Misplaced Pages

User talk:Winkelvi

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) at 01:54, 7 August 2015 (→Notice: rem personal attacks bordering on harassment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:54, 7 August 2015 by Winkelvi (talk | contribs) (→Notice: rem personal attacks bordering on harassment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.


This user has
Asperger's.

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.

Thanks for stopping by!

Here in Misplaced Pages, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. 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 If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.

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.

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. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong reminders regarding policy and guidelines for User Talk Pages

  • "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages" (see WP:REMOVED)
  • "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages." (see WP:OWNTALK) I am not required to archive talk page comments in this user space, indeed, I am allowed to delete comments as I choose (with certain exceptions).
  • "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request" (see WP:NOBAN) If I have asked you to not post in this user space, I expect you to respect that request and not post here (with certain exceptions). If you post here after being told to not post here, your comments will be deleted, unread. If I have posted on your talk page, please respond there, not here.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Jason Lee (Actor) religion edit.

I appreciate the effort you make to keep things accurate, but not being able to accept "original research" goes both ways and can also prevent things from being as accurate and up-to-date as the world's de facto source for information should be. For example: There is zero evidence on the internet or anywhere else that Jason Lee is currently a member of the church of scientology nor is there any evidence that he has been a member in recent years. You are basing your decision to not accept the edit based on the lack of a press release stating a change in religion and that is an unreasonable expectation to have for anybody. If you don't want to accept my change to Episcopalian then I challenge the assertation that he's a scientologist on the same principles that were cited in your rejection of my edit and ask that you leave the "religion" part blank until a more definitive source can be cited.

If you have paid any attention to Scientology at all then you would realize that a public departure of any celebrity from Scientology would likely result in retaliation from the "church". Since Jason has a child with a previous partner (Beth Riesgraf) and that partner is an active scientologist then publicly departing could have jeopardized his relationship with that child. Similarly, it's not difficult to imagine that he has long standing friendships and professional relationships with active scientologists that would also suffer if the church declared him suppressive for leaving.

It's not always possible for everybody to leave with Leah Remini or Paul Haggis' "bang" but since wikipedia bears some responsibility for the perpetuation of the "Jason Lee is currently a Scientologist" narrative then it also bears the burden of proof.

Here is my attempt at providing some published context for my edit.

Scientology Celebrity Spiderweb 2012 (Jason included (look under 1970. everybody is categorized by birth year)) http://ocmb.xenu.nett/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=69963

Scientology Celebrity Spiderweb 2013 (Jason no longer listed) http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=156867

References from scientology publications (this is obviously not gospel as Leah Remini only has completions listed into 2004 even though we know very well that she didn't leave until 2013). http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/j/jason-lee.html

3 episcopalian church photos via Jason's wife's public Instagram page (https://instagram.com/jessiegoesseaward/ shows photos of him and their family all over it which should confirm it's hers).

posted July 19, 2015: "I look forward to Sundays like I can't express. I am lucky enough to go to church at All Saints in Pasadena- a non-denominational church that works tirelessly as human rights advocates and equal rights petitioners. I learn more about what's happening in the world here than anywhere else. I just listened to a sermon by Rev. Gary Hall on 'the False Self'. It moved more than I can say. If you want to hear it, they have a podcast and an a YouTube channel. Happy Sunday friends 🙏" https://instagram.com/p/5VDDocrQ1L/ (Rev Gary Hall bio: http://www.cathedral.org/staff/PE-5SFID-EO000J.shtml )

posted 28 weeks ago: "Sundays are my favorite Days #allsaintschurchpasadena #edbacon" https://instagram.com/p/xcgRsbrQ4l/

posted 26 weeks ago: "Throwback to a Sunday in the church pews.. Old friends telling stories #tbt #happykids" https://instagram.com/p/x4frsOrQ6U/

