User talk:Livitup/Archive 4

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Robert Więckiewicz
Hello Livitup. I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article, but feel free to list it at AfD is you think notability is in question. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Symbiosis Center of Health Care
Please see my note here. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

About Shivesh kumar - ooops!
Hi, Livitup. Ooops! I inadvertently removed the CSD tag on that article when I chopped out the wall o' text that pretty much prevented anybody working out what the article was actually about. Please feel free to add it back if you feel it's needed. --Shirt58 (talk) 06:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, now it's a legit article on a notable political figure with a WP:RS to back it up. When I tagged it, it was literally a resume.  Though you might want to move it to Shivesh Kumar (with a capital 'K').  Happy editing!  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cached Google hits indicate the same thing has been posted four times.
 * 17:34, 29 November 2011 Causa sui (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 11:57, 27 November 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
 * 12:18, 26 November 2011 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted "Shivesh Kumar" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))
 * Now if you excuse me, I have to do the washing-up :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat
I appreciate your withdrawal, and can sympathyze with your google-foo temporariliy failing you. I wish to offer as a hint that even if not itself suitable as a source, IMDB quite often offers information that can lead us to the sources we do prefer. In the case of this film, I first looked at the film's IMDB "external reviews" page to see if any reviews of the film were listed and if so, did any met our criteria. Most did not. But in this case, as there were quite a number of even non-RS reviews, it made me feel that RS reviews were also to be found... thus kicking my own searches into high gear. I'm curently using what I found to give the article some cleanup and expansion. Again, thanks for the withdrawal. Well done. -  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive reinforcement. When I'm active on Wikipedia I tend to do totally gnomish things without specializing in any specific topic.  I knew we don't consider IMDB as a RS, but I never would have thought of using it as a launching point for further research.  I'll add this tip to my little toolbox for the future, though.  Thanks again, and I really appreciate the followup!   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!
Hi Livitup! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script: // Add WP:Reflinks launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function { addPortletLink( "p-tb",    // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )}); onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Blood of the Black Owl
Hi Livitup. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article, as there appears to be some coverage in the music press. Thanks, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for COEX Aquarium
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Ruy Diaz Melgarejo, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Villarrica and Ontiveros (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) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Classical Movements
My pleasure, and thanks for your help on this article too. I still believe the subject is likely notable, but a fair amount of work is needed to get the current article into shape, unfortunately. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ruy Diaz Melgarejo
Hello! Your submission of Ruy Diaz Melgarejo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jens Olsen's clock translation article
Please, be so kind to change your wording "for now...". This is rude. The current pages, in English, Danish, etc., are ridiculous, and it would be a much better idea for you to delete these pages, instead of my page, translated and improved by someone who knows the topic certainly better than the people who started the other stubs. You make me waste my time, given that you've deleted and restored an article just minutes after it was created, and make me unwilling to improve it tonight, hence jeopardizing my contribution to Wikipedia. You are doing more harm than good, Livitup!Schwilgue (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have been wrong. I put the French article in the English Wikipedia. This was accidental. Sorry. OK, delete the article. My apologies.Schwilgue (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, I was just writing a very long and super-polite response to that same effect.  It would make it easier to delete if you blanked the article (just delete all the text from it and use an edit summary like "created in wrong wikipedia").  Happy editing!   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hi Livitup, I don't think we've ever run into each other before, but I stumbled across your userpage for some reason (I can't remember how) and saw that you are a skilled copyeditor. Do you take requests? This isn't urgent at all, you can wait a couple months if you're busy. The article is Alexis Bachelot (the first Catholic missionary to Hawaii). It's not too large, 1800 words or so. I'd like to try to get the prose up to Featured Article standards. I've gotten it up to Good Article status and the GA reviewer made a few small copyedits, but I'd like to have an experienced copyeditor take a look at it. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to... I'll send you another note when I get started, probably some time in the next couple weeks.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, glad to hear it. I've done a little copyediting lately, and I know that it can be tough work. It's hard to find good copyeditors these days! Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Barnett
Hi Livitup, thank you for taking the time to consider writing a brief article on Tyler Barnett. How would you like me to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbarnett (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on IRC, contact the administrator who closed the deletion discussion on his user talk page (you can use this link: User_talk:Arbitrarily0) and ask him to restore the deleted page in your userspace. Once he does that (if he does that) you can leave me another message with a link to the location of the restored article and then I'll take a look.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Livitup, it's restored! Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tylerbarnett/Tyler_Barnett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerbarnett (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

