User talk:Philip Trueman

961:: "If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.". Your edit did not follow that guideline. As I'm sure you know, the standard on Knowledge is not truth, but verifiability. Whether or not Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist is irrelevant; what matters is that you did not provide a citation of a verifiable source. This is the fundamental difference between your edit and the use of the word "terrorist" on the 2201:

an article has been written from a neutral point of view is whether you can read it and not be able to tell which side of the argument the author is on. Slightly more personally, I think that your refusal to accept that there is another point of view is an image of why the conflict is proving impossible to resolve. That's a fault that exists on both sides, of course. I have visited both Israel and the West Bank. I have spent money in both places. I have met Israelis (Jews and Arabs, including both Muslim and Christian Arabs), and Palestinians, in the country they all call home. It's a great country and I hope to go back there some day and see more of it and meet more of the people. I wish the conflict could be resolved. It won't be resolved by failing to listen.

3674:

Wiki page that can be accessed when people Google him. His frequent role as a keynote speaker at industry conferences and events drives a lot of people, who may have been unfamiliar with him, to find out more about who is. Since someone's Wiki identity hovers at the front end of any search, it's important to him to either not have a page at all or have one that is an accurate representation of him. How is that supposed to occur if you only allow people with no connection to him to post information about him? Who in the world would randomly create a page about him...and with what resources? They have no access to his published works, industry interviews, and biographical data. Now I have to wade around in the COI area to get some kind of resolution?

5272: 2216:

obligations under international law, there are only a handful of countries that are blocking a peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem, every year the UN General Assembly votes for a resolution on "Peaceful settlement of the Palestine Question" and the vote is 150+ countries on one side and US, Israel and recently Canada, Australia and some small Pacific Islands on the other side, I hope you would push Israel to join the world consensus and either accept a settlement that is being offered for decades or give equal rights to all people regardless of their religion. It won't be resolve by failing to listen and getting the US to veto all resolutions that ask Israel to follow the international law.

3693:

They can't - Knowledge is drawn from published, reliable, non-copyrighted sources. If those sources don't exist, then there won't be an article. If the sources exist but the subject isn't notable, then there won't be an article. No-one has the right to a Knowledge article about themselves, anymore than they have a right to an Encyclopedia Britannica article about themselves, no matter how important it may be to them to have one. If your boss wants a biography he controls on the Internet then he can put it on a networking site or even create his own website, but Knowledge is something different - it's an encyclopaedia, and we have rules here.

4117:. Now to the other: sorry that I was to short. The question is not if he is a baritone, yes or no, but if I can say that the article might be improved by an infobox, yes or no. I said yes. Nikkimaria said no, which makes no sense because it's the default anyway. So I agree, someone wanted to make a point. The parameter "needs_infobox" is translated to a very polite request, "An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article." (see the "tale of the ironing lady" on my talk). I wanted to make the point of showing you how welcome such a polite request is when it comes to opera singers. 1011:, which starts: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Knowledge, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length ...". Well, you've been warned. I'm quite sure that you have the knowledge and the desire and the energy to contribute positively to Knowledge, but please do so within the rules. Best wishes. 5516: 4864: 2749: 2432: 3722:. The first revert was of an edit that was pretty close to pure vandalism (of an article); the second undid discussion that (you admit) did not belong in an article, and also undid your deletion of a validly-cited reference. Please don't do that - pushing your own point of view by deleting references to authorities you disagree with isn't the way to build an encyclopedia, and may well get you blocked. I'm tempted to suggest that you might also wish to change your username, but there doesn't seem to be much point. 5242: 4165: 5769: 3872: 3553: 3504: 2639: 2893: 3842: 3470: 2844: 2101: 1840: 1734: 1231: 833: 471: 227: 5573: 4182: 22: 413:. The usual practice, in the case of a school (which this probably is), is to increase the block lengths up to a maximum of one year, reinstating them each year if subsequent contributions are only vandalism, and to use soft blocks (i.e. not to disrupt registered users logging in on that IP address). I'll keep the article on my watchlist, and check the IP's contributions occasionally, but it looks to me like whoever it was has got bored and gone to do something else. 5132: 5453: 68: 3092: 2394: 5688: 4803: 5870: 5826: 4871: 5853: 5806: 5736: 5703: 5619: 5491: 5226: 5197: 3010: 1663: 2715: 5071: 4273:

I'm not ambitious for the bit: it would make what I do more varied, since I would be happy to take my turn handling routine requests at AIV, UAA and RFPP, and save me the frustration of having to make such requests instead of being able to take the required action myself, but that's about it. On the other hand, I have no objection to having my name put forward. Perhaps Happy Attack Dog has something to say on the matter?

