User talk:WyattAlex/Archive November

November 2014
I am very sorry for what showed up on bad woman walking or whatever it was called this is not my phone so the autocorrect did that....again I am very sorry. Kkaylag41 (talk)03:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

William "Bull" Nelson
Your changes wiped out an entire day of work that was intended to add academic documentation that took years to develop. It also took away any desire to bring the article up to a tolerable standard. Earlier parts of the article are apparently of no interest to you. One of the most egregious insults is contained in the last sentence in the the Siege of Corinth section: "... Nashville, the he [Nelson]met his lifelong companion, Thomas J. Adler of Chicago, Illinois." Who is Adler and what purpose does this serve?

I trust you are aware the article also contains copyrighted material that belongs to me as the author of the first academic biography of Nelson. Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Quarterdeckgeneral, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what changes you are referring to when you say it "wiped out an entire day of work...".  The only change that I have made to William "Bull" Nelson was  this one.  In this, I reverted the edit you made immediately before, where you deleted the entire For Further Reading section.   If you believe that there are other edits that have undone your contributions, you should see the Revision History to find where that occurred.  If you believe that  including this section is a copyright violation, I would be happy to remove it.  On a related note, you may want to use edit summaries that briefly describe what you change in an article.  In particular, if you delete an entire section a reason would be helpful to other editors.  Deleting large amounts of text from an article without an edit summary will almost always appear to be vandalism and consequently be reverted.  WyattAlex (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I spent the entire day documenting the article with carefully selected resources that any literary thief can steal from the bibliography of my book. What they won't do is take the time to properly interpret three or more versions of an event. When I tried to post all those changes I found a previous edit in place. When I tried to save my work it vanished because of that edit.


 * Again, someone needs to take a serious look at exactly what is wrong with this supposed biography.It is painfully obvious that narrow minds have their own way on Wikipedia. This article is about the life of Nelson, not Davis. Stevietheman is quite sympathetic to Jefferson C. Davis and the problems began with him chastising me for calling the shooting of an unarmed man a murder, which in his particular way of thinking, cannot be used because it is a legal term and Davis was never prosecuted for the crime. I will not get into a pissing contest with a mind like that. Quarterdeckgeneral (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

