User talk:Super48paul/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Super48paul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (Super48paul (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism tips
Hi. Thanks for helping remove vandalism, but please be careful when simply reverting single edits! In one instance, you correctly reverted the second edit of a vandal [1] but missed the first [2] (which has since been corrected). You might want to consider using tools such as Twinkle or Huggle to help, or just check the article history and follow-up on the IP vandal's contributions. Cheers, and happy vandal-fighting, Stephenb (Talk) 09:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Always leave a warning for clear vandalism
Hi, Super48paul. I saw that you're a new editor who's chosen to get involved in anti-vandalism. That's great! That's what I did two weeks ago, and I've had a great time. In fact, feel free to stop by my talk page whenever you'd like, if you need any pointers. For now, though, I just wanted to give you a friendly piece of advice: When you revert vandalism, always leave a warning at the vandal's talk page. WP:RCP has a list of the basic warnings, and WP:UTM has a full list. There's also a gadget you can install called Twinkle that allows you to revert vandalism with a single click, and which automatically opens the vandal's talk page, where clicking "warn" under the Twinkle tab gives you a list of most of the warnings shown at UTM.

Also, if something's clearly vandalism (like that "crew deeper than the Wutang" edit you saw), you don't need to wait for a response from the vandal to remove it: The policy is that when there's little grounds to assume good faith, you may delete with prejudice (see WP:QUACK: "Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact"). Be bold - with anti-vandalism, you'll never make the right call 100% of the time, but if you generally make the right call (the bar gets higher the longer you've been editing), no one will be mad the occasional times you do. Why, just yesterday I reverted an edit to the talk page of none other than Jimmy Wales, that looked like vandalism accusing him of pedophilia - turns out, they were discussing an article on pedophilia!

I hope this helps. Once again, if you have any questions, drop me a line! — Francophonie&Androphilie  (  Je vous invite à me parler  ) 23:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

edits
You answered me why i made my recent changes and i say this to you. I made them because i think that a page have to be visibile in all its part and without white blanking spaces. If is a real problem, i won't made it in the future, but since in less than two months the page will be certainly changed, I don't see, and forgive me if i made wrong, why get upset over something trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.34.222.208 (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul, I'm wondering why you didn't use one of the pre-loaded messages on Twinkle? This situation seems like it would have only warranted a . Manual warnings are fine, and in many situations preferable, but you have to be careful to get your tone just right. In fact, I often have to spend 5-10 minutes on my first explanatory note. It looks like 2.34 made a very very minor mistake, if any at all, so you should remember that you have to assume good faith until unambiguously shown otherwise, especially when dealing with potential vandals. Remember that to block an editor is to strip them of their fundamental right to edit Wikipedia, and is not something that is taken lightly - this is why we have the user-warning system that we do, and this is why we are always very hesitant to declare someone a vandal unless given obvious proof. — Francophonie&Androphilie  (  Je vous invite à me parler  ) 14:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 2.34 is the editor who commented above. Just so you know, you can reply here - I'll see. Or, if I don't, you can come to my page and select the Twinkle option that says "TB." That will leave me a little message telling me to check out your response over here. But I'll almost definitely see anything you say right now. — Francophonie&Androphilie  (  Je vous invite à me parler  ) 15:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit in Polymath

In this edit to Polymath, you restored an old version of the article, such an old version that I'm not sure which one. You didn't leave a note so I have no idea why you did this, but you did leave an inaccurate edit summary. Your edit is problematic for a couple of reasons. First you restored a version that contained extensive original research and unsourced copy. Second, you removed tags that were required even after the questionable text had been removed. Thirdly, you removed references to list articles that have been deleted. Lastly, your edit summary referred to "vandalism" when there had been no recent vandalism to the article. I've restored the version prior to your edit. I'd appreciate it if you be more careful, especially with edit summaries. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I appreciate that it was unintentional. I wonder if there might have been a glitch in the Twinkle system? Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Super48Paul! I am a teacher at St. Mary's School in Medford, Oregon, and I wanted to thank you for your attention to this vandalism. Teachers here would prefer that students not use their time for ANY editing in Wikipedia, but especially vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.8.34 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

School Reorganisation
Note by Yaris678: This discussion concerns this revert and this template warning plus addtional comment.