1268: 5819: 2931: 3334: 5294: 2314: 4378:"How am I still newbie?" Because you've only been here three and a half months; because while you have 800+ edits most of those have been simple vandalism reverts using an automated tool -- useful work, but not something that really teaches you much about the ins and outs of the place; because your "look and feel" is clearly that of a newbie; and because you continue to act like a newbie. 3121: 2544: 2966: 4312:

applied for rollback. That doesn't mean I agree, it means I recognize that there are some people who think that way, and I suggest that you should recognize it too, or you may find your own well-intentioned efforts in the RFA arena backfiring. I'm not in a position to comment on the 'thin ice' suggestion, so I won't, though it's a shame BMK did not provide a link.

3444: 5398: 4023:

connected-up to categorisation - to pick up on one of your examples, Gabriele Schnaut is currently categorised as a soprano but not as a mezzo-soprano); draws attention to the editor to the need to document the relevant attribute; and, quite possibly, draws attention to the editor that, if the attributes don't fit, that he may in fact be using an unsuitable .

5171:, and blogs are not reliable sources. I do not understand what you mean by "taking my user name on public (talk page) and using terms that harms my reputations". If you think I have done that, please supply a diff. If you think someone else has done that, you should talk with them, not me. And please sign your talk page contributions in future. 2919: 1182: 3068:. Of course there's no problem with you removing defamatory material from the article, but beyond that I hope you realise that you are not the best person to edit it. If you are right, then MrJacksonThomas also has a conflict of interest. Please tread carefully, both of you, or you may, ultimately, find yourselves topic-banned. 1391:, eight edits and over a month earlier, which added the vandalism you refer to. So I think we're both right. I think it's a counsel of perfection to say that everything should be right when you save an edit - the purpose of edits is to improve Knowledge, not to make it perfect. Provided that every edit improves Knowledge (see 3350: 3157: 2528: 1944: 1471: 501: 111: 578:

section does not make it a bad edit; the fact that an edit reverses the blanking of a section does not make it a good edit. I've reverted the article back to the last good version I can see, but if you can see some vandalism remaining, please remove it. I don't see that rollback would have helped here -

4499:

At a glance, you seem to have more than adequate tenure and experience for the job. When the time comes, there are a number of fine, experienced people that would be happy to first offer a proper review and then nomination. Ken is correct that you are best served by someone who is very familiar with

4272:

Hmm. Tricky. I take your point; it hadn't occurred to me and perhaps it should have done. I tend not to follow the discussions on RFA nowadays; I used to once, but I was turned off my the cliquey discussions that seemed to centre on anything but "would this be in the best interest of Knowledge?".

3915:

Ah! I understand. I'll leave it - I have other battles to fight. I did prom last season, but only at weekends except for a few special nights (e.g. the Glyndebourne Prom, which I always make an effort for). I did get to Parsifal, Tannhäuser and Götterdämmerung. Since February 2012 I've had a new

3781:

After the libel action Irving did re-release his book with "corrections"; presumably it's the corrected version that is now being made available. I'm not aware that his book is regarded as an unreliable source, but I made the edit I did because it was being recommended for further reading. Broome's

3692:

Let me deal with the easy bit first. If an article that is a biography of a living person contains something defamatory then anyone can remove that something - even the subject of the article can do so. No question. The trouble comes when people want to control what is in the articles about them.

3673:

Thank you for your reply. I find myself regretting my honesty about my connection to Dr. Tippett. I mistakenly assumed that my connection to him made me a MORE credible source for the right information about him, not less so. Dr. Tippett has no desire to puff himself up but to simply have a credible

2406:

I have answered this before. In the first place, the aim of the game is to protect the encyclopedia, not to get people blocked. It isn't compulsory to warn; sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I have issued thousands of warnings. In general I make a judgement about how determined the vandal is.

2200:

I think the fact that you call them "Israeli-occupation related articles" not "Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles" is enough to indicate that you are the one who is not adopting a neutral point of view. Try thinking about this: It has been said (on Knowledge) that the best test of whether

743:

Please - call me Philip. Rollback does not work if you need to revert the work of more than one editor, and Undo is slow because you need to do as many Undos as there are bad edits. What I tend to do in those cases is to bring up the article history, and then mouse-over the 'diff' links, looking at

3424:

Then I'm not sure I can help much. I have seen stuff on the Internet about the hoops that need to be jumped through to enable/disable JavaScript in Firefox - you might search for that. AVT and PILT have diverged significantly in some respects; it's possible AVT has something to get round this that

3022:

Thanks for your message Philip. I hear and share your concerns. Given we are a nonprofit and work for investors and market participants, we would like to get basic facts out there and then let the wiki world add more context. Would i be able to send you something for review? I was thinking something

2242:

Again, please do not revert it to Israeli POV, Gush Etzion is a settlement and like all other settlements in the occupied territories (UN term, non-POV term), it is a major violation of international law, it's illegal under UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. If

3631:

