User talk:Winkelvi

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 Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

Thanks for stopping by!

Here in Wikipedia, 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)

Difference between categories, sections, and headings

These edit summaries were initially confusing. A section begins with a heading. A subsection begins with a subheading, but calling it a heading will be fully understood. Categories are used to help organize the vast collection of articles in Wikipedia and are something else entirely, but are hierarchical, so there is such a thing as a subcategory, but it has very little to do with the content of an article. I usually expect edit summaries that mention "categories" to be for edits that add/remove/change one or more [[Category:]] links on the page. This is intended as friendly advice to help with future editing; please don't take it wrongly if I've worded it poorly. I'm trying to keep the overall amount of confusion around the Donna Douglas article to a minimum. (I'll watch this page for a while for a reply.) Pathore (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries are never perfect, they often are confusing - that's why we have diffs to look at what actually happened. I never go solely on an edit summary. That's said, I'll try to be more precise in the areas you've pointed out, but honestly, I'm not going to take great pains to get an edit summary perfect. I figure that as long as someone isn't using an edit summary for the wrong reasons and is at least using the edit summary to begoin with, perfection in edit summary nomenclature is at the bottom of the priority list. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Several of my edit summaries have various errors, including one where I fixed a typo in the article and made a new typo in the edit summary. It's not like Wikipedia has a deadline or anything. ☺ Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

One more thing, Pathore: Recognizing that I cleaned up a totally screwed up article would have been a better thing, a nicer thing to come here with before pointing out that you think I made your editing there more difficult. Again, priorities. No matter if I didn't produce edit summaries up to your standards, the article is in much better shape now than it was 24 hours ago because I took the time and effort to get it that way. In my opinion, there's a plethora of negative criticism in Wikipedia when there should be a plethora of thanks given to the volunteer editors who make te 'pedia a better online resource. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't make my editing more difficult and thanks for cleaning up the article. I had thought that thanks for your contributions went without saying. I intended for this to be entirely constructive criticism and advice for the future, on an assumption that you may have been unaware of that distinction. I apologize if I have caused offense. Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Only minimally offensive, and not enough for me to want to you think that I'm unhappy with your commets here, Pathore. I think you hit me at a bad moment when I was contemplating how I've never seen another organzation depending on volunteer workers that is in general less appreciative of those volunteers on a day-to-day, and sometimes moment-to-moment basis. So, all that in mind, please don't take my comments personal or to mean that I'm not interested in working with you cooperatively. Like I said: your message came at a bad moment. Thanks, and Happy New Year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I've had my bad moments too. Happy New Year to you too. Pathore (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much

You are very kind. --talk→ WPPilot  20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you, WPPilot. Keep moving forward, keep contributing, and try not to look back at bad editor behavior. It will eat you up if you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

DONE - thanks again! --talk→ WPPilot  20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

revert

That was an accidental rollback from my watchlist. I've requested rollback removal so I don't misclick again.Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

albert jacob page

regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.89.168.229&redirect=no

what was it I wrote that constituted vandalism? I know this person personally and I did not mean any harm or ill-intent. I wouldnt even dream of writing negativity I only wish this person well. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 202.89.168.229, if you note the comments from me on your talk page, the wording states your edits looked like vandalism, not that they were definitely being classified as vandalism. Taking a look at what you did way back in May, your edits did look suspicious because there were some obvious errors made and not corrected. After making the errors you blanked a section without putting back in what you removed. As well, you did not use the edit summary indicating why you were making the edits you did. Further, when you blanked the section, a warning tag appeared noting "Section blanking". All of that together combined with these edits being done by someone who hasn't created a user account says "possible vandalism" to editors who have been here a while. I hope your edits were truly made in good faith and that you truly didn't mean harm. Coming here and asking what the deal was is a good faith effort on your part and it's appreciated. If you'd like to edit articles in Wikipedia in a productive manner, you're welcome to do that. I'd advise creating an account first. If you choose not to do that, please be sure to use edit summaries to explain your edits, that will help other editors to know better your intentions. I will put a welcome message on your talk page that has helpful information and advice about editing Wikipedia - please read it for better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi winkelvi

I remeber now that your reminded me. I did delete info and didn't know how to get it back. It was the first time I attempted to edit Wikipedia and I bit off more than I could chew. I'm learning now and just made an edit on the VW polo sections his week without breaking anything (I hope) :-). I'll consider an account. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I hope things go better for you editing-wise and you enjoy what you do here. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan edits

The edits made were to highlight the fact that him joining and then leaving the Wyatt Family changed him to villain and hero, respectively. Also, he is a former member of that group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.28.107 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The edits had no sources to support them, you didn't use the edit summary to explain the edits, they didn't seem encyclopedic in tone, and the wording really didn't make sense. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvas warning

Winkelvi, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing. I have no doubt you will take it in the spirit in which it was given: as a warning, sure, but more as a bit of advice. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I will. I really didn't believe what I was doing was canvassing. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓

YGM

I sent you an email when you get a second. -- Calidum 08:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will have to wait until morning to take a look, but will get back to you. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

)

A cupcake for you!

