP change and I mainly edit articles related to that matter. I've been asked several times to become a member, but never got around doing it and admittedly haven't found a major reason for doing it either: It seems the main rights you get from that hassle are things I have no interest in. I edit article pages; I have no photos to upload and have little interest in the discussions that happen elsewhere on wiki (sometimes over remarkably trivial matters). 62.107.220.107 (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm asking you for the several+oneth time to create an account. Not only does it give you the ability to mark edits minor and the privilege to not get accused of socking, it saves other WP:edians a lot of hassle, as they can look at your edit history and determine you probably know more Wikipedia policy than they do. Lixxx235 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Mmm, waffles --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Adoption!
Hi Lixxx235, I do would like to get adopted ;). I've been doing copy edits mostly until now but I would also like to add anti-vandalism to that list! (my basic wiki skills come from the uncyclopedia wiki but that was mostly creating random pages with jokes). How does the anti-vandalism work? How does this adoption thing work? Thanks for explaining :) Tomato 33 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck, but I would like to suggest you that these anti-vandal tools(stiki, etc) only recovers the things that have been removed from the article with either low summary(like Hi, Hhhhh) or blanked. They provide you an idea about the removal of content, but probably most of it requires special attention.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 06:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do I already have a talk page stalker? ;) I will be glad to answer any questions you might have and give my own tutorial, but I have to go and will be back in about 3 hours. Lixxx235 (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had the page added to my watchlist so I could observe how you interact other users :=) and sure, have a good time.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh heh, to make sure I don't go psyco? --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And a barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar! --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Question from 14.97.187.236
What ever i edited was based on facts & popular perception in india. If you want copy of media reports( of well known media houses) on which my views were based i will be more than happy to furnish them. Please point out what you feel biased so that i can supply links for the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.187.236 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like you to source "Due to lerge scale corruption prevailing it is widely joked in India that MCI stands for Most Corrupt Institute in India". Thank you. --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I just read your policies. i will now follow them and amend accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.187.236 (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed that whole section, because it cites no source and it is concerned with the organization.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was going to, but wasn't sure whether that would break 3RR. Still making sure I don't go psyco on someone here? ;) Lixxx235 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the ownership.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. OccultZone, was that a wiki inside joke, or a sincere policy reminder/breach notice? Thanks, Lixxx235 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious joke :-) it applies only when a user is adding/removing active arguments(on talks) or content(on main pages) for no valid reason.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 03:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Adopted.
I would love to be adopted! How do we get started? ❀ Larksky 12358 ❀ 01:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, I didn't think all three people I offered to adopt would actually take me up on my offer. It would be an honor to adopt you, Larksky12358. The biggest question for you would be: do you want a highly structured, organized, standardized "school style" adoption, like so, or do you want a more open ended relaxed style? Let me know what you think. Also, if you have not already, read WP:EYNTK and enable WP:TWINKLE on your account. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I read WP:EYNTK, enabled WP:TWINKLE, and I kinda like the structured style more. Thanks again! ❀ Larksky 12358 ❀ 17:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Read this
Hi! Do read this one. I tried to give some generic and real time examples as well to help you understand better. Feel free to ping me immediately for any query whatsoever. Cheers,  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  14:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do let me know when you feel you have read it thoroughly. We'll go to the next level.  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  00:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'm ready to go on. --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Tomato 33 (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thx for letting me know re kokoda track foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhdorn (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What is that function?
''(Non-administrator observation)I recommend that you install Twinkle. It has a button that allows you to compare the last edit of a user to the last edit by someone else. Cheers. Lixxx235 (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)'' Where is that function on Twinkle? I thought it was standard on Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When you open a diff, you can click "next to last editor" and it'll do it. --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A bit of help needed
I ran into who has userboxes on their user page proclaiming they have certain user rights, which they do not. What should I do? Should I even worry about it? Cheers. --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remove them and leave a note saying why. I've just done that in this case. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Assignment
Hi, there is a pending assignment for you. I really hope this would give you some practice. Find It here Cheers,  ƬheStrike  Σagle  sorties  06:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Tomato 33 (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Adopt me
I am still very interested in becoming an anti-vandalist, and getting adopted! Adopt me please! i want to help wikipedia someday! xs---213MK (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will use proper punctuation! Also, adopt me in any way you want! Just please adopt me!

