: All in all its most times best to [[WP:BOLD|Be Bold!]] and correct mistakes you see. After all, if something is wrong, it should simply be corrected. :) [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
: All in all its most times best to [[WP:BOLD|Be Bold!]] and correct mistakes you see. After all, if something is wrong, it should simply be corrected. :) [[User:Excirial|<font color="191970">'''Excirial''']]</font><sup> ([[User talk:Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contact me</font>]],[[Special:Contributions/Excirial|<font color="FF8C00">Contribs</font>]])</sup> 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
== STOP TRYING TO BE THE WIKIPEDIA POLICE! ==
STOP TRYING TO BE THE WIKIPEDIA POLICE!--[[User:AManCalledGoo|AManCalledGoo]] ([[User talk:AManCalledGoo|talk]]) 20:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
And what i am referring to is this edit and this edit summary. Don't threaten other editors with "Administrative actions", instead, discuss the issue at hand with them, and try to reach concensus. Also, note that you may not revert an article more then 3 times every 24 hours (WP:3RR). Also, when in a dispute, discuss. Don't start an edit war over it, as mentioned above. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look who first treatened whome
Look who first treatened whome. I refer to the edition of LukPOl on my personal discussion page dated 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC). If you do not read Polish ask LukPol for translation. I write in English on English Wikipedia.
More over if you are administrator look on his discussion page my effort to explain him logic and facts. That is all. I hope you are objective person - no offence please :))
Generally, User:Cleaghyre is account founded for controversy changes, trollings, quarrels and edit-wars. This "user" has several editing, of which nearly all is just controversy changes, trollings, quarrels and edit-wars. Someone (administrator) should respond and help. LUCPOL (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that another editor is making mistakes while editing, the first course of action is to discuss it with the other editor in the conflict, either on their own talk page, or on the talk page of the article itself. Discuss the change, argue why something should or should not be kept, and support this with reliable sources. If you disagree with eachother and cannot find a middle ground, seek dispute resolution, for example trough a third opinion. Either way, you should not:
Threaten each other with administrative action unless something is clear vandalism. This at least sours the discussion, and at most might work the other way around.
Start reverting eachother over and over. Don't turn something in an edit war - that has never resulted in anything positive.
Turn into a human fireball. Disagreements can be downright annoying at times, but don't overreact. Being civil and constructive is more productive in both the short and long run.
Dear Excirial,
I just noticed that all comments in the deletion debat about "Paolo Corallini" have been deleted.
It is true I wrote two comments, and I noticed two different IP appeared. I don't know exactly why, probably since I have 2 computers at home.Is it a crime?
Again, I didn't know it was not possible to vote twice, so I won't do any longer.
But why other comments two have been removed? I noticed that one of them, by reading the name, is from a people I know. But what about the fact that it's suspected to be me?
Let me tell you I'm not involved in hopping IP's as you said, as I don't even know what means. and however, how can it be me to comment from different IP's in such a short span of time?
Moreover: how can Ryulong delete comments with no evidence at all?He did only by trusting his suspicion??
So does wikipedia etiquette relies on administrator's simple suspicion? In my job (lawyer) nobody can be judged with no evidence...Here I saw FIVE comments cancelled, only by assuming the fact that maybe are not written by different people.
The last thing, even if these people never wrote before, is not possible for them to read wikipedia rules and reply?I did the same, before writing I read the rules.
I personally believe Ryulong's behaviour is extreme, unrespectful, distorted, childlike and useless, I don't know who he is, but it seems Wikipedia for him is the only place where he can feel he's powerful. Please do not allow this.
It's a very disappointing thing what happened on this AFD page.
But I guess you are all already sure that all comments are by me, because you GOT the truth...so, forget about what I wrote.
Bests,
Nagemasu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagemasu (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion discussion is, as the name already says, not a straw poll where people can vote in order to determine the outcome. Instead it is a discussion between editors to establish if a page does or does not meet the inclusion criteria (WP:BIO, WP:N).