Just sending a bit of Wikilove your way through cupcakes! livelikemusic my talk page! 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, livelikemusic, you made my day brighter. Take care,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So glad I could do that for you! Keep your head up and keep on keepin' on! (: livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm sorry about all the crap going on at ANI right now. I'm not completely aware of what's going on at all the articles being discussed, but I know that the Meghan Trainor editors are completely out of line with their harassment, baiting, and bringing up irrelevant personal details. Keep your head up! :)

–Chase (talk / contribs) 14:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Very nice of you, Chase. Thanks so much and have a great Sunday! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You definitely got too much shit there, Winkelvi. I really hope that doesn't happen again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Snuggums. I appreciate the kindness. And look forward to working with you, as always. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

From NE Ent

• First of all, EdJohnston made a mistake here [1] in engaging in counting exercises with Winkelvi. WP:3RR is an upper limit, not a good idea (see WP:AVOIDEDITWAR). Winkelvi, you want do no more than one revert on a single topic issue; if it doesn't stick you go to the article talk page, and as soon as that becomes a one on one back and forth you request help from exactly one of the the "Articles and content" boards in the list below.
• Secondly, the number and length of time an editor's name appears on noticeboards is not a reliable metric for disruption; the consensus closing statement, if present, or the actual content of the allegations needs at least be skimmed. NE Ent 14:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboard links, for reference

Dear Winkelvi,

To follow one convention for three item names in a list, and then give an arbitrary name to the fourth, despite it being exactly the same in nature, is not uniformity and convention. It's POV. It's not a question of research, but of having standards and a system. You're supporting the use of one naming system for all previous colonial occupiers, and a separate and special naming system for the current period of occupation by the United States.

Please advise: is it wikipedia convention to name colonial periods for any given territory after the occupying force (e.g., Spanish Colonial Period, German Colonial Period, etc.)? Yes or No. User:42.3.103.126 — Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have an overall convention on how to name colonial periods. Instead, we use the names that are used by experts in the field. We follow the conventions that are used by Reliable Sources. If people outside of Wikipedia call it the Spanish colonial period, so will we. If people outside of Wikipedia call it the US Colonial Period, so would we. You may have better luck having this conversation on Talk:Saipan, where more editors interested in the article are likely to see it. Best, meamemg (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

IP user 42.3.103.126, what meamemg said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your input

I am requesting your input at Max A. George and its talk page, where there has been incivility, personality attacks, and owning of a page by its creator is going on, without any kind of mediation or discussion able to take place, and I feel as if an experienced editor, whom I respect as yourself, to come in and comment. I've attempted to apologise if said-user felt attacked in any way by my actions (which were in good-faith, however, they are not being seen as such. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look now, livelikemusic. Thanks for your confidence in me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia free of tabloid junk and remaining civil through it all! Keep it up EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it, thank you, EoRdE6! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Swanson14

A review (my cursory review) of the infobox edits of Swanson14 shows largely edits on college degrees of famous persons, but never with an explanation. Most (but not all) of (all but the most recent of) those 'edits' were reversed, with explanations for the reversal or correction. I would thank you for doing that. Is a more comprehensive review of Swanson14's edits in order? In my opinion, some of infobox edits were or are defensible, even if they may have been stylistically less preferable to other editors. MaynardClark (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be they are a special kind of 'vandal', or they could have just been seeing what would happen if they intentionally introduced errors into an article. I would leave it alone for now, keep an eye on whether they continue and then take whatever action reporting-wise as necessary. Thanks for your note, MaynardClark. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Robin Williams Page Correction

You recently removed a correction I made to the Robin Williams page since you thought it did not appear constructive. However, I differ since I think removing false information and replacing it with correct information is not only constructive but mandatory and an obligation!

I thought I would explain in detail here why and how I made the change and perhaps you will see that all I did was make an ACCURATE correction since what was there prior was WRONG.

Namely, the prior page (and I guess the page now that you removed my edit), says that Robin Williams has 5 Grammys. I did not know RW had even *any* Grammys so I then looked up the Wikipedia page for Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album and I found the EXACT and presumably accurate and definitive list of Grammy Winners there.

First of all RW had exactly 4 not 5 Grammys and second of all the 1987 listed one (Night at the Met) is the WRONG YEAR since that album won in 1988 not 1987.

SO all I did was to report consistent facts on the RW page as already were approved by Wikipedia and appear on the Wikipedia approved Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album page.

Considering that I did not insert any of my own OPINIONS but only reported facts which are verified by an APPROVED Wikipedia page, I did not see any rationale for using Sandbox and considered a completely valid and authoritative correction to erroneous information (that RW has 5 Grammys one of which is in the wrong year) and replaced it with factually correct information (that RW has 4 Grammys in exactly correct years)

If you agree with this rationale for reinstating my changes (and maybe resorting the entries since the year correction does suggest a resort or replacement in the list) then please let me know on my talk page

Thank you very much for bringing up the point— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukon (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 February 2015 Sig added as a courtesy by 220 of ^Borg 03:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No idea who you are, because you didn't remember to sign you comments with four tildes (~). I reverted your changes because you didn't give any reason for the changes in the edit summary, nor did you add any references to support the changes. It looked like vandalism to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Response by Dukon: Thank you very much for responding to my response :) Yes I forgot the Four-Tilde self identification (I asked that question somewhere else after my forgetting it to you. I was reminded by someone somewhere along the line, so now I will certainly use the 4-tilde suffix. Next, to my point about RW and number of Grammys and your first response, and now this your latest response. Thank you for responding again! Ok this time I will identify myself so now you'll know who I am. Next, in the first response above I give you ALL of my reasons and my citations (other Wikipedia pages). I hope these satisfy your wishes for me to give a) reasons in the edit summary, and b) references (other Wikipedia pages noted above) to support my original changes. Do these now satisfy your wishes? If yes, are you able to retrieve my original modifications and then you re-install them? If yes and you cannot find them saved anywhere, please let me know. If no, please explain why the Grammy list Wikipedia page fails as a reference to support the changes. Thank you again for your time giving me feedback. Dukon (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