We followed the school articles - only basic summary (History, principals and notable alumni) are allowed. Wikipedia is never a directory in the first place :) Timothyhouse1 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, It is generally preferable to explain why you are removing content, using an edit summary. However, I think it was kinda understandable in this case.  The removed content had no references and was mostly pretty trivial.
 * Super48paul, I have reverted unexplained removals of content in the past but I probably wouldn't have done in this case. Either way, I think I would have started a discussion on the talk page of the article and invited Timothyhouse1 to contribute.
 * P.S. I note that Timothyhouse1 is now using an edit summary for similar edits to other articles about schools.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Annandale article
The paragraph I removed was written from a very biased angle, most likely from one of those involved in the incident. I don't believe it belongs in the page at all, considering it is a minor incident within the reach of the football program. If it must stay, it should be from a much more neutral perspective. 96.255.190.83 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I agree, it looks biased indeed and out of place. Why did you not accompany your deletion with such a comment? Can you take care of this incident and come to an agreement with those who inserted it in the first place? Most easy solution might be indeed to delete it altogether. Good luck, Super48paul (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
This is notice about article Battle of Calamoun rebels - syrians citizen, who wanna some changes in their country (political, social etc) terrorists - international merceneries who came to Syria and produce death, violence and don't have any interest for Syria and syrians citizen. In Calamoun SAA fighting with terrorists from al-Nusra etc. That why I edit "rebel" to "terrorist" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.255.39.47 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Qutb complex
Hello and thanks for reversing the edit at Qutb complex, although I wanted to let you know that it doesn't appear to have been a good-faith edit because the words are rude/offensive according to Urban dictionary! Always makes me laugh when people think they are being clever by adding words in other languages. Green Giant (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Hello your reversal of my edit in Wikipedia page 'History of Bangladesh' labeling my work as Vandalism is unacceptable to me. The Bengal renaissances were mostly articulated and evolved in and around Calcutta and West Bengal and the people in and around Dhaka and East Bengal (predecessor of current day's Bangladesh)remained mostly aloof and non participatory in the process. If you study the history of Bengal renaissances, you would definitely get ample support to my position. Thus this section, while highly relevant to the History of Bengal, is somehow irrelevant to the History of Bangladesh. I Hope you now understand my position. However, you could have talked to me before reverting the edit as vandalism. I admit I am a newcomer to Wikipedia compared to a veteran like you, that does not mean my well thought assertion is a vandalism. RegardsMiniman77 (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Hello Miniman, Of course we on Wikipedia are not determined to offend anyone, be assured of that. If you honestly believe a piece of text is irrelevant to an entry, say so loud and clearly, and people (like me) will accept that. Only, I made a quick scan and saw you reverting a chunk of text, to which my intuitive response is: reversion, only acceptable if argued well. So go ahead! Super48paul (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your welcoming response! RegardsMiniman77 (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

[BARNEY C.S>] hello super48paul, your reversal of my edit on barney and friends as vandalism is unacceptable to me and it wasn't vandalism not in my opinion what about the first amendment "freedom of speech" back when the freedom of speech amendment was passed meant people could talk however they wanted and if they had internet back then i bet they would have included the internet as well and i don't think my edit was vandalism at all, vandalism is spray painting not editing in what you think it should have on the page, i'm just saying and i was trying to leave a message to the people who would critique badly on my favorite shows from when i was a kid and stuff and if you have the email of who wrote the critic review of barney and friends about being denial and stuff like that please send me there email address, and if you can't send me their email address that's okay, but people shouldn't be allowed to critique stuff unless they have a critiquing certificate, i'm just saying, sorry if this sound like vandalism to you which it's not well not in my opinion, to me, my edit on barney and friends was fine it didn't sound like vandalism to me. and give me some hints on what vandalism is on the internet because i for sure don't know what vandalism is on the internet, i know what physical vandalism is but not internet vandalism so what is the difference? and the people who critic barney and friends about barney being about denial really got my goat so to say. so i wanted to leave a message to them on here if that was possible. if not sorry, thanks for listening and taking the time to read this. Sincerely Kquigone3675
 * Hello Kquigone, Good that you talk to me here. Keep in mind that on W entries, you have to remain calm and factual if you want to contribute encyclopedic content. I can see that you are very emotional about this issue, no problem, but you had better take it to the associated talk page first. That is all! Good luck,Super48paul (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

David Willets
I have defended my edit on the relevant talk page. If it was you that wrote "GFR: original seems better!" please sign comments with tildes and a link to the article in question if posting on my talk page in future.86.6.188.253 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I left out the appropriate template by mistake - beginner's fault...Super48paul (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Mangaaliw (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Mangaaliw Mangaaliw (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC) I have a supporting documents that Danilo M. Santiago is not a present presiding minister of IDBCJ but in the "The Presiding Minister of Iglesia ng Dios na Buhay kay Cristo Jesus, which is different from Iglesia ng Dios na Buhay kay Cristo Jesus (IDBCJ) to make clear and not confusing to reader of this information.

