User talk:Widr/Archive 13

Peace or Violence
Hello, I think this should be Peace or violence. Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Stop discriminating
You need to stop, i am putting real facts into the page. Please stop discriminating. I have nothing against very Harry balzac, but apparently you do!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honro'e de balzac (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Ghost page edit
Apologies for the massive edit!! It was an accidental submission, didn't mean to publish my random scribblings on the page.--The Count of Tuscany''' (TALK) 09:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, mistakes happen. I'll remove the warning. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Highschool Computer
You mentioned removing a piece of an article edited by this computer to On the Origin of Species. I'm just mentioning that this computer is actually a part of a network belonging to a high school. I expect the vast majority of edits from this school are malicious, so I'm thanking you for doing such a great job. I'm honestly shocked the IP isn't banned yet. Keep up the good work (and sorry for the lack of formatting). 164.104.219.91 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There was just that one edit from your IP, and that was nearly a year ago, so there's no need for a block for the time being. Widr (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

San luis fc
Man, look the infobox of others teams, above it just "common name", my edition was not vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.21.22 (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I misinterpreted your edit. Apologies. Widr (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gentech
Sorry I am new here and I did make a mistake. Am am still trying to figure out the edits and undos. Thak you for alerting me. (DanteVz (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC))
 * It's okay. Good way to start is to read the links that have been posted on your talk page. Widr (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

editing kunickaa
hi please dont undo the changes, this is information about myself, i am correcting it. i am kunickaa sadanand and born on the 27th of february 1964. somebody has posted a lot of silly and incorrect info, please im struggling with making changes as im not that computer savvy, and youre going and changing it. please help me also to upload a better profile picture, thats not a recent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunickaa sadanand (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't do that. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged per Wikipedia policy. You should read more about it here. Widr (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I put new text on it because its beter and more update than the old own and also we work for Saskia Laroo and we like to have some good ! en update ! text on wiki, ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultMix (talk • contribs) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Radu (weapon)
Thanks you for the messages. But my intervention in the article about Radu-Romanian nuclear weapon is normal and I consider that is not vandalism: it is a stupid and anti-Romanian article and this is a case of denigration. How to delete the entire article which is only a fantasy ? Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.124.247 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should discuss your concerns with other editors on the article's talk page. Widr (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I appreciate that. Widr (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I'm not good enough with my words to do it myself, but if you're interested, you might check out WP:REQUESTNOM. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 22:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. I guess it's not the worst possible idea, so I might have to give it some thought. Widr (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK
All i did was spell something right. I thought it was my job to do that. Im only 10 years old.

If you would be kind, help me to do things right on here. Im trying to do my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macs1985 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
The information on this page is intentionally misleading. The entry needs drastic revision. The original correct, but now dated, information has been vandalised. Eg date of birth, interests etc have been edited such that they are inaccurate. Presumably someone thought the edits humorous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limanova (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then you should fix it, but blanking it is not the correct way. I notice that User:Sjö has already updated the article now. Widr (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: February 2014
To let you know, I attempted to revert the vandalism and it did not work so I tried it again. Please do not jump to immediate conclusions as the edit was in good faith and not intentional. I attempted to fix the mess made by another user if you view the edit history logs. The vandalism was made by Tbear 2000. Thank you. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That vandalism was already removed and re-inserted by you. Widr (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for that slight hiccup - I didn't intend for the vandalism to happen again, but the second edit was a bit more successful. Thank you for that fix up. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was my mistake too to automatically assume that you were the previous vandal immediately returning to the crime scene, so I removed the unnecessary warning from your talk page. Widr (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Omar Abdullah Wikipedia Page
Hi Widr,