You won't be able to confirm this one as valid because her facebook profile is private now, but it's a screen shot from Jason Lee's mother's page where she addresses the issue. Misplaced Pages is specifically called out as being innaccurate on the subject which is what motivated me to make the edit in the first place. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7082054/carol_lee_scientology_comment.pdf Heather louise stevens (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Heather louise stevens, nothing you've provided as alleged proof Lee is no longer a Scientologist comes from a reliable source and appears to be original research. There are plenty of reliable sources available online that say Lee is a Scientologist, while there are no reliable sources saying he no longer is a Scientologist. Sorry, but we have to go with what is verifiable. Please read the article WP:VERIFY for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

James Randi

This is exactly the concern Jimbo expressed, that people who try to correct their own bios and aren't used to Misplaced Pages would be treated the way you just did. "Doesn't matter who it is", bah. Could you please at least come to ANI and discuss this? Bishonen | talk 22:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

It doesn't matter who the anon IP is or who it isn't. If they are adding unreferenced content to a BLP, the "rules" apply, regardless. Why so star struck by an anon IP, Bishonen? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

TC)

Sockpuppet investigation of User:50.53.64.49

I noticed you opened a Sockpuppet for user Kbabej including User:50.53.64.49. I would suggest that you also keep an eye on User:ID man12 ID. He was the person to respond to my comments on User:50.53.64.49 page here. It seems, from the response that User:ID man12 ID is also User:50.53.64.49, so if User:50.53.64.49 is a sock of Kbabej, User:ID man12 ID may also be.--- ARTEST4ECHO 16:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Not only does he appear to be on the narcissistic side, he's also relentless. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Amanda Peterson page

My apologies.

There is a radio interview with Howard Stern, available on YouTube, where she mentions going to Chile to film The Lawless Land. This interview was recorded in August of '87. This 5-part interview is where I got my info.

There has been no indication anywhere that Amanda had two children. The only child of hers ever mentioned is her young daughter Stella. Please indicate where it states that she had two children.

Amanda's brother, Rev. Jim Peterson is on Facebook if you would like to look him up.

Thanks! ````

Reliable sources state she had two children with Hartley. Everything else you've added appears to not be reliably sourced and is original research. We can't accept original research. Do not continue to edit war at the article. If you have concerns, discuss them in the article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Note

It's obvious you disagree, and you're more than welcome to disagree and to revert this message too, but just so we're entirely clear that was a specific administrative warning that I will block if you continue this any more, and frankly it doesn't matter if you think I'm "doing the right thing" because I'm not making this up, I'm going by the book and that's all there is to it. I'm not going to sit and argue with you if it reaches that point as we've discussed this with you quite enough and have been unable to get any sort of affirmative response. I'd rather you heed the warning and simply do what is expected of every editor on Misplaced Pages but as I've repeatedly warned you, I'm going to block you if you push the issue. If you want an admin to "do the right thing", take it to SPI and ask them to! Swarm ♠ 00:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Severity

Dear Winkelvi, I would really like you to continue to be an active and usefully contributing member of Misplaced Pages. My reading of the situation, is that to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages you will have to serious re-evaluate the format of your actions and interactions with others. You need to abide by the WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR policy, and you should try to demonstrate your understanding of the severity of situation. I would re-encourage responding with "thank you", in preference to what appears to be a behaviour speedily reverting those who take the time to offer assistance (). Please take this to heart this time and act upon it. Make the change, curtail the reverts (in Article and Talk space) and lets keep contributing! —Sladen (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As always, you are very helpful. I appreciate the message. Swarm has appeared for months from his repeated curt and threatening messages on my talk page and elsewhere as well as his block-before-you-talk approach a little while ago, to not be interested in anything more than heavy-handedness. I take what he said seriously only out of fear of being blocked, not because I respect him. You, however, have my respect. For what it's worth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Winkelvi, can you tell me either here or in another e-mail how you know that? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied, Bbb23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Please give me diffs of where he's disclosed his RL identity on-wiki. Also any diffs on-wiki about Facebook.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Replied again, Bbb23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. First, I don't think you're acting in bad faith; the thought didn't occur to me. Second, I'm more concerned with what I do, which brings me to the conclusion that I can't use what you've provided. Sorry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, Bbb23. You guys doing the behind-the-scenes stuff have reasons for why you do what you do and how you do it. I'll trust your judgment on this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Liz

