| Revision as of 00:23, 11 June 2013 editAfricaTanz (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,903 edits No "retaliation" existed, imagined or otherwise - otherwise, you would have been reported directly to ANI. See WP:AGF.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 11 June 2013 edit undoTaroaldo (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,621 editsm Reverted 1 edit by AfricaTanz (talk) to last revision by Taroaldo. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 274: | Line 274: | ||
| :Thanks. Hopefully it will settle down. ] (]) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | :Thanks. Hopefully it will settle down. ] (]) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{collapse top| |
{{collapse top|retaliatory strike from a blockee}}==Edit warring warning== | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | ||
| Line 300: | Line 300: | ||
| ::::*When called on their behaviour, some people will admit they were wrong, others will dig a deeper hole. ] (]) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ::::*When called on their behaviour, some people will admit they were wrong, others will dig a deeper hole. ] (]) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{collapse bottom}} | {{collapse bottom}} | ||
| == Speedy deletion declined: ] == | == Speedy deletion declined: ] == | ||
| Hello Taroaldo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7 clearly excludes schools.''' Thank you. ]] 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | Hello Taroaldo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''A7 clearly excludes schools.''' Thank you. ]] 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:35, 11 June 2013
 | Taroaldo is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 My Talk Archives | |||
|
|||
Articles for Creation Appeal
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
 Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1839 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. |
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Question
I was just fixing up Proposed provinces and territories of Canada and added back a section you removed - Did not realizes you had just removed it. - tough it was all part of the IP's edits that i am trying to fix. But now that I see it was you that removed it I now have to think that perhaps I am wrong about its inclusion. After reading Cascadia (independence movement) I was under the interpretation that it was a "independent nation" type thing.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. No problem. That IP was doing a lot of damage. I removed it again because it refers to a proposed secession, which is not relevant to an article dealing with proposed additional provinces/territories. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- O I see that all makes sense - dame the article is full of this - I guess we should remove Alaska boundary dispute, Northwest Passage. aswell what do you think?Moxy (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the Alaska boundary dispute, but the Northwest Passage section is definitely not relevant to the article. Taroaldo (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
AFC
To answer your question here, you added somehow an additional template here. If you help us out more at the AFC project, use our AFC JS helper tool. (if you have any problems with "installing" that tool, simply leave a talkback on my talk page.) mabdul 13:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandal Active Again
User:Al_Villarruel, who vandalized my user page for making corrections, is up to his old tricks again. Please take a look at his user contributions. He's changed United States and several companies. Also his most recent created page was deleted as it was just more about him and his imaginary performances. Anything you can do to help will be most gratefully appreciated.Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Evan Schrebier
I Just dont know why you have to delete this hes famous on the local news why please do not delete this i know your a staff member and im not well ust dont delete it its up to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Jesus Villarruel (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. (I also posted this info on your talk page.) Misplaced Pages articles must meet various criteria including notability. This page provides some excellent advice and links to help editors in creating new articles. Hope this helps. (Also, I am an editor on Misplaced Pages, not a staff member of Misplaced Pages or of the Wikimedia Foundation.) Taroaldo (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Frankenstein's monster
Hello. I deleted the link to Frankenstein's monster in the See also section of the Zombie article, and you undid my edit. Rather than engage in an edit war, I'll explain my rationale: In Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley (and even in its unfaithful film adaptations), the monster is a sentient being made of corpse parts. He is not a zombie, or in a zombie-like trance. He thinks, he speaks, he acts on his own free will. He is not a puppet of Dr. Frankenstein, which is the source of much of the tension in the story. The themes of Shelley's book have nothing to do with Vodou, or Santería, or the films of George A. Romero. And so, as I said in my edit summary, Frankenstein's monster is no more thematically related to the subject of this article than Dracula (a soulless vampire, often referred to as undead) or Pinocchio (a self-aware puppet brought to life by magical means). As there are no links in the See also section to Dracula or Pinocchio, there doesn't need to be one to Frankenstein's monster—for the simple reason that it would be too unrelated to be necessary. Comme le Lapin (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. Pinocchio was an interesting example to support your position. I look at the "See also" section as a suggestion list for other similar topics the reader might be interested in. The topics need not be related:
- According to the the Manual of Style: "he links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant."
- I cited the example of the Dybbuk, which is a spirit (the soul of a deceased person) existing in a living person. This has nothing to do with zombies, which are soulless reanimated corpses, either. Whereas Frankenstein's monster, while not a zombie, was reanimated from various corpse parts.
