Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 17 March 2017

Hi, welcome to my talk page! You will often find me patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses and reviewing to either accept or reject pending changes. I have thousands of articles and talk pages on my watchlist as a result of this effort. Probably 95% of the articles I edit I came to while doing recent pages patrol. I rarely edit articles that I have a personal interest in because I feel doing so can skew my editing in the way of POV and blind me to the importance of my edits there. I'm only human and I make plenty of errors -- if you are here to complain about a tag, a warning, a deletion, or something I've said, please assume good faith. If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help. This user has Asperger's. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. Being rude will get you nowhere. If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it and over it, but I don't like game players If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry or trolling posts are subject to immediate deletion. When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass. Thanks for stopping by! -- WV ● ✉ ✓

Misplaced Pages is no place for humour. Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

All the best for 2017!

Hello Winkelvi,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Misplaced Pages.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Winkelvi!!
	Hi Winkelvi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Winkelvi, just noticed that you reverted an edit with the comment "(telegraph not a reliable source", the edit is here, are you able to direct me to a wiki discussion that confirms this as i thought it is useable as an independent source , thanks.

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Winkelvi!

Winkelvi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. –Davey2010 00:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

).

Happy New Year, Winkelvi!

Winkelvi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.
–Davey2010 13:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Kubrick

Please be sure to sign any comments left. Cassianto 22:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow - can't believe I didn't. Thanks for the notification. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

missing a part of your happy-new-year messages

Winkelvi, when I left a comment on MelanieN talkpage, directly underneath your previous message to MelanieN, after saving my comment was "eaten" by your comment!

There is a missing table-close-tag, at the end of your happy-new-year-messages. Can you please add them, like this: That way future comments by others won't get confusingly-included into the unclosed wikitable. And also, happy new year to you  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

carrie fisher fanmade star tribute

Hey there, happy new year!!!!!!! I see you just did some editing on carrie fishers page. I just wanted tonreach out because there were 4 fans who not only made the star but stood by it for 6 days straight and then collected all the things left behind for her and donated it to the chinese theater where it is all now on display. The fans names are jason thomas, vanessa velez, ryan wiltberger and lavonne dominguez. They felt that not only did she deserve a star but fans needed a place to go to mourn and celebrate the incredible carrie fisher. Thank you for all you do. We are greatly humbled and so proud of the star. It started out as just an impromptu thing for us and our group to go and became a media sensation. Just so you know the star is currently still there!!!!!! 8 days later!!!!!!!!! Thank you for your hard work and all your volunteer editing you do. Im sure it is a pretty thankless job Museisgod (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Reynolds

I am not interested in getting involved in an edit war. I am simply trying to prove the credibility of my source. It has a page on Misplaced Pages, even if it is speculation. Please come to the talk page, where we can discuss it in detail. It is neither tabloid or fake news. The website is a reliable sources used as a reference for multiple films and actor's biographies all over Wiki. I shall remove your message from my talk page as I consider it slanderous.Radiohist (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The warning was placed there appropriately, you were edit warring. And over crap that is not encyclopedic, is skirting very close to being a BLP policy vio, and is not going to increase a reader's understanding of the article subject. I'm relatively certain no one with sense and Misplaced Pages experience is going to be okay with that content in the article. It's garbage. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in offering your two cents on

Since Talk:Stanley Kubrick is such a mess with arguments over infoboxes, and has been that way for quite some time, I figured the issue should be taken to a sort of higher court. See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?. Hopefully less insults will occur over there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Misplaced Pages when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Misplaced Pages's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Misplaced Pages

Happy Lunar New Year!

	Happy Lunar New Year!
	Hello Winkelvi, May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year. Kind regards, Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What a nice thing to see today! Thanks and same to you, Lemongirl1942! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please...