Because you are in breach of Knowledge policies. The article is about the bombing of Dresden, not about German war crimes or anything else. If you wish to contribute to Knowledge, please do so constructively. By the way, my father was a Lancaster bomber pilot during that war, and was awarded the

2019:

for it to be semi-protected for a while, but it takes a fair amount of vandalism to justify that. Finally, I can't help noticing that if you've had the article ready to go for a couple of months, and the game has only just been announced, then you must have some inside knowledge, in which case you

4363:

Oh, you asked "How have I skated on hin ce?" By getting yourself involved in things you have neither the experience or competence to do, such as nominating other editors to be admins, or calling for topic ban votes on AN/I. You simply don't know enough about this place, and your inexperience is

4311:

Please be calm about this, Happy Attack Dog. It's not about how things are, it's about how they may seem, rightly or wrongly, to some people who participate in RFA. They may well regard an editor with fewer than 1000 edits as a newbie. I can sort of relate to that - I'd made over 3000 before I

4022:

Well, no. For every reason for a person to be notable there will be some attributes that are relevant to the reason for their notability, and many that are not. Having those as parameters to the relevant does three things: documents relevant information in a orderly way (and one which might be

3807:

Also, I’ve had a look at the linked page; it turns out it’s Irving’s “International Campaign for Real History” (which seems like a contradiction in terms!); and it is the uncorrected 1968 edition he’s offering, together with a new (2009) edition, which has “other new material” added, and “the few

2185:

If a consensus on wikipedia says that the earth is flat, you would not add that to wikipedia articles if the majority of experts disagree with that. If you are too close to the Israeli government narrative, it's best not to edit Israeli-occupation related articles. It is called occupation under

577:

You made the edit I referred to - no-one else - and it looked like vandalism to me. What you did was to reverse the deletion of a bad section that had become bad through previous vandalism by someone else again, but I don't see that that makes yours a good edit. The fact that an edit blanks a

4635:

As for formatting (templates exist for a reason), what I consider sensible response could be template-yfing the revision. Hindsight notwithstanding, was not reasonable to consider the change with information at that point. Consider changing your judgement as by brief skimming, this talk page's

2215:

It is an occupation as agreed by UN and International Court of Justice. Nazi occupation of Poland was an occupation, not a conflict. US occupation of Iraq is not a conflict, it's called occupation. I wish you would call it an occupation as well and play a role in asking Israel to fulfill its

1804:, which I am still developing, and which I may, in the fullness of time, modify to auto-warn. That does mean that the balance of effort between reverting and warning is shifted - it's a lot more effort to warn than revert. I'm going to ignore your sentence starting "Finally, ", following 994:. Please understand - all you have to do is find such a reliable source for your claim about the JDL, or Goldstein, or whatever. The article on Goldstein is littered with citations already. All you have to do is to ensure that any changes you make are supported in the same way. 2127:

Please be very careful when editing articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arbitration Committee has authorised special sanctions for those working in this field who do not abide by the principles of Knowledge. You could find yourself blocked very quickly.

4254:@Philip Trueman: Happy Attack Dog is an account that's been here for 3 months, and has 811 edit. In some RfA discussions, the qualifications of the nominator can more as much of issue as the qualifications of the nominee. For a very recent example, I suggest that you look at 1799:

I know, I know, I know. Firstly, I'd point out that it's not compulsory to leave a warning. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, usually depending on the severity and intensity of the attack. Secondly, I don't, and won't, use Huggle - this is a personal decision. I use

4620:

You are confusing 'baseless' with 'unexplained'. I was justified in reverting your bad edit - it was, in my view, borderline vandalism (although I now realise that it was merely beginner's incompetence). Would you still like a warning for your unconstructive edit?

1125:". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl." 5317: 1096:

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the

2142:

It appears that the wikipedia entry was non-NPOV and I changed it to a balanced view as agreed by the international community. Please be very careful about Israeli-occupation related articles, you should not repeat Israeli narrative on wikipedia verbatim.

1808:, but I'd like you to know that I don't like the implication - please look down each and every one of my contributions to AIV and tell me where an admin declined my report on the grounds that the vandal had been insufficiently warned. Best wishes. 971:

I think it would be helpful if you accepted that you made a mistake, and that you have not understood the guideline. If you do not, then I will have to assume that you believe you should be free to ignore the guideline when it doesn't suit you.

3391:- very similar but with some differences. My guess is that you could certainly install both, and then you would get two sets of additional links in the toolbox with no obvious way to tell which was which. What is it you actually want to do? 1443: 5529:

Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting

1138:. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but on 2054:. However, you will find that my considerable amount of contributions to the DotA page are all reverting vandalism and opinionated statements. I want to see good quality pages, whether they discuss topics I like or dislike. I did review 5399:

You fascinate me: I've done some computer programming but that was in the 1960s when I had to write in machine code - main claim to fame - roads and bridges horizontal and vertical alignment design programmes using continuously curved

2803:

I only did some technical image file manipulations; the content of the image is from West Point. I could do such a fix, but I wouldn't really give it a high priority, and a lot of other people could fix it as well as I could...