AWB
You account has now been approved for AWB. Please read the instructions carefully. If the bot hasn't  enabled your account in  a day  or two  please let  me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful
This edit was not vandalism. The user made requests to several admins, but as we were unable to help them, they decided to remove their requests. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I did look before I leapt—blanking of an entire section of a well-known admin's talk page by another user without an edit summary... looked a lot like a duck to me.  But sorry for the error!   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, had I not been aware of the situation, I might have made the same mistake. Keep up the good work! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow up!  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But this report of a user at AIV is incorrect. The user has no vandalism in their history. Please make sure edits are actually vandalism before you revert and/or report things at AIV. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 23:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So the only edit of theirs that I reverted was this removal of sourced material: which happened to be the one that tripped them over WP:IGLOO's vandal reporting threshold, since User:Dl2000 warned him first,  and User:JuneGloom07 warned a second time .  My guess is that since JuneGloom07 issued a level 3 warning (even though it was only the second warning issued), IGLOO picked up on that and considered my reversion a 4th offense and reported to AIV.  I agree that some of User:1999JordanMcGregor's edits are not vandalism, but at least two other editors agreed with me that at some point he did vandalize.
 * I still think that the removal of sourced material, without discussion or even an edit summary is vandalism. Would you disagree?  And do you disagree with anti-vandalism tools such as IGLOO and Twinkle automatically posting reports to AIV on a 4th warning?  Should this option be disabled and editors doing anti-vandalism work recheck the work of those who have warned previously to make sure that all the warnings were for valid vandalism?  I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm really interested in what you think.  How could I have done this better, other than disabling auto-AIV reports and checking by hand before reporting to AIV?   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not trying to "blame the automated tools", I do take responsibility for my edits, so there's no need to go down that road. I just want to know how to improve the outcome next time.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Taken from the vandalism guidelines, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."(emphasis original). I think this is pretty clear. The removal of sourced information is not vandalism and should not be marked as such. I will not comment on specs for the tools but when you report a user for vandalism you should at least look through the other warnings and edits to make sure that they are, in fact, a vandal. And yes you should stop and recheck the other warnings to make sure that they are correct so that you may make the correct warning. I watch the countervandalism feed on IRC and I know that most (90% +) are not vandalism. My question to you is, would you have been so quick to revert and warn if this user had a blue-linked name?--Adam in MO Talk 06:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I've taken some time to come back to this discussion, because I really wanted to think things through. The answer to your question was simple—I would have been exactly so quick to revert if this user had a blue-linked name, and since the warning and AIV report happen automagically with Huggle/Igloo, then yes I would have been exactly so quick to warn and (in this case) report.  I do think that the removal of sourced information from an article, without any edit summary, is something that should be reverted.  Removal of unsourced information should not.  But sourced information has a higher "truthiness" factor than unsourced information, and I would expect someone who has taken the time to make a purposeful, concerted removal of sourced information to also make an edit summary.
 * However, I will agree with you that this specific type of edit is more likely good-faith editing than straight up vandalism. And that's what made me stop and think about this.  Although Igloo is an easier tool for me to use, it lacks a lot of the features of Huggle.  Igloo only allows you to revert as pure vandalism, where Huggle allows you to revert with a lot more specific messages going to the talk page of the user you are reverting.  For this specific edit, I was running Igloo, so the edit was reverted as vandalism, but if I were using Huggle, I would have used the "AGF" reversion button instead.  So one thing I am going to change is sticking to Huggle for my anti-vandalsim work.
 * The more serious thing though, is that I had to stop and think about how I approach anti-vandalsim. It's rare for me to do much investigation at all, I either revert, or pass it by.  A lot of vandalism is blatantly obvious, but the grey area is also very large.  When presented with a grey area case, I would generally decide within 20-30 seconds or so: revert or next, revert or next.  It almost becomes a game.  And that's why I answered your question "yes".  Not because I'm so open-minded, but more because I would probably never check to see if the editor was red-linked or blue-linked.  So the biggest lesson that I have learned from this exercise is that perhaps the biggest benefit to the project is if I take a few minutes and really dig into the grey area cases and try to make more informed decisions.
 * Thanks for engaging me in the conversation... I'm totally open to any response or further thoughts you have.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 17:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The bright line vandalism doesn't take much time or consideration to deal with, "Livitup rocks teh internetz" is clearly vandalism. "Livitup is a valuable contributor to the website Wikipedia", is not, even though they largely mean the same things. The anti-vandal bots, like Cluebot have gotten so good at the bright line vandal fighting that it is really the edit-warring, and pov-pushing edits that really need to be looked at. I think that you really get it. As for removal of sourced/unsourced information, it is grey there too. Unsourced information in a biography of a living person should be probably be reverted until a source can be found. Actually all unsourced information in a BLP article should be pulled with due haste as soon as it is caught. The removal of sourced information is the same. What is the information? What is the source? Is it a quote from a crank dowsing advocacy site? What about a youtube clip? It could be that the information is wrong or not supported by the source. There are no hard fast rules in this area. At best all that is for certain is that you should drop a note on that user's page about using summaries. But you are right. When it comes to watching the recent changes feeds, temperance and patience must prevail. Keep rockin teh interntz.--Adam in MO Talk 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

R v Peacock
Hi I am new to wiki and not too worried about being blocked etc.

But I would like to say something: I live in London UK and I am very involved in the issues around this case. There is a chance that I know more about it than you! You are an expert in wikipedia. I am an expert in gender and sexuality. I don't care if I get blocked from wikipedia. But you're arrogance is very annoying.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NotoriousQRG... please take a breath and step back. :) I never edited the R v Peacock page; I never removed the content!  I just noticed the repetitive back-and-forth argument that was going on between you and the other editor who was removing the content.  I gave the exact same warning to both of you.  I don't live in London, and I don't know anything about this case.  I am sure you know more about it than I do!  I'm just trying to let you know that there is a Wikipedia policy that you have already broken, and that you could be blocked as a result.  If you're blocked then you can't edit anything on Wikipedia for the duration of the block!  Wikipedia works on consensus, so since apparently someone disagrees with you adding this content, the right thing to do is engage the other editor(s) in a discussion, and the right place to do that is the article's talk page.  I'll go take a look at the article now and then I can give a better opinion on the content in question. :)   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)