...take a deep breath and use your powers of persuasion on the article talk page. Your contributions here are valued, and it would be Misplaced Pages's loss if you received another lengthy block. It's not worth it.- MrX 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Misplaced Pages's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Misplaced Pages at its 16th birthday celebration

ThoughtAudio Review Request

I am seeking independent and neutral viewpoints on the article ThoughtAudio, which is being considered for deletion. If you have a few minutes to review it, I would appreciate your article contributions and opinion on the decision as to whether it merits being retained and improved, or deleted. ThoughtAudio was targeted by the same editor that made a failed attempt to delete the wikiquote article Michael Scott Gallegos. There are only 3 reviews/votes so far. I am hoping that a minority viewpoint as to the worthiness of the article will not prevail. My work is mainly in the creation of new wikiquote articles @ELApro and time is rarely spent in unproductive controversy. I am a long time editor for Misplaced Pages, but have not created many articles here. I would much appreciate your advice and/or contributions with regard to the process. ELApro (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and vote in the process. ELApro (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller article, number of countries in travel ban

Hi, earlier today you edited Stephen Miller (aide) to say Executive Order 13769 is a temporary ban on travel from six countries. Were you not counting Syria in the total because the sentence later addressed Syrian refugees specifically? I'd understand wanting to avoid duplication, but six could be inaccurate, because travelers and refugees aren't the same thing. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Matt, thanks for the note. Syria has an indefinite ban on travellers and refugees, and that is why I removed it from the original seven. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Timeline work

Hi, I saw your name on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Presidents/Active participants. The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Misplaced Pages readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Seewald has been born

Hi! Is there any way you could please update Jessa Duggar Seewald's page to reflect this? Thw news has been out for a week now. Ben and Jessa Seewald named their second son Henry. Just Google if you don't know what I'm talking about. I tried but apparently the page is off limits to editing unless you have a certain number of edits. RoseMilkTea (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller (aide)

FYI. . I didn't ping you on the page, so as to keep the votes cleaner. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Paxton

I mean no disrespect to Paxton, but they aren't gonna delay the film's release due to his passing. Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't know that. Until the film is released, it's best to not guess or assume. Precisely why WP:CRYSTAL was created as policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of when they release the film, it'll still be after Paxton passed away. It's always going to be a posthumous release so I don't believe CRYSTAL applies. The film itself is not gonna be cancelled two months to release. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If they release it. Films are, on occasion, not released. We don't know anything at this point. There's no harm to the article if "Posthumous" isn't included at this time. What's your rush? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush, im simply adding factual information to the film. Them cancelling it is your own speculation. Two trailers released all establishing its firm April release, which is now a month away. Why would they cancel it? Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted your re-addition of the disputed content and started a discussion on the article talk page per WP:BRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TMZ

They're the ones who broke the story. Everyone is reporting off what TMZ reported. Rusted AutoParts 18:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page, please. TMZ is not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages purposes and cannot be used. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is that stated? Rusted AutoParts 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Us Magazine isn't a reliable source?UConnHusky7 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

US is questionable. And definitely not reliable when they are using TMZ (a wholly unreliable source) as their source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You still have not shown where TMZ is "a wholly unreliable source". What's next? Are you going to disqualify CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post because Trump called them fake news?

You may also be in violation of the 3 revert rule. BurienBomber (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you threatening me as a way to WP:WIN? Not cool and definitely not advisable behavior. If you don't believe me re:TMZ, bring it up in an RfC or at the BLP and RS noticeboards and see where it goes. Previous discussions provided at the article talk page have already provided the answer, but, you are playing the WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI card, too, so... go for it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Misplaced Pages in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Misplaced Pages

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Misplaced Pages has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

Please be careful

Please don't do the following:

(1) revert blindly without gaining talk-page consensus. You know as well as I do that on a BLP, there is no presumption of inclusion of marginal content

(2) label non-reverts as "reverts." This edit of mine kept the material at issue. I added new material and moved the content to the appropriate section.

(3) template the regulars. I've been here for a decade. I know our policies and guidelines. I wouldn't template you. You should extend to me the same courtesy.