As for the removal of the other comments - it is very unlikely that an IP or account gets drawn to a specific AFD on their first edit, while also being able to quote several policies. If this happens several times in the same AFD we can be virtually certain there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry (See also WP:CANVAS) going on in that AFD which is, by definition forbidden. Note that I deliberately left the WP:RFPP for this AFD open, in order to let another administrator determine if it was likely that this was the case, and seeing that user:HJ Mitchell protected the page, I believe the striping of comments was warranted. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)08:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth is this redirecting to Neopets? I was looking for information on a poodle-beagle cross, not Neopets. A CTRL-F search of the Neopets article does not yield any occurrence of ``poogle. --143.85.199.241 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article titles are often redirected to other, related pages. I presume that a Poogle is some form of Neopet, and seeing that this page has no other content it was redirected to the main page of the related article. You will likely have more luck on the Poodle, Beagle and other related pages on crosses (Such as, for example List of dog breeds by country). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of The Road only revert one change. The vandal made multiple changes. I am having difficulty correcting the situation myself. Would you mind looking into it? No reply is expected. Thank you. T.Randall.Scales (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rollback reverted the article back to the version added on 07:28, 20 November 2010, by another IP user. It seems that the user made another edit after that, but i cannot really call that edit vandalism by any standard. If the article needs to be reverted further back (I can't see any more vandalism though :) ), just open the article history and open and save the revision that needs to be saved. Alternatively, you can simply edit the page, and change the content manually. Kind regards, Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I've made the necessary changes. I didn't intend my article to be an advertisement and I think I've made the necessary modifications that makes it sound more neutral. Can you take a look? If the changes are sufficient, can you remove that advertisement tag on my article. If not, I don't know what to say, I spent some time on it and don't have much more to contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiyas there Trashing - i fear i ended up having to delete the article, as another editor noted that large sections of the article have been directly copied from several pages of the university website. For legal reasons content cannot be directly copied from other sites unless those sites specifically state they have a copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA, GDFL or compatible). If such a notice is not present content is seen as a possible copyright violation and speedily deleted.
The best way to deal with such an issue, is rewriting a page and using the sources as an inspiration for text, rather then using it as a source for words / content. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with using an institutions own website as a direct source of information. A primary concern is of course the copyright issue, which is paramount in this case. The fact that Wikipedia is editable by everyone is rather sensitive as far as most licenses go - its therefor not possible to add a mention that part of the content has been copied - this would not be sufficient to satisfy the copyright requirements.
Another issue is that an institutions own website is a primary source. Wikipedia itself uses tertiary sources as a means to establishing verifiability for its content, as tertiary sources are further away from the subject and thus tend to be more neutral. This was quite visible in the article - the language was heavily promotional which is entirely understandable for a website (Man of course wishes to leave a good impression), but for an encyclopedia information has to be neutral in tone and not advertising for a certain goal. Have a look at WP:RS as well, to see what counts as a reliable source to base article's on. That guideline, along with WP:N and WP:NPOV are the core guidelines to writing a good article, and are well worth a glance if you intend to write an article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them - either here, or at the help desk. The latter option may be somewhat more convenient, since more people work on that page, as opposed to me and a few other persons who view my talk page every now and then. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what, if anything can be done, but I would also strongly recommend considering a block of the IP addresses that the user has been editing under for most of the past five days or so. They can be found listed here. Strikerforce (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend extending this block to a permanent one. This is a single purpose account focused on promotion of a web server product that this editor is associated with. In addition to the edit waring, violation of the 3-revert rule, this editor has is bent on disrupting the AFD on the article in question and has taken recommending deletion of an article on a competing product here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). No less than 5 editors have tried, in vain, to give this editor the benefit of the doubt and direct them towards more positive contributions. More details are available here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bugapi--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed there Radiofan - extended to permanent block since that kind of nonsense is beyond acceptable. The 2 day block was intentionally short to allow some input in the deletion discussion, and to (hopefully) prevent a myriad of IP's all over the place. I admit that i was actually close to an indef before, but seeing the addition to the other deletion discussion, i believe that WP:RBI is the only way to go here, as is for any future IP's or socks. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help here. A lot of time has been wasted by a number of editors dealing with this, time to get back to something more productive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you removed my edit from a page, where i pointed out a mistake on the page. You sent me a message about it, and then at the end of your message you said " Excirial (Contact me)" so i clicked on the "contact me" and i got here. I dont see how i can talk to you, so i try it this way. Please let me know how we can chat normally. That would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.206.87 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit in question mostly because of the word "Bullshit" in the article content. If you spot an error, there are generally two things you can do: The first one is correcting the error yourself by editing the table, and removing the mistake. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, content may be incorrect from time to time. Hence, the edit may actually have been made by someone who didn't know that both names refer to the same country, and just added both based on different sources.
The second option is asking someone to correct it, by pointing it out. This is most times the best course of action if the edit would be complex, as opposed to simple fact corrections. Your comment was actually a correct way to deal with the issue, it was just the location that was incorrect. Every article has a talk page (A discussion page) where editors can discuss the article itself. Mixing the discussion in the article itself would eventually clog it entirely and make it unreadable from all the comments.