xs---213MK (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I adopt you. Do you want to keep the conversation here or on your talk page? --Lixxx235 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it'd be good if we kept it here, i will only post on your talk page when there is something urgent. Thank you for adopting me! xs---213MK (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, capitalize the "I" in a sentence. Why don't you read WP:EYNTK and then I'll give you a short quiz over it? Good with you? --Lixxx235 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, great, but there's a problem, it's 00:51 here in England, so i have to go to sleep... Catch you tomorrow! Oh, and also, the WP:ETYNTK is red. xs---213MK (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops, fixed the link. Also, enable WP:TWINKLE. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, i've not got much time, that's sad..... But I will read it and notify you as soon as possible xs---213MK (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
I think I'm done with this part :) I did put the histories there, instead of the diffs. Sorry :O Tomato 33 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

 * ) Tomato 33 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm
Not really, no. :) — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Editor Review has been retired
Hi, Lixxx235: this is a notice that after a MfD and two RfCs, the Editor Review process has been officially retired. You should not expect further comments on your open Editor Review, which will be archived soon. In the coming weeks there may be information available on alternative processes that you can pursue if you so desire. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 TheQ Editor     (Talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the ping, just have been too bust to really think about a signature. Thanks for the talkback though! Lixxx235 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy tag
Hi Lixxx235. I just wanted to remind you that the WP:A7 speedy tag does not apply to creative works, such as films or books. This is why I declined your tag on Kissise Na Kehna today. Cheers — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't know read carefully, sorry. --Lixxx235 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Liangzhu Station
Hello Lixxx235. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Liangzhu Station, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7 does not apply to this type of topic. It's not a company, person, website, band, etc.''' Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Kokoda Track Foundation Wikipedia Page
Hi Lixxx235

I am a new user. I work for a charity called the Kokoda Track Foundation (KTF). We’re in Australia. We do most of our work in Papua New Guinea.

Yesterday the KTF’s Wikipedia page was deleted due to copyright infringement (G12). We were a bit surprised in our office! None of us are familiar with Wikipedia and its rules. We assumed we were entitled to a page. Our original page was created by a volunteer back in 2011 and contained old/inaccurate information and also spelling mistakes. This week we asked a work experience student to correct this. I think that update must have generated some interest, because the next day yourself and CactusWriter recommended it to be deleted!

I am new to Wikipedia and it is very easy to commit a faux pas… I hope to avoid it but let me know if I am! I may have already done this by having a volunteer intern edit the article. I don’t take the deletion personally and would like to work together with you to determine if our organisation is actually entitled to a Wikipedia page. Could our page be improved? Turned into a stub? Merged with another article (e.g. Kokoda Track)? I’d prefer this than outright deletion. I really do believe the organisation is notable, and not because we work on a good cause, but because we are a big deal along the Kokoda Track. Although I accept have a strong conflict of interest!

Due to the conflict of interest I have – how to you recommend I proceed? Is there a place in Wikipedia that I can list secondary sources and have an independent Wikipedia editor write an article? Or add it as a part of the Kokoda Track article or a stub?

I hope we can work together to make Wikipedia a better place! Thanks for your time and effort in making that so already.

Cheers, Bluhdorn - 29 May 12:52pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhdorn (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 May 2014(UTC)
 * Hi, Bluhdorn. Please read this post in its entirety before doing anything. Thanks for your time asking this- the vast majority of people simply quit Wikipedia. If you want to restore the content on that article, put on your website, The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)., because that is the only way to allow Wikipedia to use this work, then see WP:REFUND to get the article back in user space. Then, we can work on the article itself. The most important pages you should read to understand editing Wikipedia are, in my opinion:


 * WP:NOBLE
 * WP:EYNTK
 * WP:NOTABLE
 * WP:COPYOTHERS

If you want me to help you make this article better, I gladly will. One thing that I would like to ask you is this: do you use multiple accounts or coordinate editing with people outside Wikipedia? Thanks. --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lixxx235, this information is super helpful, thanks for taking the time. Apologies, regrettably we were guilty of socking. We were surprised by KTF's article being recommended for deletion. So myself, a colleague, my boss and the work experience student all commented on the deletion talk page. We are all new users and were not aware this is not allowed. Apologies for the mistake, won't happen again! I'm researching now how to do this right--Bluhdorn (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying hello
Just checking in, what's up? xs---213MK (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there! As I asked my other two adoptees, do you want a formal school style adoption or a more relaxed style? Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