--Neutrality 01:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You've gotten dangerously close to being over 3RR and are telling me to be careful. Really? DTTR is an essay, a suggestion. It's not policy. Templating is important, especially when policy is being violated and there could be a possible build up to a noticeboard report. Like the one I would be filing on you at AN/3 if you had breached 3RR on this. Also, keep in mind that to edit war then present an undercurrent of a threat on my talk page that will keep me from reverting your inappropriate reverts... not great behavior for an admin, if you think about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams Revisions pending review

Thanks for taking care of the photo revision so quickly. There are 5 other revisions (by registered editors) pending review which I think you will find unremarkable. I thought you might want to clear these so the status of the article is not complicated. Hoppyh (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Oliver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Christ's College (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) 10:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Winkelvi --NeilN 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking admin comment: The length of this block is to reduce the expected administrative burden due to this being your 6th block for similar behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, I'm confused. How is reverting back to the non-disputed version three times (not four, as the first revert does not count) violate 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What policy states that "the first revert does not count"? I think I've been here for a decade, and I don't think I've ran across that one yet. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting because I knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt any further. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are a serial edit warrior and just because you thought you were skirting the technical edge of 3RR (which you weren't) doesn't excuse the behavior pattern. Edit warring is edit warring, and as soon as you decide to pass WP:BRD, you are part of the problem. I see no reason to offer an unblock or reduce the length of the block. Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking admin comment: Even if this wasn't a 3RR violation (which it was), our policies clearly dictate that the rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. You've been here since 2012, so I'm hard pressed to believe you weren't aware of that. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused then. For some reason, really didn't think I was violating 3RR. Hence, the reason why I stopped when I saw the last revert of the other blocked editor. But, honest to God, I didn't think I was violating 3RR, and I'm still questioning it because I could swear that in other instances, when I've reported others for the same, I've been told that the first revert doesn't count toward 3RR but the following three will. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite interesting how you accidentally avoided to mention the edit-war in that entire reply. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm starting to feel as if you're not exactly neutral on all this. With that kind of attitude, should you really have been the one to block? I mean, at this point, due to your responses (which are now looking pretty aggressive), can you consider yourself uninvolved/unbiased? Just asking. Regardless, I'm not trying to hide anything. It's my understanding that we are supposed to talk only about ourselves and our own actions in these discussions re: blocks. That's what I'm doing. Why would you want me to talk about an edit war when I'm maintaining that my reverts were about policy (seeking consensus and not continuing to edit/revert while discussion is taking place) and standards (BRD is a standard, not policy) not an effort to edit war? What's more, why are you basically calling me a liar? I may have had issues previously with some battleground behavior and edit warring, but I've never lied here (Misplaced Pages). That's simply unfair of you to imply I'm being intentionally evasive or dishonest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Deflect ad nauseum if you please; we're still waiting on you to provide a link to any policy that backs up your claims. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to deflect. I have a right to express my thoughts on all this. I'm not violating policy by doing so. I'm being respectful. Your snarky and distrustful comments are neither appreciated nor necessary. I thought I was clear when I stated I was going on my recollection of policy, not that I can pull up policy to support what I've said here. I then stated further that I was probably confused and not recalling correctly. I guess I wasn't clear enough with my meaning? I'm not trying to Wiki-lawyer here, I'm just talking to you human to human, admitting my recollection was wrong. If it were me where you are, I'd try to exercise some serious good faith in the face of that. As far as your implications that I'm being dishonest, please, take this into consideration: I've done a number of things over the time I've edited in Misplaced Pages, I've made mistakes and showed some real bad judgement. But even in all that, I'm pretty sure there are admins and editors who've had dealings with me and would be the first to agree regarding my faults, but they wouldn't say I'm dishonest. I'd even go so far as to say some of them would vouch for me as having good intentions in the midst of all those mistakes and bad judgement calls, never trying to be a jerk or actually do harm.

Those who come to mind: MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Anna Frodesiak, Drmies, even Bbb23 (he's been quite frustrated with me at times, but I think he knows I'm not a liar or an intentional ass).

Whatever the case, and whenever my block is up, it's obviously time for me to go back to my personal 1RR (2-RR max) resolve. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. For the record, I've never known Winkelvi to be a liar. Bad judgement from time to time, sure. A blocklog that's far too long, sure. A good egg while being an unintentional so-and-so? That's probably fair. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)