Hi Winkelvi, I'm just curious as to why you interpreted my message to LoverofArt as bickering[2]? The User made a contentious and potentially damaging claim in an edit summary. I also notified Admin Bbb23[3] about it who not only removed the Talk page posting[4], but also deleted the Edit summaries [5][6][7][8]. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Scalhotrod. I didn't mean to seem overly harsh, nor was I trying to butt in, but it really did look like pointless bickering and was really unnecessary on the article's talk page. And now that the comments have been removed, it appears there was more to it than what I knew when I commented. Further evidence, it would seem, that the discussion was inappropriate for the article talk page. No big deal - I wasn't seeing you as a "bad guy". It's all good. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Honestly I'm getting sick of the Bilzerian fans and haters duking it out on his article, but there are far worse things that happen on WP... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: User:Samsamcat

Much obliged. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy adds

I made a revision (without having logged in) that added information to the Leonary Nimoy page about popular tributes to the actor, and I see that you took it down because it was "trivial." I'm a PhD student in Folklore, and feel that popular cultural movements are just as significant for demonstrating the impact a particular figure has had on a society as are official statements from well-known individuals. In my mind, the "spocking" of five-dollar bills speaks significantl to the importance of the actor in Western culture, and I'd like to suggest that this piece of information (and its appropriate citation) be kept on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azsymkamen (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~). Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes it "trivia"? Azsymkamen (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Surely you're familiar with what trivial things in the course of someone's life (or happenings after their death) are. You're welcome to bring up your thoughts on this at the article's talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I feel like you didn't address my original statement: that broad, popular phenomena surrounding an individual's death are strong indicators of that person's impact on society. This is just as meaningful as anything Barack Obama or other major figures might say. Azsymkamen (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you're pressing the issue, here's my straight up answer: it's stupid, trivial garbage that isn't encyclopedic and doesn't belong in the article. And, seriously, if you think it's along the same lines as something a world leader might say, you're delusional. Now, does that sufficiently answer your question? Hope so, because I'm done entertaining you here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made it a point to be civil, and I get the sense the tone of this discussion has shifted... I am not as experienced a Wikipedian as you, and I genuinely don't know what makes something "trivial." Is there an explication of this label somewhere? Many elements of modern folklore are described on Wikipedia, both as their own articles and as points within articles. I don't understand what objective criteria exist that allow you, as apparent arbiter of the article, to decide that this point is "trivial." But certainly other documented phenomena (e.g. memorials following traumatic events, circulation of new phrases derived from a particular event, etc) are treated as significant forms of expression on here. You have not made it clear why this is any different. Azsymkamen (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobbi Kristina Article Edit

Hi, I see you reverted my edit about the upcoming interview of Nick Gordon as per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. I don't think this is appropriate. WP:Crystal does not state that upcoming events may not be discussed. It states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation"..."Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I don't want to get into an edit war with you by re-reverting my work, but it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. First, the upcoming interview is not unverifiable (I provided a reference), nor is it speculation (the interview has already been filmed, and there are pictures from it online, it just hasn't aired yet). There is absolutely no reason to believe that it will not air. The interview is notable, as it will give Gordon's side of the story of what may very well may end up being the cause of death of Ms. Brown, and again, it will almost without question air.

WP:CRYSTAL does not simply state we cannot discuss things that haven't happened yet. It states that we cannot make predictions about things that cannot be verified. If I stated in an article that the Red Sox will win the next World Series, that would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - no-one can know that, so it is pure speculation. Discussing an already filmed interview segment is totally acceptable - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but it does not require one to know that this interview, which has already been filmed, will air.

I am undoing your reversion with respect. I hope this settles the matter. I have no ill will and wish you the best; I hope the matter can be left at this. Cheers. "Yes...It's Raining" 04:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You say you don't want to get into an edit war, yet you are reverting content on something that may or may not air and saying it will is speculatory. Until it does air, it's only speculation that we will ever see it, that makes its existence trivial - to be determined. WP:CRYSTAL does apply and I will remove the content again based on that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayayay. First of all, trivial means "of little or no importance." This interview, the first given by any family member or friend of BKB's since the incident, is hugely important to the story, as it will be the first time she is discussed, to the press, by anyone involved. Secondly, unless someone drops a bomb on CBS headquarters, this show will be airing. They have already recorded and announced it, scheduled it, and there are pictures of the interview (which took place already) on CBS's website. And yes, you are correct - I said I didn't want to go into an edit war, but I didn't say that I was unwilling to do so if necessary. This is so minor, but it's a matter of concern to me that we have such an overzealous editor who seems to understand WP:CRYSTAL so poorly. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" means "we can't make predictions about what's going to happen." Predictions are guesses. This is not a guess, it's a scheduled television special. You don't need a crystal ball to know this is happening, you need a television set. I won't change the edit back again - but, for the record, I continue to think you're dead wrong, and suggest you reread WP:CRYSTAL - in particular, read point 1, which makes it very clear that it in no way corresponds to my edit. However, I'm too tired and it's too late for me to do battle. You are incorrect, but you win. Have a nice day. "Yes...It's Raining" 05:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi-I have some concerns about some deletions you are proposing: State and territorial legislators of the United States are considered notable;

• Robert Hastings Hunkins served in the Vermont House of Representatives.
• Benjamin Hunkins served in the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature and the Wisconsin State Assembly.