Hi Winkelvi. I undid your edit there because the discussion was closed eight hours ago. There is a crat chat ongoing and your input may be useful at that page's talk page. Take care, --John (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's twice in one month I've done that. But, in defense of my obliviousness, I thought "on hold" wasn't the same as "closed". Thanks for the note, John. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice on whether to report potential edit warring

I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I should report Ring Cinema for edit warring, since his editing may not explicitly violate the 3RR, but as I understand it you have noted he is a persist edit warrer (around September 19, 2014. The edits in question on his current edit warring revolve around two Michael Caine films, Deathtrap (film) and Sleuth (1972 film) Two days ago I added a sentence to the leads of both of these article noting the similarities of these films, and providing citations of reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin that explicitly mention the similarities between these films, as well as three published books that mention the similarities. Yesterday Ring Cinema repeatedly reverted these changes on the Deathtrap article. At that point, I attempted to start a discussion with him. Since then, he has reverted the change again. This is his third revert. His first revert was 16:25, 4 August 2015‎, and his last revert was 16:51, 5 August 2015‎. At 16:51, 5 August 2015, he also reverted the almost exact same sentence in the Sleuth article. So while it's two different articles, it is the exact same issue with the exact same editors in the two articles, and he is at 4 reverts of it in barely over 24 hours. This feels like edit warring if not a cut-and-dried violation of 3RR. I have opened a discussion of the content dispute on WP:DRN, but do you think I should also go to ANI/3rr? Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Report him if you think his actions are deserving of being reported, Mmyers1976. I have no opinion one way or the other. Yes, he and I have tangled previously, but I don't hold any animosity toward him and I'm certainly not looking for reasons to see him taken to a noticeboard. If you believe it's as cut and dried as you say, do what you think is appropriate. If you, however, have been edit warring as well, be prepared for a possible WP:BOOMERANG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I asked because I believe it's not cut and dried, it's more of those ambiguous situations like he was warned about before, and also because of the open DRN discussion, I don't want to look like I'm forum-shopping. I counted and have 3 reverts on the Deathtrap article, and then I stopped and discussed. Even though he has reverted me again on that article, I have let it stand pending the DRN. I have not reverted at all on the Sleuth article, and I have let his revert stand pending the DRN, so I believe I'm clear of an edit warring boomerang charge. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I see you have also asked Drmies for advice. I would go with whatever he says. I've found his advice wise and unbiased as well as trustworthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Too much praise, Winkelvi. I'm a bit mobile and the keyboard is sticky (it's in Alabama, as am I), and I haven't looked at diffs yet, so pardon the brevity. But y'all, realize that WP:AN3 is also WP:EWN, that is, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--in other words, while the template may suggest it's all about three reverts, it's a noticeboard for edit warring, and that's a broader thing than just 3R violations. You might say that's more liberal, but it's also intended, I believe, to bring to admin attention the more persistent edit warriors who tend to work long-term, outside of the clear bright line of 3R. So if you're suspecting someone of such edit warring, and if, of course, you're not the only one reverting them, you may well report it--just write up a good report in which you lay out the case.

It may be (but this is possibly not of any interest to you) that the "punishment" is different. Clear 3R violations are frequently met with a short block to prevent 4R, 5R, etc.; long-term edit warring violations sometimes call for different matters, and it may be that the matter ends up on ANI for POV editing or whatever. But don't be afraid to report edit warring: Bbb23 and EdJohnston know what they're doing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, great info, helped my understanding a lot. replied in full on your talk. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Re:this