I still don't know why my contribution is considered as 'unconstructive'. Is posting information about twitter handle 'unconstructive' ? Someone has updated about the only movie where he acted and according to Wikipedia it is constructive and relevant but how? Can you please explain me? I've read the policy of Wikipedia also and the contribution I made is neither defaming Omar Abdullah and nore abusing him. It's just a simple information and more it's not controversial. User used to post such highly controversial things and Wikipedia accepted it. But my contributions is as simple as taking meal. Please let me know how I can convince the editor? Where to find consensus discussion about my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Homespun33. You have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so the articles are supposed to be written in an encyclopedic manner. Writing a separate section of somebody's Twitter account can hardly be considered encyclopedic. I suppose you could mention the link in the External links section, but I don't think further advertising is necessary. Widr (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Widr, Thanks for your reply. But someone has also updated about Bollywood movie where he had acted. Is that encyclopedia? I think that section also require to remove. And Day by day people are mentioning their twitter handle in their signature and it will be consider as trademark in future. I think Wikipedia should reconsider his policy about advertising Twitter profile. It is still debatable issue and you can't remove it directly. I want to debate about it. Please let me know, how can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Best place to discuss the issue would be the talk page of the article. Other editors can then join the conversation and you might be able to reach a consensus. Widr (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you please send me link for the talk page of Omar Abdullah (I couldn't find it) and how other editors will join the discussion? Am I need to send them invitation something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here you go. You just type your comments on the New section page (just like on this page), and others are likely to respond to you. Widr (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Widr. I have created new section on the talk page of Omar Abdullah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homespun33 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi there. There seems to be a vandal (Tbear2000) that continuously vandalizes "The Amazing Spider-Man 2 2014 Video Game" page. They leave no sources and continue to revert the edits done against them. I would like to ask for two things if it is not enough trouble for you. Seeing the many anti-vandalism badges you've got, I ask that the vandal be blocked from editing or that the page in question is blocked to anyone save for registered editors to prevent this. Your help will be gratefully appreciated. Many thanks. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have given them one more warning. They may get blocked if they continue vandalizing. Widr (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Star Fox Adventures
You were the one to most recently revert the vandalism to Star Fox Adventures (Stairfax Temperatures?). If you check the edit history, the exact same vandalism has been done to this article by a number of vandals, some with registered accounts. I'm looking for your opinion; do you think this warrants article protection? I'll watch your page, so feel free to respond here. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think that protection isn't quite warranted at this point, and the request would probably be declined. Simple reverting should do it for now. Widr (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So how long would it have to continue at this pace before protection is warranted? I'm new to this kind of Wikipedia bureaucracy (I hate bureaucracy outside the Internet, too) and I know I have to learn it eventually. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, articles are not usually protected preemptively. If there would be several disruptions per day on a daily basis, then protection would be in order. But with the current vandalism rate, I think we can manage undoing the damage manually when it occurs. Widr (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtsiding
I have edited this article as it seemed to repeat much of what was claimed in a factually inaccurate Telegraph article on 15th January 2014. Sporting Data have contacted the Telegraph pointing out the inaccuracies and asking them to bear that in mind when covering the case in future. As the Telegraph withdrew the article and published full coverage of the Sporting Data statement, further legal action was not considered necessary. There is no resolution as to whether the practice is illegal in Victoria until the result of the arrest and charges is known. However, the UK Gambling Commission have made it clear that courtsiding is not illegal in the UK, so it is irrefutable that the Telegraph article is wrong on that basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachway (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I created the article, and am unaware why you have written this here. However, I was aware that the Telegraph article was no longer available online, but possessed (I no longer do) a hard copy. Is there any kind of statement made by the Telegraph relating to the withdrawal of the article? Mat  ty  .  007  17:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You simply cannot bandy around claims that a Telegraph article represented information "falsely" without some official statement, then state the fact they made a mistake in a less accusatory manner. If, as I suspect, you are an employee of Sporting Data (and I apologise if I am wrong), you would do well to discuss edits before making any to the article. Thanks for all the help improving the article, Mat  ty  .  007  17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Eachway probably wrote to me, because I reverted couple of (unrelated) edits earlier. I have no objections if you want to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Widr (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that afterwards. Sorry for communicating via the talkpage. I would advise to continue discussion there. Thanks,  Mat  ty  .  007  17:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I just responded to the last edit. I will change to the talk page. (eachway)
 * No worries! Widr (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

From FlagAdvocate concerning disruptive editing in Flag of the United States
Widr, Thank you for notifying me that my attempts to "edit" a non-factual statement about the flag at half-staff at four locations in the U.S. was cause for concern that I was engaged in disruptive editing. That was not my intent, but only my ignorance about the editing process. I kept trying and only until I received your email did I realize that my "edits" were being reverted. I will leave the non-factual statement unchallenged. I have a lot to learn. Thank you for your understanding and patience in this matter. Bill Jameson Vet & Flag Advocate FlagAdvocate (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bill. I won't repeat the good advice already given to you by Anupmehra on their talk page. I'd like to say, though, that the article's talk page is usually the best place to discuss the issues related to the content. Happy editing. Widr (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