More relaxed... Thanks xs---213MK (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry that the talkback link isn't working properly; I'm not sure how to fix it :/


 * ✅, thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

--Dalek194 (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What's your problem this band is awesome all the content on here this band have done!! I've followed them for ages your just jealous!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallreader (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 May 2014‎
 * Replied on your talk Lixxx235 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Optic Valley
Hi Lixxx235,

Thanks for reviewing the Optics Valley article.

The external links in the list of optics companies in Tucson, Arizona complies with the criteria for official links WP:ELOFFICIAL in that they are links controlled by the subjects (optics companies in Tucson, Arizona) and cover the area for which the subject of the article is notable, Optics in Tucson.

The links substantiate that the companies listed are in Tucson. Without the links, the list is unreferenced. A search for the external links uncovered that one of the companies listed, Union Optic Inc., is not in Tucson at all, but is in Hubei, China.

Please reconsider the reverting of the edits.

Thank you.

Hreschk (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You may add in the links using . Sorry for the hassle, but that simply isn't the way to do it. In my opinion, at least, feel free to point me to the exact policy. --Lixxx235 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lixxx235. The policy is at WP:ELOFFICIAL.Hreschk (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You may use the links, simply not in the body of an article. Only use it in the external links section. --Lixxx235 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create the article I follow this band and don't understand why you are wanting to delete it? why don't you help fix them? I'm sure if there are errors it will get fixed? It's a new page for starters.

Thanks Lucy

Hi Liz I'm new to Wikipedia I created the article about the Miccoli (band) I don't know them but have followed their music for a long time and have seen them play numerous times, not to mention on MTV and VH1. The guys have a large following. Have you checked the links in the article I'm trying to find and confirm all their work. I would really appreciate some help. These guys work very hard to raise awareness for charities relating to genetic heart conditions in the young, I owe a great to them as they brought to my attention my sons heart condition.

I would really like some help on how to proceed I'm finding it a little difficult plus I keep getting deletion notices and I'm not sure why they are appearing?

Kind regards

Sarah


 * I recommend you both go to the teahouse, a place where new editors can ask their questions. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lix I've just made some changes to this I tried to make it sound as professional as possible looking at other Wikipedia pages, I have sent an email over to the PR company and record label to see if I can get any help, surely they would appreciate my effort of writing this article and would want to help. hpw can I meet further criteria so the deletion errors stop appearing? and are people posting those?

Any ideas how I can improve this? Thanks again
 * I recommend you posting it at WP:AfC to get outside opinions. Thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You have messages in xs---213MK (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)'s talk page ==

! Boom, u have spelling mistakes in ur messages at my talk page lol! Also, you have messages at xs---213MK (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)'s talk page! Lol!

The Kokoda Track Foundation
Hi Lixxx235. I originally deleted the article The Kokoda Track Foundation as a copyright violation per WP:G12 criteria. And closed your AFD on the topic. However, the website from which the text was copied is now listed with CC-BY-SA 3.0 license -- allowing its text to be copied to Wikipedia. Therefore, I have restored the article -- and re-opened the Articles for deletion/The Kokoda Track Foundation, as well. If there are any questions with this, please let me know. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