your warning
You warned and reverted edits that were correct. What gives? I explained my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.24 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your recent changes to CNH Industrial used the foreign term "Naamloze vennootschap" without italicizing per Manual of Style.  While you included an edit summary, it said "Update type" without mention of the foreign terminology.  This did not appear constructive.  When contributing to the en.wikipedia.org using a language other than English, please consider whether your contribution uses isolated words or phrases vs phrases that have common use in English.  If, as in this case, the phrase is not commonly used in English it should be italicized.  Many editors here, like myself, will not have knowledge of foreign and technical terms.  They should be used sparingly.  Forgive me for not assuming good faith. WyattAlex (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there. This is actually the same way most other English pages for Dutch registered companies (NV) have been done. See Heineken International, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Philips, etc. Same thing goes for other foreign companies pages, like Pirelli (registered in Italy), which is a Societ%C3%A0 per azioni. So, while I understand what your are getting at with foreign terms, it seems the widespread style on Wikipedia has been not to italicize the foreign company term, at least not within the info boxes. So far I haven't found one page yet where they have been.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.75.24 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Do as you will. WyattAlex (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, that can be construed as being rude and/or defensive.. I was simply explaining to you how all the other similar pages are on Wikipedia, and have been for quite some time, that is all. As I also explained that using the foreign names for foreign incorporations has also been widely used (recall when you did not assume good faith...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.224.230 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments and Observations
There is a discussion at the WP:Help Desk involving your reverts. It appears that all of your recent edits consist of two parts, first, reverting one or more recent edits to an article, and, second, templating the editor for a non-constructive edit. It would be better to try to discuss your issues with other editors on article talk pages or their own talk pages (via comments rather than just by templates) rather than just reverting. Just reverting edits that you don't like is likely to make the other editors defensive and is likely to lead to revert edit wars. Please try to be more collaborative rather than simply reverting the edits that you don't like. Just characterizing edits as non-constructive is itself non-constructive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that many, but not all, of the edits that you are reverting are vandalism, and I thank you for reverting vandalism. However, you are using the same edit summaries and the same template for reverting vandalism and for reverting edits that you don't like.  When the edits are clearly vandalism, it would be helpful to put the word 'vandalism' in the edit summary.  It would also be helpful to use a Level 2 template (Caution) rather than a Level 1 template (General Note) for vandalism.  In case of edits with which you disagree, please discuss rather than reverting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for your comments.  I will look into using higher template levels.  But as for 'edits I don't like', I'm not sure where those are.  I believe that the reversions I have implemented have been to vandalism only.  Most of them have been for blanking, graffiti, or hoaxing.  Can you be more specific? WyattAlex (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits that you reverted on The Eye (King Diamond album) were not vandalism. The edits that you reverted on William "Bull" Nelson were not vandalism, but were by the author of a biography of General Nelson.  (There may have been a copyright violation issue, if he is copying and pasting from his own book, but you did not state that you were reverting a copyright violation.)  I do see that many, possibly most, of the edits that you have reverted have been vandalism.  However, there were two complaints at the WP:Help Desk today that you had reverted good-faith edits.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Eye (King Diamond album) -   - these are examples of sneaky vandalism, where the editor hides a bad edit with two seemingly good edits, all without edit summaries.
 * William "Bull" Nelson - as per the other section was my only edit to that article, where I restored a section the editor had blanked without cause nor edit summary.  That editor has made some reference to copyright issues since, but has not made any indication that the "For Further Reading" section he removed was removed for that or any other reason.   was a clear case of illegitimate blanking.
 * WP:Help Desk - The first Help desk entry OP makes no complaint about reverting edits. It merely asks how to properly use a talk page, explaining that he did not understand a message that was left on his talk page.
 * WP:Help Desk - The second Help desk entry OP makes no complaint about reverting edits. He complains about civil war nuts demeaning his efforts.  He asks for the "owners" of the article to remove material taken from his book, and for advice on how to remove other wikipedia articles.  Having only restored a section that was blanked without reference to copyright, I had nothing to do with the subject of his complaints.
 * I appreciate your concerns over properly editing/reverting articles. But I respectfully disagree with your assessment and characterization of the nature of Help desk posts.  Thank you for taking the time to discuss this.  WyattAlex (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Eye (King Diamond album)
Hi Alex, I've edited Wikipedia pages in the past, but this is the first to be reverted. You stated my edit "did not appear constructive". Can you clarify this? Futhermore, the thing that amazed me was the page I corrected (edited) was reverted back to an article that is at least half incorrect. The edit I made corrected the errors in the "Earlier concept albums" section. Also, the "Earlier concept albums" section doesn't cover the plot of this album as most of this section is the plot, and that's why I changed the title to "Plot". Another way to present the page is to have two sections; one with "Earlier concept albums" and one with "Plot". That way, both areas would be covered making the page more complete. I've been a King Diamond Fan for over 28 years and am very knowledgeable on said band as well as Meryful Fate. But to make sure I wasn't rusty on this album, the cd was in front of me for verification purposes. The cd liner has information about each character and what they did. I used some of the lyrics for further verification. I assure you what I wrote is correct. My intention is to present a good page, so whomever reads it will get real information. So, whomever wrote this article needs to research better so their facts are straight. Thanks, -Mark 107.201.172.56 (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I just looked at the page this morning and someone else has had a go with it. But they make a good point. It states "this section does not cite any references or sources". I'm not familiar on how to create footnotes and the like. Maybe someone can add a footnote containing the source (King Diamond album, The Eye).