Both men would be considered notable since they served in their state legislatures. Please make any comments, etc. Thank youRFD (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, RFD. Here's what I know: The individual who created the articles has been creating articles all over Wikipedia with his family members and ancestors as article subjects, practically all of which have no notability whatsoever. A number of editors over time have raised their eyebrows over the articles created by Kbabej (who is indeffed right now and has been using socks since his indef to create more articles that fail WP:GNG, by the way). He carefully puffed up the articles to make the individuals look notable, when in fact, the individuals had little to no notability at all. A careful look at the references he added in these articles show the references to either be bogus or have very little mention of the article subject and no real notability established through those references. Many of the other articles he created which were not about family members and ancestors proved to be more of the same: no real notability, and failing GNG. A perusal on my own of the articles I nominated for deletion didn't seem to meet notability guidelines. If, however, the article subjects prove to meet guidelines after all, fine. They will likely receive support in the "Keep" department. Of course, in the meantime, it would be acceptable for anyone thinking the article should not be deleted to do more research and find content and references that would lend to better establishing notability - if that's possible. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Keough

I've checked that you have PRODed this article. There are a few passing mentions in a few reliable sources. How about redirecting the article to Lisa Marie Presley#Personal life ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution, OccultZone. On its own, the article will unlikely develop into more than what it is now. The notability really isn't there for a stand-alone article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Redirected for now. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

correcting Port Gamble entry

Hi Winkelvi,

I just tried to correct the frequently-cited fallacy that the Battle of Port Gamble's lone Sailor death was the first in the Pacific, and correct the name of the ship's captain to "Swartwout" rather than "Swartout."

J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here, J. Overton. The name is spelled variously as Swartout, Swarthout, and Swartwout in history books. I imagine it's a case of the one was chosen because it was used the most at the time the article was written. In regard to the other issue, you removed content that was supported by references, replacing it with content that was not supported by references. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. If content is verifiable and referenced by reliable, secondary, and non-biased sources, that's what we strive to include and keep in Wikipedia articles. What you did was take out that type of content and added something that appeared to be of your own knowledge (what we call original research). Hope you understand why the content you added was immediately removed. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding editing, references, and the like, I recommend you take a look at the various Wikipedia articles available to help you better contribute and edit Wikipedia. A start would be here: Intro to editing Wikipedia. Cheers,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Winklevi,

The name is spelled "Swartwout" in the ship's log ... I can send you a copy if it helps. The Naval History and Heritage Command's casualty list, which I referenced to refute the "first casualty" reference, is usually considered verifiable (although it gets the date of death wrong, it shows many, many other U.S. sailors died in Pacific long before November, 1856. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ship's log would be primary referencing as well as fall under original research, J. Overton. Further, just because you or I can look at the log that doesn't make the name spelling verifiable according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the various sources spell the name Swartout (or Swarthout or Swartwout), then that is the spelling to be used. I understand your frustration, but do encourage you to read WP:VERIFY for a better understanding. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to make this entry actually factual. Do you consider the Naval History and Heritage Command's web site to also be original research> — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Overton (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The website appears to be fine as a reliable source. One more thing: could you please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~)? So far, it's been done for you by a Wikipedia bot, but it would be better if you do it yourself. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Getsic

I agree about possible COI, but there is likely some claim to notability. Quis separabit? 03:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the fact tag because I noticed when I was leaving you the previous reply that you had a reference error and the only thing I could see in the diff was the fact tag, so ...

As far as her father goes, you're right. I noticed that he had a link to his own article but I never got around to checking it out. I doubt he would pass notability, but anything of note could be added to daughter's article provided validly sourced. I am going to check out the Ed Getsic AFD now. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus majority voting?

I saw this phrase in an edit summary you recently did on the article for Taylor Swift, and frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't reach consensus by "majority vote." We reach consensus by discussion and building agreement, not by taking a headcount of who already agrees. That's the idea, anyway. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what edit summary you are referring to, Jsharpminor. Please be specific. And, I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Whatever I said, it was probably just not well thought out. Edit summaries can't be edited, after all. Do you have anything positive or helpful to add or just negative criticism? Because, frankly, I'm sick of seeing negative bullshit on Wikipedia tonight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you're having a rough night. We all have them from time to time. I have seen your name enough that I know this place wouldn't be the same without you. Perhaps it's time to call it quits for the night and play Minecraft or something?

Also, I did specify the page, and that edit is the 4th edit fromr the top on a administrator-protected page, but here's the diff for you. But if you are aware that we're not taking a vote but discussing options, then there's nothing to see here.

I hope your night gets better. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see now what you were referring to. Yes, just a bad choice of wording and I would have edited it if it were not an edit summary. Thanks for the good wishes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	California Star
	For having the gumption to create a solution talked about at an AfD, by creating a sub-article for the Golden Gate Bridge about suicides which occur there. Doing so is bold and creates a new consensus which retains verified content that would have otherwise been deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow - thank you SO much, RightCowLeftCoast. I am deeply grateful and touched by this gesture. And, I think the new article is looking pretty good so far. Thank you again,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Although it is usually best to avoid ANI, I think in this case, presenting a neutral POV about the current situation in less than four short sentences would help others to see the problem. If you can keep it brief and on point, I think it might help. You may also want to limit yourself to that one comment and ignore the replies. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas: I don't know how neutral it is, but I posted my comments regarding the AN/I and MF in general. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Hello, Winklevi. I think that the versions you have reverted at Taylor Swift should not be labelled as "unsourced", but instead as "vandalism". The user said that Taylor is dating someone called Anthony Camino, and bare in mind that the user is also called Camino3600, and therefore it should be vandalism, as he is just trying to say Taylor is dating the user. (I'd love that if Taylor really dates me though <3) and the Instagram account s/he mentioned is available, @camino36, but it is private, so obviously this user is just making a fuss. At the talk page, you should warn him of vandalism but nt adding unsourced material. Thank, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nahnah4, In the interest of not biting new editors, I chose to assume good faith and believe s/he was just unaware of what's acceptable content- and reference-wise. That's why the warnings regarding unsourced content rather than vandalism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing that you assumed good faith, but being too nice won't help sometimes. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Winkelvi,
Hope you're okay,
Just to make you aware - when you nominate articles for deletion you're not supposed to also !vote Delete as your nomination is your delete !vote,
Technically I'm supposed to strike your !vote and tell you not to !vote twice but I see you've had enough to deal with here let alone me making life more unhelpful so I won't strike the recent lot,
Anyway Happy Editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of it, Davey2010. Thanks for the notification and your kind approach. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome :), Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed Giecek