- Everything being said, it is immaterial to me whether or not the link is included in the article, although its inclusion is entirely appropriate. I notice that you have removed it again, and that's fine. Perhaps it would be better located in the zombie (fictional) article anyway. As a side note, if there is ever a persistent disagreement among editors then the situation would be resolved through discussion/consensus on the article's talk page. I don't see Frankenstein's monster becoming a persistent situation, though. Taroaldo (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi - I am responding to a comment from you, but in reading over your talk page, I quite agree with Comme Le Lapin. I own a copy of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I've visited the castle she wrote the outline in, and there is absolutely no connection between zombies and Frankenstein's creation. Hopefully Wade Davis's book is on your zombie page - he really gets to the bottom of zombies. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Luka Magnotta
Its my impression that consensus at AFD 3 was circumvented. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only consensus reached at AfD 3 was keep. Taroaldo (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think thats a mischaracterization. The actual majority consensus supported a rename. When the AFD closed, the article was not renamed, sidestepping the AFD consensus. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. Rather than rehashing everything, I would simply suggest to review my comments at the fourth AfD, as well as the closure at the third AfD which was 'speedy keep', as well as the subsequent move discussion in the article talk page which was closed as 'not moved'. This has gone well past the point of flogging a dead equine. Thanks - Taroaldo (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point is that consensus was keep and rename, not just keep. You and others who oppose the rename keep mischaracterizing that fact, or when you address it, you refer to WP:CCC or majority ≠ consensus. Its like bad joke. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- 1) The result at AfD was: speedy keep
- 2) The result at the move discussion was: not moved
- I don't know what could be clearer than that. Taroaldo (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point is that consensus was keep and rename, not just keep. You and others who oppose the rename keep mischaracterizing that fact, or when you address it, you refer to WP:CCC or majority ≠ consensus. Its like bad joke. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been discussed before. Rather than rehashing everything, I would simply suggest to review my comments at the fourth AfD, as well as the closure at the third AfD which was 'speedy keep', as well as the subsequent move discussion in the article talk page which was closed as 'not moved'. This has gone well past the point of flogging a dead equine. Thanks - Taroaldo (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think thats a mischaracterization. The actual majority consensus supported a rename. When the AFD closed, the article was not renamed, sidestepping the AFD consensus. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
| For this and this. Keep up the good work. I think you might be managing to get through through to him in ways that I'm not. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I've seen so many people get frustrated in Misplaced Pages and, like you, I don't want to see eager new editors leave because of it. Thanks again Taroaldo (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
please join the discussion re: Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012
Per your request, i removed the formal RfC in favor of an informal discussion to address my concerns develop a consensus to move forward. Please join in the discussion to have your opinions included in any consensus that is developed and will be acted upon.
Talk:Incidents_of_zombie-like_behavior_in_2012#statement_of_subject_of_article_and_article_title -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reminder! Between IRL stuff and working on a couple issues at WP:AN I've been a little short on time, but I will be commenting either later today or tomorrow at the latest. Taroaldo (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- hello, are you still working on a formulation for a focused topic / lead sentence / article name or should I now open it up to the broader community? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
User talk:Djmastr11
Hey Taroaldo, I saw that you warned that user for edit warring over at Full Sail University. The editor blanked his page keeps adding the same information to the article. I just wanted to let you know that I reported him to the WP:AIV noticeboard. Thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 23:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the update. I was considering requesting temporary PP in hopes he would simply go away, but I'll wait to see the AIV result. Taroaldo (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a semi-protection would be fruitless because the account is over 10 days old and made more than 10 edits. -- Luke (Talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking temp full protection. It seems likely the editor has a personal beef with the university and I didn't want to come down with a hammer on a new editor. At the time I looked (including checking the history), I did not see any vandalism warnings. Normally for AIV, vandalism must occur again after a Level 4 or Only Warning. Taroaldo (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see Djmastr11 has reported their own edit war already. It may be that the result isn't what they were expecting. I don't feel page protection of any kind is appropriate; one disruptive user with a beef is one disruptive user blocked, not "all other users rendered unable to edit". Let's see what comes from the discussions on the edit warring page. I've put a
{{uw-unsourced3}}on their talkpage but if this continues I shall have no compunction in giving them a day or so block in order that they may read the appropriate policies on POV, sourcing and 5P. Blocking or not blocking via AIV isn't necessarily a mechanistic "they've had a level 1, now a level 2..." process. Tonywalton 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)- Yes. At this point it is no longer possible to AGF. PP isn't a good option now. The editor in question is clearly disruptive and is not open to discussion about his behavior. A block seems inevitable. Taroaldo (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- And one has happened, following his scribbling on my userpage. I have a feeling that he'll be back and won't have changed. Tonywalton 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- One thing that can be said about this: he certainly has a laser-like focus. I agree that change is unlikely. Taroaldo (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- And one has happened, following his scribbling on my userpage. I have a feeling that he'll be back and won't have changed. Tonywalton 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. At this point it is no longer possible to AGF. PP isn't a good option now. The editor in question is clearly disruptive and is not open to discussion about his behavior. A block seems inevitable. Taroaldo (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see Djmastr11 has reported their own edit war already. It may be that the result isn't what they were expecting. I don't feel page protection of any kind is appropriate; one disruptive user with a beef is one disruptive user blocked, not "all other users rendered unable to edit". Let's see what comes from the discussions on the edit warring page. I've put a
- I was thinking temp full protection. It seems likely the editor has a personal beef with the university and I didn't want to come down with a hammer on a new editor. At the time I looked (including checking the history), I did not see any vandalism warnings. Normally for AIV, vandalism must occur again after a Level 4 or Only Warning. Taroaldo (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, a semi-protection would be fruitless because the account is over 10 days old and made more than 10 edits. -- Luke (Talk) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Roland Düringer
I did not remove the deletion tag of this article. I just reverted the deletion tag of this article, made by another user. M0RG@N (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
AFC Backlog
| Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1839 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. |
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1839 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
News
|
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser
- Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Articles for creation needs YOUR help!
Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1839 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.
Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
|
WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter
| The WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!
Hello Taroaldo:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 14:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Michael Omolewa Article
Dear Taroaldo,
I am very grateful for your encouragement on my edits concerning removing the fan, tone flagging of Michael Omolewa article. This AfricaTanz user keeps stalking my edits and keeps insulting me. And is now threatening me with being blocked for no Wiki reason - as if Misplaced Pages is now his property. See also, my Ford Foundation edits and how this AfricaTanz keeps messing things up, insultively and undoing my edits + Josaiah Ndubuisi Wachuku + Eze, etc. And this AfricaTanz keeps behaving arrogantly as if he has knowledge of all things in this world. And he has been on Misplaced Pages for only 7 Months and does not even have a page, etc. I've been on Misplaced Pages for 8 years and 11 months, humbly doing my best ... I'm really tired of the kind of arrogant and insulting mentality this AfricaTanz has ... Thanks for calling AfricaTanz to order and giving me a breathing space ... Have a blessed day!
With very good wishes:
Lord777 03:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Lord777
- Thanks. Hopefully it will settle down. Taroaldo (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
| retaliatory strike from a blockee |
|---|
==Edit warring warning==
 To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857432&oldid=558857304
"== Incivility warning == The following edits were blatantly incivil and are only the latest example of your behaving in this way. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558857410&oldid=540945989 You could be blocked if you continue on this course. Refer to WP:Civil. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)" With very good wishes: Lord777
|
Speedy deletion declined: Aberdeen Baptist Lui Ming Choi College
Hello Taroaldo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aberdeen Baptist Lui Ming Choi College, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 clearly excludes schools. Thank you. Mkdw 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. That exception was overlooked. Taroaldo (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Check my talk page
Check my talk page please.EzPz (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
|
sorry,i should have looked sir! Uncletomwood (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
Best edit summary of 2013
I came across this edit summary today and thought it was worth remembering. It manages to be serious yet humorous at the same time. Well done.
(append dependent clause modifier closer to subject)
It can be found here Taroaldo ✉ 23:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
re: MacKeeper, minor edits, and signing my work
Hi - I appreciate your concern to keep wikipedia on track.
I do want you to know that I sign at least one of my edits, especially first in a series, so people can find me if needed. As I do minor re-edits, I sometimes stop signing each one.
I also generally follow the "minor edit" policy pretty meticulously. You should know, however, that the MacKeeper page is in a perpetual edit war with the company that makes MacKeeper. They have a long history of using the page as advertising, which is against wiki policy. Many people feel they use it as false advertising, and make claims that are untrue.
I will be honest with you, I signed those as minor edits so whoever works at MacKeeper and is engaged in the unethical edit war, wouldn't immediately see my changes.
Also, most of those edits were pretty minor, I was neither adding nor subtracting, just aligning the tone with the content, as I stated. Whether exactly in the letter of the law, I am very committed to the spirit of Wiki law. Given the unethical edit war and false advertising, I don't think I'm doing wrong.
There are actually a bunch of us watching this page, and it is a lot better than it was. Note my edit of "professional reviewers review MacKeeper highly", followed by very mixed reviews. That was untrue, and did not match the facts, so I matched the sentence to the truth.
Anyways - cheers - I'm with you. If you look at most of my edits, they are purely to help the articles read clearly and get their point across. bets wishes Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
REDBLACKS
To avoid turning the article talk page into a forum, I'm posting this here.
From what I understand, the team does owns the rights to the "Ottawa Rough Riders" name, but the Saskatchewan Roughriders protested. So perhaps this is all a ploy to embarrass the Roughriders into relenting? :) - BilCat (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Anything can happen in the CFL. I wonder how much they had to pay Horn Chen for the rights. You'd think they'd want to get their money's worth, so perhaps it is a ploy. I'm not sure why Saskatchewan is objecting anyway. Their fans are so rabid (I'm using that term affectionately) that they probably hardly notice there are any other teams in the league, exept when the green Riders are playing against them. Taroaldo ✉ 00:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)