please do not remove my hang on tag it is against Wikipedia policy thank you
 * I'm sorry, the hangon tag is only applicable when the page is nominated for speedy deletion. Thank you. Lixxx235 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message regarding my edit to Lennard Pearce. I sincerely apologise if my edit caused any upset to you or anyone else. I found the information from a reliable source about his work on Only Fools and Horses, and I thought it would make the page's information complete. I would like you to know that if you feel any of my future edits are unecessary, it is perfectly alright with me to change them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.242.88 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2014
 * No, it's fine, just provide a reliable source. Thanks! Lixxx235 (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Testing sig
My sig doesn't look right in preview... --&#39;&#39;Thanks, &#39;&#39;&#91;&#91;User:Lixxx235&#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;color:blue&#59;text-shadow:orange 0.3em 0.3em 0.3em&#59;font-family:Comic Sans MS&#34;&#62;&#39;&#39;&#39;Lixxx235&#39;&#39;&#39;&#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93;&#60;sup&#62;&#91;&#91;User talk:Lixxx235&#124;&#60;span style&#61;&#34;text-shadow:green 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em&#34;&#62;Got a complaint?&#60;/span&#62;&#93;&#93;&#60;/sup&#62; (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh oh
 * Oh, I see now, it's the "use as wiki markup" thing. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 00:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Help, please
Why is the "h" in Harvard Business X lowercase? Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 01:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And why does my disamb HBX not link correctly to "High Blast Explosive"? Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 01:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Harvard Business X has a lowercase h because the article is using the template lowercase title.
 * When you moved the article High Blast Explosive, it somehow got moved to the title "%EF%B8%8FHigh Blast Explosive". Those characters at the beginning couldn't be seen except in the address bar of the browser, and they were preventing links from working.  I've moved the page, so links to High Blast Explosive now work correctly.  --Mysdaao talk 01:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have removed the lowercase title template. I assume the page was based on the edX article and accidentally inherited the template. Huon (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neuroimaging Informatics Tools and Resources Clearinghouse, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NIDA and NIMH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking "Absoft Fortran Compilers" Live
Thank you for taking my submission, "Absoft Fortran Compilers" live. I see a backlog of thousands of pages on individuals and companies that are not encyclopedia articles that seems to be a fairly recent but growing problem that makes it hard for all of us. I suggest that you add a category of first-reviewers whose only job is to separate the wheat from the chaff so that a new, more numerous cadre of volunteers can help there.

I'm a bit dismayed by the "C" quality rating and want to improve the article. For starters, I'm going to restore two figures that dropped off as not linking to an article during the wait period. But the Wikipedia quality ratings summary gives two major reasons for a "C" rating: too much text with too little information, or just too little information. As the single recent author, I have a trees-not-forest perspective that I must overcome to address this well. If you, as a recent reviewer and probably not a Fortran user, have any comments or suggestions for improving the article, please take a few seconds to leave me a message. This can have the effect of making the article better a lot faster if I have the benefit of understanding another viewpoint. -motorfingers- (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, motorfingers! Thanks for the article submission. Wikipedia needs more article creators. The backlog? I never really think there are blatantly un-encyclopedic articles in the backlog, and I don't think there's a problem at all. I make it a point to review at least two old AfCs per day, and I've only rejected two or three of the old ones.


 * About the "C" rating: a "C" rating is not bad. In fact, I've never written an article assessed to be "C". A "C" makes it better than the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I generally rate about 10% of the AfCs I review "B", 35% "C", 50% "Start", and 5% "Stub". The problems for your article that prevented it from getting "B" were:
 * It seemed kind of like an advertisement
 * It contained too much(what I thought) irrelevant material
 * It contained waaay too many links to self-published or primary sources.


 * I'd be happy to give the article another look, or you are free to ask another person to review it as well. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks loads for the three bullets, this is a really big help, as I expected, punching right through the trees-not-forest problem. I think I need a little time to deal with your information.  I need a few days to deal with the problems.  When I'm done I will get back to you here.


 * I also noticed that my references and footnotes were cleaned up, a project that I was not relishing. I looked for a "thank" button and found this this was done by... bots! -motorfingers- (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. I personally think bot-writers should fall between "developers" and "stewards" on WP:BITED. ;) Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint?2 June 2014 15:23 (UTC)