4456:@BMK, Why do you seem to Be following Me Around? Whenever I Do something Bold, You always seem to Comment. Also, I am affected by A love for the Shift Key, but I did not know that others Cared About When I use Capital Letters. 557:

Yes I was undoing and then undoing then comparing the last stable version and correcting problems/errors. I was saving the edit when I had edit conflict. It took me a few minutes. If I had rollback I would have just done that.

4760:

I gave the link to HostDude because it has the links to all sources at one place. Please check the page. If you would like then I may add the media references individually. Moreover the article in Times of India will satisfy

4688:

I'm not convinced that coverage in reliable sources is enough to establish notability, so a claim to be covered in reliable sources doesn't constitute a claim to notability. But right now I can't spare the time to argue.

3963:

Please can we take this conversation offline? It's getting too public. My Wiki account is enabled for e-mail. Some reference to the names of our office-mates when we worked adjacently would be good proof of identity.

5533:

Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:

865: 3782:

own book "Convoy is to scatter", which has many direct quotes of the actual signals exchanged at the time, would be a far better recommendation - primary sources are fine as recommended further reading, of course.

1409:

Agreed. It's nice to see that it is possible to have a constructive conversation with someone on the Internet. I've had quite a few problems with people who prefer threats and cussing over civil arguments. Thanks,

4500:

the process and can help along the way. Adminship requires some sacrifice but if you enjoy helping others and like new challenges, it has its rewards as well. If I can help, feel free to ping me on my talk page.

336:

only if it's really serious (as opposed to persistent). If there's nothing before next month and then it's only mild, I'd go back to level 2 - with an IP there's no certainty it's the same individual - let's not

5470:

Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 522 editors have been able to accomplish. The Knowledge Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

4650:

No, it isn't. It's littered with complaints about good reverts that the reverted editor didn't like. And please don't expect other people to correct your bad edits - you should write good edits to begin with.

4082:

right to make the edit - based, possibly, on an automated trawl of the encyclopedia? Or what? I'm sorry, but I am left feeling that you are trying to make a point, and that I simply have no idea what it is.

3407:

One thing to try is to change your browser mode. If you're using IE10, hit PF12, and change the Browser Mode from IE10 to IE9. It's something to do with the browser's security settings not liking JavaScript.

965:

page. Please read that page again and tell me where the word is used without a citation to back it up. Even if you can find one, that does not make your edit right, it only makes the Osama bin Laden page

744:

the differences popups shows me, until I find an editor whose last edit was constructive. Then I click on the 'rv' link in the popups menu, which replaces the whole article with that version. Clear now?

5003: 2171:

A neutral point of view is what the international community agrees with, you are reverting it to Israeli narrative and you are claiming the Israeli narrative to be NPOV. Discuss if you believe otherwise.

4979:

I think that the original bad change has now been rolled back further, and I have reverted some unsuccessful experimental changes to PILT I made in an attempt to fix the breakage, so we are back to the

1353:

by you showed up in my anti-vandalism tool, and I stand by that decision - see the non-English about line 40 in the wikitext of your version. I can see now what you were trying to do, but please read

4984:. Please try again and tell me if it works for you. I expect there'll be some work to do on this in the future to cope with changes to the API. Many thanks for all your help and support in this. 676:

OK, thanks - I'll check it out. I'd been meaning to get round to it when I get round to getting a new PC, but the thought of going through all that hassle again is a real put-off! Wish me luck! --

4187:

Sorry. I was logged in on my PC and my daughter did something to the Poodle page. Although she has been told not to edit Knowledge, even under her own name- she is eleven- she was experimenting.

1008: 2243:

you believe that "illegal" and "occupation" are not accurate terms under international law, provide a source for your claim and we can talk about it, otherwise do not revert it to Israeli POV.

4944:

Looks like the patch they made restored the generic LAVT rollback functionality. PILT's fast rollback would need a patch, but I don't know what the scriptpath update it is at the moment —

2624: 4078:

I feel I simply do not understand the point you are trying to make. Is the subject of the article a baritone or not? That can surely be resolved by reference to reliable sources. Was

5781:

Through long and frequent activity for the betterment of the site, I bestow upon you a Barnstar of Diligence. Keep up the excellent work and make sure to put that Degree to good use.

2303: 2015:) that the vandal is using a range of IPs, and vandalism has to be really serious to justify a range block. If the article attracts vandalism from multiple IPs then you could ask at 215: 5167:

I do not understand the point you are making. One thing that I do understand is that you have not been following Knowledge guidelines. Additions to articles should be supported by

1143:

However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are:

1357:. If you want to undo several vandalism edits, and you don't have access to the more sophisticated tools, it's usually best to find the last good version, and edit and save that. 5749: 5716: 5632: 4606:

The matter's baseless reverting. Provide a basis if/when reverting. The "warning" mention motivates this clarification. Your actions require as much basis as that of other users.