Edit
[ edit] Cabo Verdi (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Hello, Can you define what's constructive or not ?

[EUTHANASIA]i don't know where i have to ask you the question, so plaese don't ban me, but why my improvement was tagged as "vandalism" the page was child euthanasia. since when is child euthanasia whithout permission of the child????? and since when is child euthanasia controversial? i know it was a brief explenation. But the content is not right... it is itself not an opinion, but a lie..... PLEASE, tell me why you said it was vandalism? i am waiting for it and it is not funny... i don't want to be a vandalist...
 * Hello, I just read your message. I reverted the edit simply because you deleted a lot of text, without giving adequate reasons. For such a drastic edit you first have to go to the associated Talk Page, and propose to the public what you intend to do. The text involved looked serious enough, so you need to argue your case. And who knows, maybe you are in the right and people will embrace what you propose! Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia.Super48paul (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Crusades
This IP, 68.14.160.191, has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Kansas Bear (?), Thanks for your invitation, sorry that it had slipped my mind. But I have to decline: the discussion about the character of the Crusades (violent or not?) surely looks interesting, but personally I have nothing to add to that discussion. Never been into the Middle Ages really..Super48paul (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Arete Article
Hello, I'm Resposito. You recently undid one of the changes I made to the Arete article. The article stated that Arete's sister was Harmonia, while her sister is actually Homonoia, who is and entirely different goddess. Harmonia is the daughter Ares and Aphrodite, while Homonoia is the daughter of Soter and Praxidike. Both Harmonia and Homonoia are goddesses of concord and their names are spelled similar, yet they are different. I can see why you would think I was mistaken, and I appreciate you taking the time to let me know you undid my edit! Thanks. Respositob (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, I checked the controversial edit I made (indeed). My answer is disappointingly simple (but true): I never identified this edit as vandalism. But I vaguely remember that some edits slipped by and were treated by pressing a button at random. So I apologize for this: the ensuing edits also seem to put you in the right. Super48paul (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

St Edmund Hall Edit
I'm using an IP that seems to be shared by several users. Two vandalism instances were corrected, and I was notified, but I had no involvement in either. One of the edits is of St. Edmund Hall, Oxford. I'm a student at the same college, so it seems clear that someone is vandalising from this IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.7.219 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting. No problem, that happens from time to time, do not feel too guilty about it. Just try and find the culprits!Super48paul (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Findlay City School District
I totally understand your point of view of Wikipedia not being a catalog to list prices but referred policy WP:NOT actually mentions that prices can be listed if there is a source present and in this case there is a source present. My intention to enter this information was to make it easily find-able. I had a hard time finding that information myself and i wanted to make this process easier for others by listing that information in Findlay City School District article. This information pertains to it and i think it should be there. Findlay being a small town, it's hard for people to find information about it. Where i was coming from, public schools were not charging fees to students and it was surprise for me to find out that this district charges fees and i just wanted to make that information easily find-able for future comers to this town. I still believe this information should be there in the article as this is not for purpose of advertisement or purpose of sale. Schools do not sell education. I would also like to differ from your opinion that listing of fees is equal to listing of a price. I do not think fee is a price. Wikipedia is about educating people and providing them useful information and listing of fees in this article is about educating people about Findlay City School District. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your elaborate message. I still disagree, especially since the link at the bottom shows the fees to anyone who cares to click the link! But I will put an invitation to talk about this on the talk page of the entry and see what happens.. In the meantime let us keep the fees IN..Super48paul (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

About Dirk Geuer (1)

Dear Super48paul, I want delete that article about Dirk Geuer, because so many people meant to work on that article that there is no red thread to see anymore and the discussion of true or false is exhausting. So I want delete that article and hope of your comprehension. Best regards Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Schablewski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