I'm Back!
Now that finals are over I'll be able to edit more! I plan to learn a little bit each day on what I'm supposed to do and be more efficient in my editing process.Hopefully I'll get somewhat good at it by the end of the summer. GuitarRocker13 (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! I was wondering, would you like me to "adopt" you in adopt-a-user to show you the ropes? Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 02:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Nicolas Chaillan
Why did you approve an article that is totally advertising? Diego Grez (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 05:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RCAF Station Jarvis
Many thanks for reviewing this article and moving it from draft to article space. I particularly appreciate the ratings and WikiProject notes on the article's talk page. I have a similar article, RCAF Station Guelph, which is already in article space. How may I get RCAF Station Guelph reviewed, and have ratings and WikiProject notes put in its Talk page? Thanks in advance SteveTheAirman (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply add the Wikiproject templates to the talk page, and someone from each wikiproject will review it. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 21:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Symphony of the New World
I am redoing the references after you declined the article. The help video on references has an Edit Source tab that I do not see in my Edit Section. Where is the Edit Source tab, so I can go to Named References? I am sorry for the article not being good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbara.steinberg (talk • contribs) 03:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems another editor has helped you, if you need anything else, let me know. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 11:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Green World Agriculture India Ltd.
Green World Agriculture India Ltd. is a Company Work Agriculture Investment And ll people working in this company and i think wikipedia is for let know to about big things so why you think this is going speedy deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovethewikis (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not nominate that article for speedy deletion, that would be OccultZone. Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 11:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had also nominated it for deletion. It was deleted too. had posted a complaint on my talk page, just like they did here.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 12:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Elaine draft
The text is still pulling a copyvio from a previous version of the subject's LinkedIn account. I've retained a copy of many of the relevant phrases, which I can mail you if you'd like. A previous interaction is at User_talk:Joe_Decker, and the protection notice at. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry if I missed anything, but do I have something to do with this? I didn't write this article, right? At least I don't recall doing so...Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 21:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, I almost accepted that article, didn't I? Whoops... Thanks for the note! Good thing I couldn't move pages at that time! Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 21:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to worry! First, there's no easy way you could have seen that before, and second, the accept wouldn't have taken since I've salted the final title.  Mostly I was letting you know -- I'd seen you'd comment on the article -- and I wanted to let you know I'd had an issue with the article.  I figured my someone opaque denial there could probably use some explanation to you, that's all.  With any luck, the contributing editor will actually come and discuss the issue. Thanks, and have a great week!  --j⚛e deckertalk 21:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aaah, no wonder I couldn't move! Thanks for the clarification! Thanks,  Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

3rd amendment
Hi Kevin! Hope you're doing well, all things considered. I've been working on Engblom v. Carey—one of the only federal 3rd amendment cases—and thought you might be interested in helping out. There's been a renewed interest in the 3rd amendment recently (it went from 200 to 10k hits overnight last week), and it's a rare case which might be fun to get to FA. Let me know if you're interested, but I completely understand if you're too busy though! Hopefully things will be more stable by the fall and you're keeping safe. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's terrific to hear from you! I am actually traveling right now, which as you might imagine is a somewhat difficult task at the moment. Give me a week, though, and I'll look it over – it'd be really fun to work with you Kevin ( alt of L235 · t · c) 15:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally understand. My lease is up in a month, so I'm dreading having to move all my stuff in the current environment. Feel free to help when you can, if anything a fresh pair of eyes would be useful for making sure it's on the right track. Safe travels! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you're willing to have me along, I'd be interested in helping - I was actually just reading that article the other day while trying to explain Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to some friends. creffett (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course! All help is appreciated. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)



Excised tangent
Hi Kevin, I wanted to reply to your comment but didn't have the space (and regardless it is a philosophical point unrelated to the request at hand). I wanted to focus specifically on ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them and the impact that sentiment can have on reporting abuse.To start, most of the links I provided in my original statement were taken from the block log. I believe it is more than reasonable to expect arbitrators to have seen that, and I believe it is reasonable to expect them to look at links other administrators thought important to include in that block log. In my opinion this is fundamental due diligence for any administrator responding to reports of harassment, and I do not believe the arbitration committee should be given a lighter burden of due diligence than any given responding administrator. I understand that ArbCom is not in the business of investigations, certainly I do not expect you to have gone digging for the additional context I provided, but that simply cannot be an excuse to avoid looking beyond the original complaint.Harassment is not restricted to editors who understand the preferred styling of arbitrators, and expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers. Other editors facing harassment see the arbitration proceedings, and their decision to report hinges on whether they believe you will take it seriously or not. The committee is tasked with deciding disputes, and part of that task is responding to allegations of harassment. The consequence is that individual members need to consider whether they are creating an environment that encourages victims to report. Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect.To be clear, I am pointing out the consequences if your statement were taken to its conclusion and the perceptions that reasonable outsiders would have about the committee. I know it is not your intention and that you care as much as I do about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. It is quite possible that you looked deeply into this matter before I commented, but that is not apparent. Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk. I understand that we have a rapport and that you were making reference to previous statements I have made on this topic, but not everyone is aware of that context or be as sympathetic a reader as I am. I'm sorry for this being so long and confrontational, but if nothing else I hope it prompts you to think critically about how our received knowledge contributes to the reproduction of systemic barriers. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hope you had a good Labor Day and are doing well. Just wondering if you've received my email? Thank you! Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For talk page watchers: UCoC Enforcement draft guidelines
Hi all. The Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement draft guidelines review is currently open and closes in about two weeks.