3328: 5677: 5404: 2407:

A random scribble to a school page by an IP is less likely to get a warning than some serious BLP defamation by a registered user. To some extent this choice is driven by

4660: 4645: 4630: 4615: 4601: 2896:

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the

1003:

As I'm sure you realise, there have been many editing disputes around articles involving Israel and Palestine. If you haven't done so already, may I suggest that you read

902:

Using the phrase "dumb ass" to describe someone is not rectification of anything - it is vandalism. And not being good at English is no excuse either - I suggest you read

5377: 4637: 4607: 1004: 4421: 3023:

along the lines of the FINRA and SEC entries, and leaving a full section for "Criticism". In short, we'd like to augment the entry, not remove what's there. Thoughts?

277:

by you. If you think that's a model of how to point out that the article is plagiarised, think again. If you want to do it properly you might want to investigate the

2978:

Philip Trueman. I am not versant in Talk and would like to discuss how to suggest edits. You contacted a colleage. I'm on Wiki as davidthomasatiiroc. Thanks so much.

5524: 359:

You raise good points that I will endeavor to remember. To a certain degree, I am still a tyro at this. However, with this particular IP, there are no edits that are

4429: 3198: 1651: 864: 3886:

I figured I'd give you this barnstar before I forget to, seeing that your contributions are excellent and have made more than just a small difference to Knowledge.

2503:. If the relationship is significant in her personal or professional life then that could justify a paragraph on him in the article on her, but not a new article. 2463:

I always revert discriminately. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary, and a spell-checker. And just what did you expect me to do about a change that introduced a

3934:

I'm glad to hear that you've got a good job, but yes Romsey to Kensington for 6.40 or 7.10 isn't going to be easy. Are you still living on the Greenhill estate?

5392: 4408:

Sorry to butt in here, I followed this from ANI then to HAD's talk page, then to here. @Philip Trueman, before you accept you might want to read (several times)

1445: 3808:

words held to be libellous” removed. So, no hint of an apology for lying, or even an acknowledgement of it; just a ploy to re-publish the same misleading stuff.

2028:. No-one will mind you reverting vandalism on that page, but I wonder whether you are the best person, from Knowledge's point of view, to contribute content. 2698: 1958:

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue - in the meantime, have a barnstar to soothe the pain of vandal-hunting. We really do appreciate it.

5786: 2900: 4930:

Thanks for the heads-up. Something like this has happened before, more than once. I'll keep an eye on it but I can't promise any PILT development effort.

2292: 2790: 1090: 3052:'s edits for being unsourced, rather than anything else. If, as you suggest, he is not acting in good faith and you are, then I suggest you follow the 1160: 1691: 1671:

There is no verifiability, its all original research and its not a notable product. Find at least one neutral review, or really this article should go.

1285: 5383:

How about "Your edit was unreferenced nonsense"? BTW, I would expect someone with Asperger's to be more careful about spelling someone's name right.

4343: 4321: 4306: 1914: 4792: 4738:. If this person really is notable then there would be a Knowledge article about him (which would have to satisfy the criteria for notability - see 4471: 4433: 4267: 3675: 3320: 1897: 4516: 3925: 2583: 981: 612:

has been through some rough times recently. You may be able to check it makes sense, I can't work it out. I noticed in that you had fixed it before.

605: 591: 567: 296: 5782: 5427: 4698: 4641: 4611: 4547: 4282: 4242: 3278: 2482: 1420: 1404: 1328: 697: 159: 74: 4993: 4967: 4939: 4719: 4534: 4387: 4373: 4360:

be capitalized. If you come to a word, and wonder whether it should be capitalized or not, the chances are that it shouldn't be, so don't do it.

4137: 4092: 4073: 4054: 4032: 3973: 3949: 3641: 3228: 2270: 2252: 2225: 2210: 2152: 1817: 1366: 1020: 778: 753: 452: 422: 396: 350: 5186: 5114: 5055: 4424:. The worst thing that can happen to a long-time user is a misguided RfA attempt. Please be sure all of your ducks are in row first. Rgrds. -- 3434: 3417: 3400: 2467: 1278: 1077: 1052: 648:

Because I s'pose it means downloading something, however small, & the PC I'm working out of is at the very limit of its capacity... Cheers!--

624: 4774: 4751: 4221: 3702: 3249: 2950: 2512: 2195: 2180: 2166: 2086: 2037: 915: 809: 5672: 5433: 5271: 3539: 1629: 1601: 1592:

Wow, awesome work there. Yeah, Huggle for me is not as reliable as Lupin, but it's also interesting to see that new tools are being developed.