Please stop undoing my addition of publication details to references and formatting them with the cite template. You are blind reverting, not caring what other work you undo. That's uncool. Skyerise (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And you've been asked by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) to stop removing material and allow editors at AfD to come to their own conclusions. Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

No, he asked we both stop reverting. Which I shouldn't have done, and now regret (not because of the reasons you stated), and regretted right after I did it. Bbb23, if I could undo my reversion, I would but realized my error too late. Now that the other editor has reverted again, a revert to earlier version would do nothing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are both correct, but the initial revert was committed by Skyerise who restored his version after being warned at the AfD page. I have therefore blocked him for 24 hours. @Winkelvi, you are correct that you shouldn't have reverted and that you couldn't self-revert. For that reason, I am not blocking you. Next time - hopefully there won't be a next time - come to me and request assistance rather than reverting. If I'm not around, you might be able to get another admin to assist you. Please understand, though, that whichever version is in place is not terribly important as I stated in my comments at the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

James Monroe

Dear Winkelvi, I’m sorry for intruding and correcting the James Monroe entry. However, it is a fact that the image shown to be Minister Monroe in Paris in 1794 it is not the likeness of Mr. James Monroe, but rather a relative of his. The foremost experts in the country today will testify to that effect. On your request I would gladly provide you with the names and contact information so you can clarify the this issue. I don’t think it correct to perpetuate a mistake like this inducing others to reproduce the same image which by the way its original is in possession of the Ash Lawn Highland curators. They know of the origin of this miniature and have clearly stated to me personally that this is not James Monroe . Please, reconsider. Thank you very much, Wikimench100 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimench100, I didn't feel your edit was "intruding", however, if you're going to remove an image that's been in an article for a while, it would be better to bring it up on the article talk page first. Additionally, having a reliable reference that gives real evidence in addition to supporting coverage of same from several reliable sources would be preferable. At that point, a real discussion with reliable sources to support your contention could take place. But, just saying the image isn't Monroe because so-and-so says so, is an unsourced claim stemming from original research and is not acceptable evidence. Having reliable sources supporting that the image isn't of Monroe is acceptable evidence. Please feel free to discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Wikimench100 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor

It may not be formatted sufficiently for a GA, but most of this edit seems to be factually correct. The archived 1893 primary source doesn't mention Taylor on the original list or on the expanded list. IMHO, this is one case in which the primary source (an official document of the society) can be used correctly. The ip editor's explanatory sentence which uses the word "probably" is unsourced and likely OR by the editor. However, I would see no big problem for a similar statement, perhaps a clause after the first sentence, which uses the word "possibly". There's little documentation on the society in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Briethaupt is only modern work of which I'm aware, and he currently heads the remaining society, I believe. More sources will surely follow over time, but the basic assertion that Taylor was NOT a member seems to be accurate, based on found sources. BusterD (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, BusterD. You're welcome to change it back (I won't revert) and make the necessary changes to it that would include a clause, as you state above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for my earlier comments regarding editing on Autumn Jackson, I had old tabs open and got confused. I should probably not edit WP when so distracted :) I welcome additional discussion on these issues. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted, BoboMeowCat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Impersonator

Srich32977 and Anna Frodesiak, the account Pinkelvi is not me (just like last night's Twinkelvi was not me). It's someone messing with me and vandalizing my userspace as well as articles and noticeboards I have edited, nothing more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. That is not nice of them. You have enough troubles. Well then, the puppies thing at User talk:Pinkelvi is still a good plan for you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Anna. After you play with the puppies for the next day or so you will feel better. In the meantime I hope appropriate action as to Pinkelvi can be taken. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Srich32977, could someone please speak up for me at the sock investigation, or at least change it so it's not an investigation of me? I'm not socking, but whomever was User:Twinkelvi last night and is User:Pinkelvi today is socking. It needs to be an SPI for those accounts, not mine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the issue is resolved. (What caught my attention was a talk page comment by Pink at the top of a thread.) I'm sure you'll come back to WP feeling refreshed, especially after you brush off the dander. – S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We'll see. I'm completely reconsidering my involvement in Wikipedia. This garbage and bullying and ridicule for being on the Autism Spectrum has made me see Wikipedia and its editors in a whole new light. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Protection, please

Bbb23 or any other adminsitrator watching this page, could you please semi-protect my user space as I am on the receiving end of relentless vandalism and sock-impersonators? I don't have the time or desire to deal with it today. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I will. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak. This has turned into a nightmare and I'm not amused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected your user page so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Here you go: [9] and [10]

If you would like something different, please say.

Now, rest, fun, puppies, tea, that sort of thing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Sincerely, thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, the fake accounts keep coming: [11]. I'm getting tons of "Thanks" for edits I have made. Obviously, because I'm blocked, I can't thank myself for edits. Whomever this person is, they won't stop. Please add the new account to the SPI. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Also, if you're going to add the latest harassment account to the SPI, you should also add User:Twinkelvi. No doubt all three accounts belong to the same individual. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the history of the page in question. -- PBS (talk)

Anna Frodesiak has blocked the account. -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI

PBS, Srich32977, Anna Frodesiak, I'm not at all comfortable with that sock investigation still being open with my username as the suspected sockmaster. Why is it still open as such? I'm not socking, why should I be the one being investigated? Further, if I'm reading the comments correctly, I see PBS and Srich still believing I'm the sockmaster. If that's the case, I don't appreciate the accusation. At all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And now there's another one: [12], User:Tinklelvi. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You will likely want to also look into this account created last night: User:LethalFlower. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you're the master. We can move it to the earliest account soon. Srich did the right thing based on the evidence at the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi. You are not reading it correctly. (1) Srich32977 closed it (2) my comment is that it ought to remain open to find out if the person who has created the accounts can be identified, that does not mean you. As to where the current investigation resides it does not really matter (it can always be moved/renamed later), what matters is tying to identify who has been creating these accounts. If it turns out that the person can not be identified it will probably be moved to the oldest of the sockpuppets, but that is relatively unimportant and can be decided by the clerk. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope not. Like I said, this has become a nightmare. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lethal Flower does not appear to be registered. Now, please considered taking a break away from Wikipedia. We can look after things. When you return, all will be sorted out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

See corrected username above. Also, this edit was totally out of the blue [13] and is completely suspicious. I think they might be at the heart (or at least near the heart) of this socking issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And, I thought you blocked this account: [14]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't block Chinkelvi when first discovered because there had been no edits and I didn't click into the offensive part of the username. I did notice the kelvi part, but wanted to assume (too much) good faith. He just edited and I blocked the account.

I'm not sure if or how User:LethalFlower is related. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I see the SPI has been reopened. For my part, I think you are innocent. An editor with your experience would be too dumb to start socking just because of a block. If you can't stand being on a Wikibreak, then appeal the block. (The key to a successful appeal is promising to not repeat the behavior which lead to the block. You do that by staying away from the particular article.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the SPI was reopened because some checks were needed on the sock accounts to make sure there weren't any more. Plus there was some clerical tasks to handle. (Moving the case, tagging the accounts, etc.) Looking at the behavior of the socks, I'm very confident that this wasn't Wikielvi's doing. Mike V • Talk 18:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mike V, there's a new one: ivlekniw.

My sincere thanks to all who helped out with this mess today. Much appreciated, and I won't forget it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sock attack

I'm really sorry to see you attacked by socks. We may have had our differences, but I've been hounded by an IP editor and it is no fun. Just wanted to let you know that if I see this kind of crap, I will help defend you from it to the extent possible. It's just not cool. Skyerise (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Skyerise. My hope is that once my block expires, we can start over again? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I generally don't hold grudges, take each days editing events as they come. Skyerise (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

When I was first blocked for disruption, I was quite surprised -- the disruptive editing Bbb23 described had taken place the night before and had not been revisited. And at the time he explained the reason for my block, I still didn't see what I had been doing as disruptive. That said, with 24 hours + to think about the whole thing, I can now see that I had gone into a spiral that was not productive, was indeed disruptive, and benefited no one. I had allowed myself to get caught up in Wikipedia drama, fixated on correcting the editing and article-creation wrongs of an indeffed editor, and was arguing and finding fault with others WAY too much. I have a clear picture of what I was doing and do not have any intention or desire to recreate or repeat such disruptive behavior. I was wrong. I hope an administrator (or administrators) will allow me to return to editing before the 72 hour block has expired. I also hope to win back the trust of those I have dealt with (administrators and non-administrators alike). Thank you for considering my request. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on your very insightful explanation of what you did and your promise, I will unblock you. I strongly advise you to stay away completely from any article that User:Kbabej has created or edited. There are many other ways that you can use your time constructively. Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. You've been through a lot the last day. I'm very sorry about all the socking. I'm sure it was upsetting. Fortunately, a lot of capable people handled it. Please take care of yourself, try not to personalize things, and see other editors' perspectives. Collaboration is important. If you find yourself getting upset, take a break and walk away before it gets out of hand. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23: Yes, it has been trying. Even so, I think it was the catalyst that snapped me back into reality, as awful as it all was. My new outlook on things aside from the given of why collaboration is a necessity is to "Do no harm". Even when you're unaware that's what you're doing, doing harm to others in how you edit and conduct yourself is not okay. I appreciate the trust and the advice. Take care. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if it sounds bitter, but why you've been told to stay away from those articles that were created by Kbabej? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, my take on the strong suggestion is to check the motivation behind editing those particular articles. I think there are those who saw my involvement at those articles to be a form of vendetta, which is not the case. More along the lines of fixing some really bad choices on the indeffed editor's part (non-notable article subjects, really poor wording/bad writing style, unencyclopedic tone, unreliable references, etc). That particular editor, in short, left a long trail of mess behind him that didn't benefit the encyclopedia. I will say that, yes, I became fixated on fixing that mess, to the point of losing focus of what's important and what's not, and that's where the disruptive behavior and attitude came into play. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood. It is often disruptive to claim "4+4=8" if 2 people have disagreed with you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Indeed :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

• In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please be polite, kind, nice, gracious, gentle, lovely, patient, civil, and understanding. But mostly, please be polite. Thank you, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Anna, I think you are awesome. Probably one of the nicest and most patient administrators I've ever run into. I understand where you are coming from. But there are some editors who just live for drama and stirring up dust. Word17 is one of them. If he wants to play games and needle on user talk pages, whatever - the talk page "owner" can deal with it on their own if they wish. Doing it on article talk pages and cluttering them up with that kind of childishness is just not cool and clutters up discussions. He made it personal, I told him to knock it off. If anyone is pushing the envelope, it's him (and, frankly, I'm sick of seeing him get away with it). All that said, I appreciate your comments here and will take them under advisement. Thanks for the concern and taking the time,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

After more careful thought, I remembered: "No fighting with other editors" and "don't get sucked into the drama". Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Anna. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) And I know others can try your patience. My best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