About Dirk Geuer (2)
Hello, just wait until Wednesday, on that day or after you may delete the entry when nobody has protested. Good luck with it!Super48paul (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Aristides de Sousa Mendes
Discussion is going on at the talk page. The article has severe problems and I think your reversion made things worse rather than better. Please take a closer look and comment at the talk page as I have done. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  08:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that afterwards. Sorry about that. I also apologized to Beebop211 and wished him/her good luck... It looks like a mess, and the article is certainly too long.Super48paul (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The vandal has returned and I'm spending all my time on damage control. Please help us! Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see that, pages and pages and pages... I am sorry that I have really have no time to assist you. You may if need be ask an administrator to freeze the issue for a while (e.g., semi-protection); or ask him/her to to arbitrate in this quarrel. But anyone intervening will find it a hard job. Almost anything seems to be disputed here, from the money he received to the meals that he could afford. Good luck (and do no let it kill you..).Super48paul (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. How do I get the page protected? Beebop211 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I have been thinking about your case. A form of protection (preventing categories of users from editing) is too drastic - the dispute is between you two. So you better ask for a third opinion. You do this by sending in a request: see all details on WP:THIRD (type this in the Wikipedian search box top right). Also instructive is WP:RFC. Tell me if this works out!Super48paul (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
--  Kangaroo  powah  18:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by 94.171.240.148 in "El Clasico" article
Hi, I've been editing the first section of that page from almost a month, against the continuous reversals made by the user "94.171.240.148", who constantly REFUSES to debate in the talk page and constantly REFUSES to explain the reversals when he/she edits my contributions, unlike the ones who disagree with the previous redaction, like me, who explain our reasons to edit that redaction.

I want to know if you or somebody can stop this continuous edit warring without explication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.207.131 (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:EW, at WP:RFC and WP:3. All of them describe ways to get out of an edit war. First start on that talk page (again), with more conspicuous messages and banners asking for others to help. If that does not work, you ask for comments or a third opinion. It takes effort, for sure - good luck!! Super48paul (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

White space before new comments on talk pages
Hi Super48paul,

Did you know that it is standard to add new comments to the talk page on a new line? Also, we tend to indent the comment so that it is "one in" from the comment it is a reply to.

For example, see the white space I added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ASTiki&diff=635488540&oldid=635455425 here] and here.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know, but sometimes my comment is so short that it does not seem worthwile.. Thnx anyway! Super48paul (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The danger there is that people might not even realise that it is a separate comment. They might think the previous comment was also by you, or that your comment is by the previous user. Yaris678 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the vague edit summary
I was just undoing the effects of this edit from yesterday which duplicated all the content of the article.AioftheStorm (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see that now, what a mess that editor made! Do as you please, I am convinced now that you know what you are doing... Best, Super48paul (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

hey
Can you not send me a warning template and revert my edit for a computer game for something that clearly is a quote of what was actually said? Thanks pal. I've used this site long enough to know how it works. Last I checked we don't censor stuff here Second Skin (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe you are 100% right, but unfortunately the source mentioned says: a liberal...! So we have no choice and leave out the pussy. Don't you agree this sounds reasonable? Or else find a source that mentions the said pussy.. Super48paul (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ALI KHAN

With regards to the alleged CIA assignation. The very nature of declassified documents is that they are declassified and therefore available. A quick internet search shows such a document has not been declassified. Such a claim is nothing more than an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory denoted by the flimsy non-mainstream source article and therefore all references to it have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timwasinjapan (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK! Do not only mention this to me, but also put this on the talk page of Ali Khan in order to convince your co-Wikipedians that it is all a lot of rubbish and therefore needs deleting!Super48paul (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

SPELLING B

Hi Paul. Thank you for your prompt reply. However i am organizing the National Spelling Bee competition in Bahrain. Could you advise me on how to add it to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donamariagemayel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments on your talk page!Super48paul (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Saint John's bonfire
Hey.

I understand that you take my modification out because from your point of view it is not reliable but I just did cause a friend of mine thought that the catalan national day is the 24th of June which is wrong. If you do some research you will see that the catalan national day is the 11th of September (1714). As I mentioned in my modification, the saint john's day only reminds some people to the times where the three kingdoms (Valencia, catalunya and Balearic Islands) where together as one known as the "Paisos Catalans".

A little bit of research before deleting content could be useful :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.5 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)