 * Hello Mark, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edits to The Eye (King Diamond album), you changed a section heading from "Earlier concept albums" to "Plot".  Upon closer inspection, it may work out well to have two section as you suggested.  But when editing, please always provide an edit summary.  Changing the name of a section as you did, when it begins "His past two concept albums have..." does not appear to be constructive.  I fully support an attempt to improve the accuracy of the content of an article.  But editors like me will not be able read minds when it comes to edits without summaries, or discussion on the talk page for the article.  On a related note, when making a series of edits to a single article, it may be helpful to use Template:In use/doc to allow other editors to know that you are working on the article for some period of time.  WyattAlex (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There are dozens if not hundreds of things one has to learn before they can consistently edit Wikipedia well. Reverting with the edit summary "unconstructive edit" and posting a boilerplate template is not a good way to help others learn. It is always easier to shoot down someone else's work than to do the work yourself. I'd suggest more Wikipedia editing and less Wikipedia policing (I'm not speaking of clear vandalism here, and you'll never hear me defending clear vandals). Perhaps you could help out a little at Help desk and/or Teahouse. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Inherited notability for species
Hello WyattAlex, I see you are quite active countering vandalism and tagging articles. However: there is community consensus on inherited notability for species (as well as towns, etc.). Although there does not seem to be a guideline that states it specifically, there have been numerous discussions about it, all with the same outcome, please see for instance the following search results. Could you please not smack notability tags on these articles? Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong tags
Hi, please don't add "lead too short" tags to very short stubs consisting of a couple of sentences and especially if they are not even sectioned, they are blatantly wrong... the length of the lead should depend from the size of the article (not including tables, lists, or footer sections) and from the number of its sections, please read MoS and guidelines to better understand use and context of lead sections. Also don't add "refimprove tag" to articles in which every single sentence is referenced, it is wrong as well. I see you are a brand new editor, and patrolling requires a lot of experience, don't add tags if you are not 100% sure the tag is correct. If you have some doubts, join the WP adoption program where you will find adequate guidance. Bye, Cavarrone 14:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * About Nicholas Carthy (conductor), you were probably right about overlinking, I removed several links which were definitely unnecessary. I apologize for removing the tag. About refimprove, apparently every sentence is referenced, and there is already a "one source tag" about the need of additional sources. If I am missing something, please re-add the template and add a "citation needed" at the end of the unsourced sentence. Obviously sourcing of the article is on the thin side, but "refimprove" does not mean a vague "the sourcing should be improved", but some specific problems of verification. About "lead too short", the lead of the article adequately summarize the content, and it has an acceptablable size per WP:LEADLENGTH (article is less than 5,000 characters). In general terms, it could even be a sentence or two longer, but looking at the specific case I don't think so. My best, --Cavarrone  14:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article tagging
Hi there, please go easy with the tagging, OK? Some editors have worked hard to get articles to where they are and inapplicable tags create a sense of uneasiness. Philg88 ♦talk 16:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Jermaine Wattimena
You tagged this article as Unreferenced and Needing context: it already had a source, under "External links", and its single sentence seems crystal clear: "Jermaine Wattimena (born 9 March 1988) is a Dutch darts player." (Have you not heard of "darts", perhaps?) Please take more care in tagging articles. Thanks. Pam D  10:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The context template usage says its for "an article of which you believe does not identify itself sufficiently to readers unfamiliar with its subject". I am not familiar with the subject, nor the associated activity. A single line identifying the subject by profession and location is insufficient to me.  The line is basically meaningless; it's the equivalent of "Clifford (born 19 November 2014) is a big red dog" to me.  The unreferenced template takes into account that there was and is an empty References section, and the only external link does not qualify for exception under External links, and does not "leads to a reliable source that supports some article content". Please take more care when reverting edits. Thanks. WyattAlex (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article identifies itself clearly: this named individual is a competitor from the Netherlands in the sport of darts. The article needs to be expanded, as do the vast majority of articles in Wikipedia and all stubs, but the topic is quite clear - much more so than the many articles which start "X is a linebacker for the Ys" and similar American football terms. The Unreferenced template is for articles which have no references or external links, and I'm not sure what you mean by "exception": it leads to dartsdatabase.co.uk, and this looks like a reliable source to me and supports most, possibly all, of the article's content. As he's a living person, if you thought it was unreferenced I suggest you should have either added BLPunsourced or used Prod blp, rather than add the general Unreferenced. I've added BLP sources, because one source is never enough.  Pam  D  18:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hematopoietic stem cell: Misspelled word / Bad Grammar Undo?
I don't agree with your undo of my simple edit that corrected a misspelled word.

The Original Text was: "...The cells can be removed a liquid ..."

The 'a' is not correct and makes no sense here. Possible corrections can be:

1. "...The cells can be removed as liquid ..."

2. "...The cells can be removed as a liquid ..."

3. "...The cells can be removed via a liquid ..."

Number 1 is the simplest change while number 3 matches the immediate following sentence in form and structure.

I'm not sure why you undid this fix to this obvious mistake!? Am I missing something here?

Thanks!

162.207.130.235 (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC) K-Mazz

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)