{{maintained}} deleted

As you may or may not have had the opportunity to notice the TFD on the "maintained" template was closed as a delete. While I think the closing admin seemed to have rather superficially read the debate, I am not sure whether it would really be worth it to take it to deletion review. Suggestions? Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I did see it and also wondered how well the closing admin really looked at the discussion or just counted the deletes vs. keeps. Even if I hadn't been on the keep side, I would have seen a definite no consensus. I am completely unfamiliar with what to do from here -- if deletion review is a possible next step, I don't see why we shouldn't go there next. Or, as was suggested by the closing admin, maybe proposing a new template with the revised wording would be an alternative? It does seem to me, however, that if the latter were employed, we would be shredded by all the delete voters (who seemed to have more of an agenda than just deleting a template they didn't like). Given a choice, I'd go with deletion review. I think there were plenty of valid points presented in the keep arena, but the deletes pretty much had only one song they sang. In either case, please keep me in the loop, Daniel Case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 7 April 2015

Not to intrude, but the template has already been removed from the majority of the pages it was used on and the last few are being taken off now, thus making a deletion review somewhat pointless at this point... You can of course start one and see what happens, or do as the closing admin recommended. But currently, SporkBot (talk · contribs) is removing them per my bot request. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If its worth anything, I would be more than happy with a revised template that has maybe some stricter usage rules, and I'm sure some others who voted delete would agree. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm discussing this with the closing admin. I'm glad to see from your post above that you see how inane this was, since you didn't bother to defend his decision and his superficial reading of the discussion. When the template is restored we can go through SporkBot's edits and restore them. See you then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey now, let's not misinterpret what I said. I said a new template with new usage rules and a compete discard of the old one. I think you forget I nominated the template for deletion in the first place... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't forget; that's why I said what I did.

In any event, I would go along with rewriting the template if this had been a more carefully considered close. But well ... you went and mominated the template for deletion evne though you admitted that really wasn't the solution needed. So perhaps you can join us in petitioning Jc37 to change his mind? It would make rewriting the template a lot easier if we didn't have to start from scratch. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I see someone else took it up with him first. As Eordred has already noticed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walter O'Brien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company (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) 09:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

• Op-ed: We are drowning in promotional artspam

• News and notes: Advancement department to be created at the Foundation, milestone fixes

• In the media: Wikipedia on 60 Minutes, Kickstarter, and in the classroom

• Traffic report: Resurrection week

• Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity

• Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Winkelvi. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Mejor de... SELENA.
Message added 11:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A request to revisit the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Walter O'Brien

I would like to insist that you pay closer attention to your tone and treat other editors with respect. There is certainly some room for humor, but continuing to be sarcastic and scoffing to other editors is unproductive. It breeds a battleground mentality and is harmful to productive discussion. It also breaches Wikipedia's core principles, primarily Wikipedia:Civility and discourages other editors from participating. We need Wikipedia to be a welcome and open space, where controversial issues can be discussed in a calm and thoughtful manner.

I realize that you have been involved in the page for a good while and are probably very frustrated already. Just try to keep a cool head, please. CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The battleground mentality has been existent there for months, my comments won't foster any more, I assure you. Those two editors are determined to vacuum the article in such a manner that there will be nothing left. A response, I believe, to the article being denied for deletion a couple of months ago, I'm certain. They have been actively trashing it and O'Brien ever since. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome

I suppose now would be a good time to apologize for this? Funny place this ... someone you can be at total odds with one week is your closest ally the next.

I'm glad you noticed. I think at this point the DRV will be closed as endorse, as maybe it always would have been. Still, the process was available, and I took it as was my right. I'm ready to move on whatever happens next.

I suppose this all started back in January with that unpleasantness you were involved with on Talk:Meghan Trainor. A lot of those people, Coretheapple especially, were inolved there, and despite the fact that the proper solution (take the template off the page) was implemented, apparently they couldn't see that. They thought the problem was the template's very existence. Sort of like getting rid of all the pool halls because people sometimes get into fights in them. As if nothing else on Wikipedia had ever triggered an edit war.

Coretheapple seemed to imply he wanted to nominate the template for deletion right then and there, but was distracted. So, EoRdE6 decided to do it after another AN/I involving you last month. Trouble is, he probably presumed no one else would care, that it's 4,700 uses were mostly relics that should have been removed a long time ago. I don't think he even looked at the previous TfDs, or even knew they existed—his comments to me when I said he should have included them suggested as much.

Old debates are always relevant. On many occasions when I've nominated things for deletion, I've looked to see if there were past XfDs. They can tell you, per Opabina's Chesterton's fence link, why certain things were created and what the arguments for and against deletion were. I'm not saying EoRdE6 wouldn't or shouldn't have made the nomination if he had read them first. But if he had, he might have better understood what sort of arguments would be raised for keeping it—and who might make them. And thus he might have framed his nomination more carefully and in a way designed to provoke less rancor.

As it was, I think, what he and the other !voters assumed would be pretty much a slam dunk (and, it seems to me in retrospect, a blanket party with you as the guest of honor) went ass-upward (for them, anyway) when I showed up. They say I might have intimidated others from taking part by being so vehement—I would consider that experientially disproven. As for "intimidation", consider how the !vote looked as of my vote. 14 for delete versus 2 for keep. Does anyone deny that "early returns" like that can tend to discourage some people from voting in opposition to the apparently prevailing consensus, as surely (if not more so) then replying as aggressively as I did? Which I did not because I necessarily thought my responses alone could or would change the outcome, but because I wanted to open space for a keep !vote to emerge where all keep !voters would feel they had at least a chance to prevail, especially since none of the delete !voters cited any evidence for a claim that one would expect would come with evidence. In that aim, I think I succeeded.