1284:

Thanks for the reply, Philip. Sorry to hear that life is making a lot of demands on you at present. I hope that things calm down before long.--

685: 671: 657: 643: 3731: 3602: 3450: 2556: 1988: 1293: 367:. I am not entirely certain that dealing with such an IP agressively — vis-à-vis vandalism and subsequent blocking as punishment — amounts to 5360: 4412:. Also, if your contributions put you anywhere other than the no-brainer support in the RfA, then you may want to consider a co-nominator. 3758: 3077: 2904: 1772: 4851: 3820: 3791: 3683: 3575: 2420: 1875: 5659: 5650:

Granted. When you added the link to "mmmuffins" that showed up as a redlink, but I now see that that was wrong. I've reverted my revert.

5180: 4681: 4679: 4227: 3743:

Ok, thanks for the clarification. So I get you right I can repeat all my edits with the exception of the one with the "t word", can't I? --

4911: 3752: 2606: 1645: 5726: 5693: 5086: 2824: 268: 4578: 5667: 5609: 5483: 5218: 5035: 3623: 2564: 2012:

and an admin will decide whether to block him for a while. I have my doubts whether that would help much - there's some evidence (see

3032: 2813: 4409: 3855: 3487: 2861: 2692: 2670: 2664: 2518: 2114: 1853: 1747: 1255: 1248: 850: 484: 240: 3531: 2329:

to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Knowledge articles, and

4830: 3613: 3269:. I will choose to ignore " .. please try not to do anything of this nature in the future." rather than interpret it as a threat. 2897: 795:

Well, I did it! I used popups to revert a heavily vandalized article back to the last clean version I could find. Thank you Philip

546: 3848: 3841: 3138: 275: 5284: 5061: 4899: 2795: 5153: 4258:. My advice would be not to accept the nomination of Happy Attack Dog, a newbie who himself has skated on some thin ice. Best, 2062:

and after consideration, I still think that I have made invaluable edits that won't jeopardize my integrity as a contributor to

5845: 5798: 5208: 4857: 4818: 4511: 4255: 3667: 1057:

Yeap, that is who I meant. Sorry about that, must have opened you in another tab by accident and never noticed the difference.

4825: 4564: 3180: 2777: 2731: 5790: 5591: 307: 5555: 4212:

Went ahead and made the move. Was only correcting the all-caps to traditional spelling. The actual spelling did not change.

2457: 2137: 1244: 712:

If you wouldn’t mind, could I ask you for a quick primer on using Popups for reverting vandalism? I read the documention at

5478: 4921: 4197: 2364: 871: 376: 1126: 1123:

significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph

4906: 4555:

Not long after the protection was lifted, the exact same slander edit was added back again, this time by ‎83.237.192.131

4425: 4151: 3662: 3289: 2987: 1682:

Please look again. The edit I reverted included a change from "World Expo" to "expoo". That's vandalism. Best wishes.

1417: 3901: 3801: 2004:

can't take any action, becaue I don't have admin rights. If that IP persists in vandalising, despite being warned (see

1962: 533: 5812: 5020: 4962: 3941: 3373: 3193: 3099: 2857: 2244: 2217: 2187: 2172: 2158: 2144: 410: 380: 4060: 2761:

You always seem to surprise me with the amount of work you put into this website, for this, I give you this barnstar!

2382: 1587: 5353: 3206: 2873: 2298: 1754: 1636:

I wasn't sure if such an error should be reverted or simply corrected or if it even makes a difference. Thanks anyway

1526: 1350:

Thanks for pointing this out. I've done what I can to clean things up. I hit the 'revert' button because this edit

1071: 138: 2157:

Please refrain from reverting the edits back to Israeli POV narrative before you show which edit of mine was biased.

1979:. I was reverting obvious vandalism, not correcting every single error on the page. You have a problem with that? 1144: 5509: 5313: 4831: 4233:

Because you added a redlink to the list of notable people. If she's notable enough, she should have an article ..

3763: 3649: 2121: 2082: 1151:. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated. I am not stressing weather you should oppose/support either of these. 541: 1148: 5310: 5026:

Irrelevancy; and two thirds of what you added was unsourced. And it's rude not to sign your posts on talk pages.

3654: 2796: 2348:, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please 1208: 846: 384: 364: 5558:

and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

3916:

job Romsey; great fun but not best placed for promming, so getting to a Prom after work is close to impossible.

5203: 4900: 4114: 3147: 2819: 2443: 2388: 1970: 1828: 1793: 1560: 1273: 133: 125:

Even though you have so many already... For beating me to the revert button so many times you deserve another!

5599: 2943:

No problem at all! Mistakes happen. I just wanted to let you know in case some tool needed an error report. -

1721: 1508: 5759: 5122: 4782: 4248: 3862: 3494: 3483: 3476: 3469: 3000: 2739: 2686: 2658: 1531: 1299: 1237: 1230: 4348:@HAD: Here's a tip for you: In English, only words at the beginning of sentences and proper nouns (that is 5563: 5537:

When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?