The enforcement drafting process could be one of the most impactful Wikimedia discussions to be held in a number of years (other than the Movement Charter process), especially as regards its potential to override our local behavior enforcement processes, including ArbCom. If you have an interest, I strongly recommend that you voice your thoughts at m:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_draft_guidelines_review.

For reference, I have included my personal comments below. But please, whether you agree with me or not, voice your thoughts – this is too important to be passed through the dead of night with the limited amount of community review it's seen so far. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. As an English Wikipedia ArbCom member, I was pleasantly surprised by the progress made in this draft but still concerned about a number of its provisions. It's very unclear to me where to post comments (there is no well-formatted consultation), so please allow me to write here. would you let me know if there is a better or more effective place to post these thoughts? Also, let me know if I can format or condense this in a way that will ensure its maximum consideration. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t) 01:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple cases such as, but not limited to, simple vandalism should be resolved through editing and the regular processes that exist on a wiki to handle disruption – There should be a broad understanding of "simple case". Cases that are currently well and routinely handled by the community on any particular project should not be altered by the operation of the UCoC.
 * The UCoC processes have the potential to be good, but shifting routine disputes that are currently handled well (even if not "simple") onto new untested UCoC enforcement processes will doom the new processes before they have a chance to shine, simply because there will be far too many disputes.
 * Appeals should be possible, and handled by a body different from the one that issued the appealed decision – This is good as a general statement, but perhaps not possible or desirable in certain cases heard directly by an ArbCom or ArbCom-equivalent. On the English Wikipedia, when the ArbCom itself makes a decision, there is no appeals process from that decision (except to ArbCom itself), because ArbCom is the highest level of community review. And that must not change: the only reason ArbCom can possibly be successful is that it is absolutely final, from which there is not ordinarily any further appeal. It otherwise could not be the best alternative to a negotiated agreement that must exist for all our other processes to exist.
 * Long story short: when the highest community body renders a decision, we shouldn't mandate the existence of a further appeal (in ordinary circumstances).
 * A shared ArbCom among projects of different types in the same language is an option the committee encourages projects to consider as a means to create a more effective UCoC project enforcement system – I do not think this would work for the English Wikipedia, which is already far overworked, but if this is an opt-in system I guess this could work in other contexts.
 * Systematic failure to follow the UCoC – Conferring authority on the U4C Committee for this kind of event should be exceptional especially for large projects. I propose that any involuntary transfer of authority from an established representative ArbCom require at least a two-thirds vote of the U4C Committee and should (except in truly exceptional circumstances) only be made on the recommendation of the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * However, I do really like the idea of conferring authority on the U4C Committee by referral from local community bodies. If an ArbCom and the U4C Committee both agree to have the U4C Committee hear and decide a case, it should be able to.
 * I'm ambivalent about the usefulness of a MediaWiki extension reporting tool, but if that's what others want I'm not that opposed.
 * I am skeptical that we could recruit enough qualified talented Wikimedians to staff a new reporting tool. It sounds like a lonely, heartbreaking, sad job where you're overworked and underappreciated. Jobs like that tend not to be filled by volunteers, especially not the highly respected and influential volunteers we need to fix messes. (see, e.g., the massive backlogs on the paid-en-wp queue for English Wikipedia: private reporting tool that has not been well enough designed)
 * By the same token, I am skeptical that U4C Committee will be well-enough staffed. English Wikipedia ArbCom barely makes it with our workload, and by the looks of it, the U4C Committee will have 20x as much work.
 * Private reports should only be admissible in the event that privacy is warranted. This principle should hold not just because transparency is a core Wikimedia value but also because trust in the content on our projects relies on the process being open whenever possible. Current guidelines about what disputes can be privately decided should be respected unless there is very good reason to deviate from them.
 * I think this system severely underestimates the likely volume of abuse of process that any new system like this will receive. Any new processes must be very carefully designed not to incentivize people to abuse it.