I'm not sure if you meant to link to WP:DENY or something else, but DENY is an essay about trolls and vandals; Joseph is neither of these things. DENY says in the opening sentence that it only applies to true vandals (as distinguished from users who engage in ... edit warring ...). TPO says posts from banned users may be removed or struck; however, it does not say anything about editors evading temporary blocks. Per BLOCKBANDIFF, Joseph is still a member of the community, and thus his comments are still meaningful (even if he should not have left them). It is for this reason that I felt unstriking the comment and simply tagging the comment as a sock contribution was sufficient. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Deny is invoked frequently in reference to socks. I've seen it used time and again in that manner. His comments as a sock are to be discarded, as he placed them during block evasion. Not sure why you find that concept difficult to understand. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoever is applying it that way is wrong. For one, DENY is not even a guideline or policy. Secondly, it has nothing to do with sock puppetry or the behavior that Joseph is currently blocked for. Comments from banned users are typically struck/removed because banned users are not welcome here and not considered members of the community, thus their comments are completely irrelevant. Joseph is not banned or even de facto banned; he's not even indeffed (yet). I'm not sure why striking his comment as if it's completely worthless is the preferred option, especially when there's no explanation for why the comment is struck unless you look in the page history, which could give off the impression that he struck the comment himself. I even added the CSP tag to let others know that the IP is a puppet of a currently-blocked user, which really should be there strike or no-strike. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, as you've already pointed out, WP:DENY is an essay, not policy. That in mind, there's no bright line here, nothing to be followed to the letter. DENY is used frequently with block-evasion, and rightly so. Also, keep in mind that Prasad made the comments while evading a block and socking under an IP. No, he's not indeffed or banned. But he did block evade, therefore, his comments are not to be considered. I could, rightfully, delete them outright. So could anyone, really. They are from a block-evading sock, and DENY does apply, even if it doesn't say so outright in the essay. Obviously we disagree about this, Chasewc91. So, I think a fair compromise would be not deleting the comments, but leaving them as they are, with the applied strike out. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not really a compromise; that's exactly what you've already done. I will leave his comments struck but add back the tag so other editors can more easily see why. I don't think you'll object to that. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure it's a compromise. I could have deleted the comments per DENY and WP:RBI. Personally, I think block evading IPs are committing vandalism. I dare say I'm not the only Misplaced Pages who feels the same. It's not as if JP is a Wikipedian in good standing, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think block evading IPs are committing vandalism. I disagree with you completely on that. Joseph is disruptive, unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions, a habitual edit warrior, and needless to say has been a pain for many editors in the past year, but Vandalism is defined as any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Misplaced Pages. He doesn't use multiple accounts to do any of that. He uses multiple accounts to make constructive edits. The fact that he breaks policy to do so is another matter completely, but what he's done is not vandalism in the least. He's likely bored and can't stay away from this place; he's not intentionally seeking to cause trouble.
I suppose it doesn't matter, as we clearly have very differing views on this and a solution has been worked out on the Trainor discussion anyhow. I just don't think it's fair, or good-faith, to use essays about trolls and vandals to dismiss the generally constructive contributions of a troubled editor who can still change his ways. He's had lots of chances, sure, but he (most likely) only gets one more. Remember that before you're quick to criticize him. If he's really as disruptive as you say, he'll be indefinitely blocked by the end of this year and he'll be out of your hair. Chase (talk | contributions) 03:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You have a short memory. He does what he does to win and to be disruptive. He's admitted to be intentionally disruptive (remember the 30-or-so edit-warring reverts with a promise to continue doing so and admitting he didn't give a crap?). At what point does such disruption get classified as vandalism? When they continue to not give a crap and just do whatever the hell they want and then dare you do something about it. Block evasion at an article he frequents and made on an identifiable IP is just more "I don't give a shit" disruption. Sorry you're too AGF-ish to see that, but -- I see it as clear as day. As far as him being out of my hair -- I don't want him to go away completely. I just want his childish behavior and attitudes to go away. He needs to grow up and realize Misplaced Pages isn't his personal playground. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

License tagging for File:Rachel Dolezal speaking at Spokane rally May 2015.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rachel Dolezal speaking at Spokane rally May 2015.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)