5346: 4891: 3737: 3618: 3238: 3028: 2983: 2360: 1934: 1881: 1656: 1351: 1198:

for his tireless and endless work on the laborious task of reverting the vandalism of Knowledge articles.

4734:. HostDude isn't a reliable source. Secondly, claims of notability of alumni need to be supported - see 341:. But ultimately these things come down to judgement and there's not necessarily only one right answer. 4674: 3110: 2629: 1833: 1763:

You're welcome. I don't bother with the userbox myself - I think it just encourages them. Best wishes.

1652: 1498: 857: 596:

I will leave vandal patrol to other people in future. As I said, I was trying to repair the vandalism. --

526: 247: 180: 3797: 3720: 3717: 3257: 2411:; it's a lot quicker to revert than to warn. (And no, I have no intention of switching to e.g. Huggle). 5679: 5232: 5161: 4813: 4586: 4464: 4336: 4299: 4125: 3990: 3897: 3524: 1389: 1386: 2597:

oops! I do tend to steer keep clear of Services article's as you can see!! Thanks for letting me know

766:

Yes, very! The only problem is having to deal with the annoyance that is Popups when one is not doing

613: 5582:

happened, but it is repaired now. Since your post was "Eh?", I thought Canadian beer appropriate B^)

5213: 4045:

Thank you, added the categories. Good thoughts, will happily use a specialised one once we get it. --

3294: 2925: 2720:

Hello Philip Trueman, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian,

2705: 2614: 2589: 2094: 1909: 1892: 1788: 1309: 263: 573: 5335: 4787: 4476:

Following you around? Why, what other pages besides this one and AN/I have we both edited lately?

4420:

if you think it is in Mr. Trueman's best interest, then you may want to enlist a co-nominator; see

3909: 3456: 3299: 2850: 2843: 2726: 2680: 2652: 2552: 2488: 2408: 1994: 1801: 1778: 1575: 1217: 609: 601: 563: 330: 5443: 5406: 5264: 4383: 4369: 4263: 4193: 4172: 3425:

I haven't folded back into PILT. I'll take a look sometime but I can't promise it will be soon.

3024: 2979: 2289: 2261:. Beyond that, I've nothing more to say to you until you can convince me that you're listening. 2107: 2100: 2047: 1740: 1733: 1414: 1156: 1028: 821: 4008: 165: 5149: 4955: 4542: 4507: 4217: 4133: 4069: 4050: 3945: 3340: 2995: 2947: 2868: 2500: 2326: 2280: 2248: 2221: 2191: 2176: 2162: 2148: 1860: 1204: 1167: 881: 839: 832: 800: 771: 733: 516: 448: 392: 320: 101: 3997: 5082: 5011: 4714: 4458: 4415: 4330: 4293: 3983: 3588: 3583: 3518: 3447: 3134: 3128: 2308: 1532: 1372: 1334: 1289: 1066: 951: 931: 477: 470: 5587: 5502: 4847: 4770: 4206: 3937: 3773: 3679: 3594:

Alright. I'm now officially stalking you and warning every user that you refuse to warn :P

3369: 3266: 3245: 3049: 2770: 2426: 2378: 2078: 1906: 1889: 1504: 1456: 1040: 903: 308: 148: 1783: 8: 5651: 5419: 5384: 5172: 5106: 5047: 5027: 4985: 4931: 4916: 4743: 4724: 4690: 4652: 4622: 4593: 4526: 4313: 4274: 4234: 4084: 4024: 3965: 3917: 3783: 3748: 3723: 3694: 3633: 3426: 3409: 3392: 3312: 3270: 3220: 3176: 3069: 3040: 2913: 2832: 2826: 2721: 2602: 2575: 2548: 2504: 2474: 2412: 2367: 2338: 2262: 2202: 2129: 2029: 1980: 1867: 1809: 1764: 1713: 1683: 1641: 1621: 1597: 1579: 1552: 1396: 1358: 1320: 1135: 1106: 1044: 1012: 973: 958: 907: 858: 745: 681: 663: 653: 635: 597: 583: 559: 414: 342: 288: 233: 226: 190: 151: 5546:

What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?

443:

informative. Each of your responses has taught me something new. Thank you very much! —

5864: 5642: 4574: 4560: 4525:

Thanks for this. Right now, I really do want to put the idea to one side for a while.