School IP Address
I noticed there were some warnings regarding this IP address in regards to "vandalism." This is a school IP address, and I'd like to know if there is a way to stop students from using our IP to edit wikipedia pages, but without you having to do so under disciplinary actions. As a school employee, I'd like to maintain a healthy relationship with the community of Wikipedia, but I also don't want my students making a muck of the articles. Please let me know. 67.79.204.74 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your IP has indeed received quite a lot of warnings. It is possible that the IP will be blocked next time disruption occurs. It will probably be a school block which will prevent anonymous editing, but even then your students and staff might be able to create their own personal accounts for constructive editing. Widr (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Widr. This is the same school employee. I'd rather you just block our IP address from editing than having students disrupting pages. 67.79.204.74 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It might get blocked only if more vandalism occurs, not just in case (blocks are not meant to be punitive). You can read more about the blocking policy here if you are interested. By the way, I will not be the one blocking your IP, since I am not an administrator here. Widr (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lopilato Edit
Hey, sorry to bother you, but why did you edit out my changes on the Luisiana Lopilato page? Just wanted to know. Thanks. Mariettula (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Mariettula
 * Hi Mariettula. You need to add a reliable source when you make such changes, especially if the additions are possibly controversial. Widr (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Auto removal
May I know what happened to the automatic removal of file move template before the file is moved? Pls take a look at and. As far as I can remember, weren't the template removed even before the move was performed? -- Sriram speak up  15:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved those files manually, because the semiautomatic moving wasn't working for some reason. I was also planning to remove the templates manually afterwards, but got interrupted and then forgot all about them. Widr (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thought so. -- Sriram speak up  16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies
[this] reversion although correct, probably deserved an explination beyond a template, the user was obviously trying to help and you reverted with out explination and then templated them. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They made the same changes to several articles, which suggests that they knew what they were doing. Templating them for "test edits" was not biting them as newbies, it was simply to get their attention. Widr (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"explanation" ... Widr needs to lay off the work of professional editors. We do make mistakes, now and then, which should be brought to our attention, when warranted. However, the message that was left by Widr contained erroneous concerns, as my editing involved SIMPLE GRAMMATICAL CORRECTIONS to clarify understanding. I left a note for the original contributor to check those facts and add any further clarification. I am a published author and professional newspaper editor, book editor and writer, among other professional editing and writing applications. I have a degree in English from the University of the Pacific where I held the title of International Editor (rédacteurtrice en chef de page) for the Pacifican newspaper. I have contributed my work to many publications, as well as being a published author for over 20 years. I am also a multi-linguist with formal education in over ten foreign languages. (Vandals and laypersons beware; however, I openly accept astute corrections and criticism.)
 * Thanks for the feedback. First of all, I'd like to hope that one of Wikipedia's most important principles, assuming good faith would go both ways. Also, to avoid confusion, it would be useful for you only to use your registered username (assuming that you are User:Gunnerfan87). The proper venue to discuss your edits before actually making such controversial mass changes would have been the article's talk page. Using edit summaries to explain your edits would also have been a good idea. Widr (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Widr, I could have assumed you had good faith better, my mistake. I do agree with you on your above comment. (also it appears as though I was wrong, the editor in question was and experenced editor and was trying to make a point, not simply making a newbie mistake, again my bad) CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No harm done, CombatWombat. Your comments were constructive enough, and it's always good to have feedback. Widr (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Subramanian Swamy Edit
Would you please elaborate why did you undid my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cologo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. That seems to have been a misclick on my part. I undid the edit. Widr (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Woohoo, thanks a lot! Widr (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

File moves
Hello and thank you for all of those Star Trek file moves and the others.  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  10:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I declined a few, because they didn't quite meet the criteria, though. Widr (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's ok, you win some, you lose some :)  Green Giant  supports  NonFreeWiki  ( talk )  21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Stefan cebera
There are two stefans. He is number 2. I have known him for ten years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverside1234 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't add silliness to articles. Widr (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Cebara
Stefan Cebara is number 2. you made a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.207.232.93 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality topic
Hi, my query is regarding is on addition of heading in the article Subramanian Swamy, "Views on homosexuality". I have searched on the internet and youtube and have found that his view on homosexuality had come only once as his personal tweet. He had never again expressed his views again in the public press and social media, etc like wise he had expressed on other topics such as Economic and foreign affairs, corruption, religious views,views on Gandhi-Nehru family, etc repeatedly.

My question is that is it right to include his view on the topic, when that view had been expressed only once through twitter only, and not through the electronic media directly. Isn't it should be counted be as a trivial case and not be counted as a encyclopedic topic being included in wikipedia, it may appear as a case of vandalism also. Work2win (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Good that you brought the issue up on the talk page of the article, so others can also leave their comments on it. Widr (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks for the speedy reply.

I had asked for comment from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frosty on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frosty and the user also agreed with your point.Work2win (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)