So, bereft of the history that the Russian proverb bids us not forget, they were blindsided by the keep !vote that eventually emerged. Just as many of us !voting keep, as Stevietheman suggested, did not find out about the TfD until we came across the little text when looking at or maintaining talk pages. So we, too, felt blindsided (even me, and I was one of the first few keep !votes). With two sides feeling wronged asymmetrically by the other, due in no small part to a nominator's poor preparation, it is no surprise that it turned into the pileup it did.

They can (and will) say whatever they want about what my goals were. All I wanted was for many people who understood that this template and its use represented the very best of what makes us Wikipedians to feel comfortable having their say about keeping it.

Enough for now—it's getting late and I want to get back to working on content. I have some ideas for where we can go from here that I will let you (and the other sensible participants in that TfD) know of soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing yourself here, Daniel Case. I agree with you 100% on all the points you presented. People's ugly sides come out and their agendas become clear, I believe, in such discussions. It's sad to me to see how many editors really are here only for themselves and satisfying their need for whatever is missing in their lives. Usually is just comes down to power and control (of themselves and/or others). Give them a noticeboard, and they feel they have both. Personally, when I take a stand on something, it's always for what I believe is the right side of the argument. For the life of me, I will never understand why anyone would !Vote for something other than it being the best choice all around. And casting a !Vote for something because they are afraid it will do something it really has never done is insanity, in my opinion. But, it really wasn't about that, it was about an agenda to make a point as well as making points with other editors. Which, I'm finding, is the basis for a lot of things that go on here. Which is pretty weird, because editors are basing their actions on either hurting or pleasing people they've never met and likely never will. All so they can keep typing stuff into or taking stuff out of a website. Bizarre.

Don't worry about our previous exchanges in February. As far as I'm concerned, you have a Wikipedia friend for life. Anyone who sticks with something the way you did just because it's the right thing to do is a friend of mine. Take care, and do keep me in the loop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am grateful. Take this as a token of gratitude:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being the first to stand up for the values of Wikipedia in what was ultimately a losing battle, and sticking with them in the face of great opposition. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I humbly thank you, Daniel. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

page revert

Hello Winkelvi I did not understand what you meant by being disruptive by deleting a comment about me from another editor. This particular issue was resolved and had no relevance to the current time. Thanks

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

• News and notes: Erik Möller leaving Foundation; annual plan grants under community review

• In the media: Saving Wikipedia; Internet regulation; Thoreau quote hoax

• Blog: Single-User Login provides access to all wikis

• Traffic report: Furious domination

• Featured content: Au-delà de les Alpes, le chien lit de Sainte Bernard. Sous les pavés, les trimes d'argent! Mes enfants, suivez-moi!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs

Hi.If you look at the bottom of the article,Mr Jeffs is named as the incumbent president and prophet of the FLDS as of 2015.

   Adawablk (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)AdawablkAdawablk (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt Initials

• I'd contend that your edit, placing Theodore Roosevelt's initials farther into the text is an unnecessary edit. If you look at articles of fellow Presidents, FDR, JFK, and LBJ, as well as Senator RFK, you will see that in each case, reference to each's respective initials follows directly after name and lifespan. Such is the reason why I placed the initials TR where I did. I'll like to revert this edit to my placement, to keep consistency with other articles. Its placement further into the introduction of the article is distracting, if anything. I don't want to start an edit war, but I'd like to keep consistency, and I think I'm right on this subject. Spartan7W § 23:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, Spartan7W. I'm also not interested in edit warring over it. That said, your argument of other articles appearing as you edited it is really a non-starter. When you start saying "uniformity" because other articles are written a particular way when it comes to prose rather than MOS issues, it's really not a valid argument. Uniformity/consistency is more for sections, infoboxes, and the like. As far as presidential initials -- there's no standard or policy. Where you put "TR" initially (no pun intended!) I don't find where it is currently distracting in the least. In fact, where you placed it, I found quite distracting, hence the reason why I placed it elsewhere in the lead. As it is currently, it fits with the content on Roosevelt's personality, and how he was seen by those who knew him - most likely folk who actually called him "TR". So, that's my rationale -- mostly out of common sense. My suggestion is this: if you are still inclined to move it where you put it earlier today, my suggestion is to take the concern to the talk page of the article so others can weigh in as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd incline to say that your placement, putting the fact he was commonly called TR before descriptions of his personality, is inconsistent with the information. The fact he was referred to by his initials, just as Kennedy, Johnson, and others were, has nothing to do with his personality. Including, for instance, his distaste for the nickname Teddy in that line would point to his character and personality more effectively. Spartan7W § 01:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. He was called TR long before he was president. I dare say neither of the Kennedy brothers were called by their initials before John Kennedy's presidency beginning in 1961. Indeed, he was known as "Jack" by family, friends, and even the voting public (see the following video for evidence of such [15] - Frank Sinatra singing the campaign theme song where he is referred to as 'Jack'; campaign signs referred to him as John F. Kennedy or Kennedy). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

Winkelvi, I would like to respectfully ask that you not continue to dredge up every conflict with MaranoFan on my talk page. It only leads to a large amount of arguments and discussions that should really be taking place in more community-centric venues such as ANI and article/project talk pages. Ping me in those discussions if you want my involvement or comments. Thanks. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I came to you today only because the last couple of communications between you and MF seemed be setting you up as a sort of mentor. In the future, I'll leave you out of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I would mentor MF, but I don't have the energy to play babysitter for someone who just doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. I watch his/her edits closely because they've been a troublesome editor for awhile. You can involve me if you want, and I ask that you continue to. The sooner this problem gets resolved – whether that's by MF finally learning or getting site banned – the better, and I'd love to be a part of that resolution. You just don't need to come to my talk page every time there's an issue. That's all, and I hope you don't think my last message was rude. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)