4379: 4365: 4288: 4259: 4189: 3835: 3463: 3200: 2937: 2837: 2809: 1823: 1461: 1438: 1411: 1339: 1224: 1152: 946: 826: 721: 464: 205: 5497: 2748: 2013: 5859: 5743: 5710: 5626: 5187: 5145: 4974: 4945: 4819: 4704: 4501: 4213: 4129: 4065: 4046: 3571: 3258: 3234: 2944: 2449: 2349: 2322: 2278: 1976: 1846: 1839: 1676: 1538: 1433: 1392: 1388:, which I hope we can agree reverted vandalism. There was a previous edit, this one 1354: 1200: 891: 729: 522: 515:

For beating me so many times to the scooping of "poo" that is cleaning up vandalism.

444: 388: 210: 185: 2499:

The basic rule in such cases is that "Relationships do not confer notability". See

5100: 5078: 5042:"Unsourced" matters here. Maybe not in your world, but it does here. Please read 4863: 4808: 4762: 4735: 4730:

Two main reasons: Firstly, edits need to be verifiable from reliable sources - see

4709: 4156: 4001: 3828: 3816: 3595: 3457: 3188: 3104: 3100: 2956: 2493: 2400: 2330: 2258: 1697: 1521: 1516: 1218: 1061: 1033: 921: 876: 717: 713: 698: 551: 491: 281: 220: 195: 4422:

Knowledge:Request an RfA nomination#Editors willing to be asked to nominate a user

2619: 2431: 1181: 662:

No, it doesn't. It just means you get some extra links showing on certain pages.

5583: 5515: 4843: 4766: 4079: 3710: 3365: 3241: 2878: 2764: 2651:

Really appreciating the great anti-vandalism efforts, keep up the fabulous work!

2374: 2345: 2334: 2067: 1620:

I was fast asleep when that was made. Looks like some other IP has reverted it.

1494: 1260: 962: 926: 302: 4164: 936: 5604: 4922: 4794: 4012: 3893: 3744: 3608: 3208: 3172: 3061: 2883: 2598: 2439: 2016: 2005: 1637: 1593: 1377: 1344: 1316: 1304: 1172: 1102: 1085: 990:

The word 'terrorist' is on that page because it is backed up by citations from

896: 725: 702: 677: 649: 372: 368: 338: 170: 47: 5768: 5241: 3871: 3552: 3503: 2892: 2638: 2574:), then it doesn't belong on Knowledge. Somewhere else, maybe, but not here. 2288:

Whoops...now I feel really dumb. I meant to post this on someone else's page!

1866:

Thanks for the offer, but don't bother. I'm sure you've better things to do.

43: 5572: 4570: 4556: 4181: 3388: 3065: 2805: 2679:

Also, do you use a certain set of tools to help with your AV duties? Thanks,

2059: 2055: 2025: 2021: 2009: 1929: 1805: 1609: 1449: 1428: 1256: 1119:

Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles

941: 767: 631: 579: 126: 21: 5578:

Thanks for posting on my talk page so quickly—I'm not sure how the error at

1315:

It seems to have gone quiet. If it happens again, I suggest you take it to

255: 175: 96: 5503: 5438: 5415: 5259: 5168: 4731: 3774: 3567: 3381: 3308: 3216: 3053: 1756: 1709: 991: 886: 200: 3085: 5579: 5131: 5043: 4739: 4121: 3812: 3364:

Well done spotting the family of vandal accounts. Keep up the fine work!

3349: 3156: 3057: 2571: 2527: 1943: 1614: 1470: 500: 110: 4124:

and I (mentioned in the thread above) enjoy cordial collaboration, even

3091: 2352:, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again. 49: 5818: 5753:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5720:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5636:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

5452: 4839: 2356: 1959: 1727: 1662: 1487: 67: 5869: 4113:

First: I missed your comment above, came to tell you about a possible

3387:

I've not tried, but why would you want to? PILT is an alternative to

3009: 2785: 5852: 5805: 5735: 5702: 5618: 5490: 5225: 5196: 3888: 2435: 2393: 2063: 1702: 957:

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. May I quote directly from

5825: 5144:

Thanks for your hard work. Also can you give me a topic to work on?

5004:

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

4870: 2714: 1712:

for your change. And no, Knowledge itself isn't a reliable source.

5835: 4880: 3829: 3716:

Rubbish. I reverted your IP twice on this article. My edits were

1267: 45: 5070: 4592:

No problem. Next time I'll give you a warning on your talk page.

2373:

ANN scored at 0.966656 on 2010-11-08T09:02:28+00:00 . Thank you.

2325:

for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the

5046:

until you understand it, and understand that it applies to you.

375:

to heart and thank you for it!) Why has this IP address not been

5543:

What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?

5540:

What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?

4291:, How have I skated on Thin Ice? Also, How am I still A newbie? 2930: 3233:

I have gone a step further and reported in vandalism page. The

2051: 1378: 257: 249: 5747:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

5714:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

3284: 2903:

page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the

2313: 50: 3120: 3114: 2451: 363:

vandalism. Or, at least, I cannot find any. This IP has been

4364:

readily visible to anyone who's followed your edit history.

3858: