User talk:PEPSI697

This is PEPSI697's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

PLEASE NOTE BEFORE LEAVING A NEW TOPIC OR REPLY ON MY TALK PAGE: This user has ASD, so this user can be very sensitive to certain things, this means no swearing, commenting on me, abuse or a impolite way another user talks out to this user, all of those don't(s) are NOT tolerated here, if it happens, they will not be archived and will be removed from here by me. I would request users to be civil on this talk page. Also, in this user talk page Please also keep this talk page for Wikipedia related content only. Warnings or if you want to let me know something, that is totally accepted here. Thank you for noticing!

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Vandalism versus good faith edits

Hi, Pepsi697. When you're doing recent changes patrol, please keep in mind what is vandalism (a bad faith edit that is obviously designed to harm to encyclopedia) and what are good faith but unconstructive edits. For example, somebody doing copyedits that go against the manual of style, changing dates in articles, or changing all the British spellings to American spellings is not editing constructively, but they're editing in good faith and our community should not treat them like a common vandal. Plus, it's more effective to leave accurate warnings. An erroneous anti-vandalism warning isn't going to cause somebody to change their behaviour- they're going to be scared off, or they're going to ignore the warning and carry on doing whatever it is they were doing. Anybody who has edited as an IP knows that recent changes patrollers just... randomly revert constructive edits sometimes, (I used to be rvv-ed for removing promotional language, adding links, removing BLP vios, and so on, and there's an anti-vandal IP who regularly gets rvved for removing vandalism) so it is very easy to tune those warnings out. So, in future, instead of leaving warnings like this[1] for edits like this [2], please go to their talkpage and write a quick note, similar to the one you wrote in the edit summary when you reverted the edit. Thank you, and carry on! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I left a level 2 vandalism warning because I assumed that they were deliberately doing it on purpose, I agree that I should have assumed good faith. It was a misunderstanding. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 22:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent revert of my addition of text to a sentence, where the existing RS fully supported my addition, was yet another example of you not assuming good faith. Please follow AGF. It is not a sufficient reply - though you have give it - that you are busy reverting vandalism, so you have no time to check to see if the existing RS ref supports the statement added - but must therefore revert the proper addition. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume good faith because you did not provide an edit summary explaining it was according to the source. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 07:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm ... it was in the RS ref. At the end of the sentence. You failed to look at the ref. You assumed bad faith - that the RS ref did not support the addition. Without checking. And reverted on the basis of your bad faith assumption. That's not AGF. And on top of that, you left an edit summary of "Not according to the source provided." Which was obviously false. I have no idea why you would leave a false edit summary like that. And now, you refuse to self-revert. Knowing you have made a mistake. Which is yet another problem. I gather that you are trying to do good. But this refusal to edit assuming good faith, coupled with failure to check the ref, coupled with an untrue edit summary, is not helping the project. I am hopeful that by us other editors pointing these issues out, we can support you in becoming the great editor I am certain you are striving to be.184.153.21.19 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry for the previous replies. I got stressed and angry. I'll self revert for you. Thanks for the last sentence in the 07:20 UTC message. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've self reverted the edit here after refusing to do it for 2 hours. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between vandalism and good faith edits

As per above. Please understand the difference between vandalism and good faith edits. Your revert of a fix on old unnoticed vandalism in Lumpia was frustrating, even with the edit comment explaining why it was done. You were now trying to keep the vandalized version by reverting that edit. The article page was vandalized in May 2024 when China was inserted as the origin with no sources, despite this specific type of spring roll not being Chinese. It originated from an adaptation of the Chinese spring roll using different ingredients. But it is not from China and can not be found in China and is an important part of the national cuisines of Indonesia and the Philippines.

You made me come out of retirement just to say this. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please calm down. I re-reviewed the revisions again and see they were possibly constructive. The edits didn't appear constructive to me.

I've made many mistakes recently with comparing good faith edits vs bad faith edits for some reason. Probably was just bad luck. I never intentionally did this on purpose to revert it back to vandalism. I thought I was reverting vandalism but apparently was reverting it to the vandalised version.

I understand what is good faith and what is bad faith per WP:AGF and WP:BF. Good faith is when an edit is constructive and bad faith is when an edit is vandalism.

I also understand that not every IP users are vandals, per WP:NEIPIAV.

I patrol recent changes and sometimes it can be hard to determine whether an edit is vandalism or not, it can be really hard sometimes. I try and review revisions and what they did carefully before reverting them.

Please also assume good faith to me when using this talk page per the notices above the topics.

Thanks PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just revised an edit I made on an article about Ann Telnaes. I’m skeptical that you are as diligent about evaluating recent edits for vandalism as you claim. My edit was accurate and cited. It is true that I was an unregistered account (since registered). Do you immediately revert edits from unregistered accounts without looking at them at all? RoccoSmith (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoccoSmith it seems like your account was only created 3 hours ago, your talk page doesn't exist yet and you only have made 1 edit. Can you please provide the diff's and talk page messages that I left on your IP so I can go and investigate it please? I patrol recent changes and mostly carefully check revisions before reverting them, sometimes it can be hard to tell. I certainly don't intend to revert good faith edits. Recent changes isn't perfect as it shows some constructive edits made by IPs. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've checked the revision again and investigated it. Yes, it was a serious mistake I did there. Probably because of this diff saying "Why I'm quitting Washington post", I mistakenly thought it was vandalism and I didn't check the URL in the wiki text summary because I was patrolling recent changes. I'm sorry for this mistake. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodovia Regis Bittencourt

Hello, I gave explanations in talk page. "Rodovia Regis Bittencourt [edit] This highway is no longer the "highway of death" for a long time. Currently it is a road with 4 or 6 lanes, several tunnels, and excellent maintenance. 2804:7F4:32C1:AFAE:D128:232F:5833:1696 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)" This nickname is from the 60s when it was a one lane road. But no one uses that nickname anymore. It's obsolete information 2804:7F4:32C1:AFAE:D128:232F:5833:1696 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I was patrolling recent changes at the time to look out for vandalism, unsourced content added and unexplained removal of content. I didn't check your contributions until I left the note on your talk page. I also thought that the topic you did on the article's talk page was unrelated to Wikipedia, I've just reverted my own revert there on the article's talk page. Just also make sure you provide a reliable source. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 07:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We meet again!

Are you a full time fighter against vandalism? Warriorglance (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I patrol recent changes and I have a lot of spare time IRL. Since it's the big holidays in Australia until January and away on holidays, I have lots of time to patrol recent changes and fight vandalism normally between 22:00 (UTC) (9:00am Melbourne time) and 11:00 (UTC) (10:00pm Melbourne time). PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is it like the summer holidays in Australia rn? Warriorglance (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the summer holidays in Australia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I'm quite surprised I haven't given you a barnstar before, truth be told. Your username frequently pops up in AIV and it seems I can't escape you no matter who's talk page I'm on. Your dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's quality standards is greatly appreciated. Thank you for all the hard work you put in, and keep it up! Synorem (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! Cheers, PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ornament & Crime

Hi, yeah, I was quoting what the main article for sElf says. Sorry. 24.254.253.41 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. The edit didn't appear constructive to me and that's why I've reverted it. I was patrolling recent changes at the time of reverting that edit. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campion

After I fixed Jane Campion’s article to correctly state that she won best SCREENPLAY for The Piano and not best directing, which she later won for The Power of the Dog, it was promptly switched back to the incorrect information. Below is an article from the Academy website confirming this. Please fix it back. Oscars Website re: Jane Campion Mackspotts (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it. But the IP contributor should've provided a reliable source then it wouldn't of have been reverted. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 09:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

See my response to you on my talk page, where you left a message. And kindly self-revert. 184.153.21.19 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I patrol recent changes and have no time to check sources since the revisions need to be reverted ASAP if it's vandalism, unsourced content or unexplained removal of content. I would not self revert until you're polite and say please. Maybe next time you should give out an edit summary explaining it was according to the source provided then it wouldn't have been reverted. Unfortunately, IP's can sadly be targets to reverts mostly by recent changes patrollers. If you keep getting warnings while editing constructively according to your talk page, then I suggest that you should create an account. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've self reverted the edit here after refusing to do it for 2 hours. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTPANIC. I've done plenty of RC Patrol and I know that it sometimes feels like a race, but Wikipedia is not going to be permanently harmed by vandalism staying up for a minute or two while you check sources. Rollback should only be used in cases where you're sure it's vandalism, and continued careless use will result in the loss of that permission. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used rollback to revert the constructive IP's edit if you look at the revision. I've used Twinkle to revert it for that one so I could explain the reason in the edit summary. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PEPSI697 You still need to slow down, even when using Twinkle. This edit of yours, for example, was re-introducing unsourced and obviously incorrect information into the article (reparations for listeners who didn't find him funny?) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the revision because the IP didn't explain the reason in the edit summary. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PEPSI697 Edit summaries are not required when the reason is obvious, and WP:BLP overrides any requirements for an edit summary. Also see WP:AGF -- you should always assume that edits are made in good faith, even if there's no edit summary, unless there's evidence otherwise. Help:Edit summary explicitly states that editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary. If the rule was "no edit summary"="vandalism", we could easily just block edits without an edit summary using an edit filter, but we don't precisely because of that assumption of good faith.

Looking over some more of your edits, in Special:Diff/1268334429 you restored a middle name in an article with no citations to a reliable source, and in Special:Diff/1268334789 you reverted the addition of a couple of spaces in the wikitext, which made no difference whatsoever to how the page rendered. In Special:Diff/1268298817 you reverted an edit that corrected the lyrics to an incorrect version, and in Special:Diff/1268329197 you should've just corrected the spelling error in Red card (assisocation Fooball) to Red card (association football) rather than revert. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking over these edits. These were just simple mistakes. The last one with the spelling error of "fooball" because I thought the IP spelt it correctly but was a dead link. I also want to point out that it's not only me that makes revert errors, a lot of other contributors patrolling recent changes makes errors too by reverting IP revisions. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 22:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmail (1929)

Hello, this is a message about why I removed the Benton Film links. The reason I removed the content was because the source was too inflammatory in order to be legitimate. It was clearly written with a bias that affected the content of the article and made it to where it could not be used as a proper source.

It's also worth noting that said source has also gotten copyright issues wrong in the past. For example, they said that Hercules (1958) was owned by AMC and not public domain. However, when someone else contacted them, AMC said they did not own the rights to the film at all: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/seen-the-1959-hercules-threads-but-does-anyone-really-know-who-has-the-us-rights-to-the-film.374353/page-5#post-5084146

It is clear than Brenton Film is not a good source since he is clearly working with a strong bias against anything involving the Public Domain and should not be considered a respectable source for his information. 2600:1700:9750:4C60:4C:DB8:D2BE:4323 (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the reason to me. I really appreciate it. Maybe next time, I suggest that you provide an edit summary by briefly describing your changes. If it's a long one, you can leave a message on my talk page like what you did here. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I did before, but I'll make sure to include it this time around. 2600:1700:9750:4C60:4C:DB8:D2BE:4323 (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is accurated.

Amy Winfrey's work on Velma ended last October so it was cancelled. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@50.91.26.176: I've restored the edit, but next time make sure to provide a citation to a reliable source. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it was correct, but you didn't provide a citation to a reliable source. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Concerns

Hi,

I am Eric Otoo's only surviving daughter. I am not familiar with how to cite reliable sources. The edits I made are from my father's biography/euology published in his funeral brochure which I authored. Maybe you can help me out with making the edits. Also, please let me know how you came to author the page about my father. Do you work with the Ghana Civil Service or some such government body from which you obtained information about my late father? I look forward to hearing from you and collaborating to document my father's history - accurately and comprehensively. I'm not sure how to go back and retrieve the edits that I made but do note that your message says that version may be archived. Some of your details were also obtained from my late mother's obit and I also authored and published that.

I can send you a pdf version of my father's eulogy.

Sincerely,

Mina S. Otoo 108.45.121.91 (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted the edit because you didn't provide a reliable source and the bold heading didn't relate to the name of the article. If you would like to cite a source, you can have a look at WP:REFBEGIN. If you would like to learn more policies on how to cite citations, I would recommend you to see WP:CITE and WP:RS. How I reverted the edit so quickly and came to that article was while I was patrolling recent changes. Recent changes is a place where it's designed to revert vandalism, unexplained removal of content or unsourced content ASAP. I am interested to look at the PDF of Eric Otoo's eulogy, I'll trust you on this. I'm sorry to hear that you're Eric Otoo's only surviving daughter. I wish the best for you. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I get a warning for vandalizing the Yangjae Citizen's Forest station page

I did not edit that page at all PringleEater1152 (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake. I warned another user who vandalised that article that I had to revert. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Alright, this is a generic warning template, but I really am confused as to why you replaced my warning with yours, ten minutes after I placed it here. If the user has made more unconstructive edits, just add another warning template, don't edit another one. Also, I've noticed a large pattern of you reverting my edits that revert vandalism, and then reverting your edits. I am quite confused on why/how this happens. I am not sure if this is deliberate bad faith, or something else, so please response soon. Thanks. jolielover♥talk 06:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get stressed or angry a lot of the time IRL and don't think straight and that's why I do it. I'll address more of this once I get time to think about it some more, I'll first make sure it doesn't happen again then I'll address more of this. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I edit the Nanumea page correctly?

I understand your reversal of my edit to the Funafuti article, but I don't see why you reverted all of my edits to the Nanumea one. My first and ninth edits were fixing grammar errors, and the sixth was creating a link to the article Kaumaile (at the time of the edit, a redlink because the article did not exist). My tenth, eleventh, and eighth edits had no sources sited because they were information taken from sources already cited somewhere else in the article. My tenth edit also removed the word rich as a descriptor of, "Nanumean mythical history," because I thought it unnecessary, and it had overtly positive connotations. My fourth and fifth edits were unnecessary, and I support their removal. My second and third edits did not cite any sources, so I understand their reversal, and will work to find reliable sources that support them.

I trust it would be okay to re-implement my first, ninth, and sixth edits, correct? But how do you suggest I re-implement my eighth, tenth, and eleventh edits? I will not change anything until I've heard back from you. I am still new to Wikipedia, so thank you for your advice. Best regards. AngelenoCrow (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because I use the tool Twinkle (which reverts edits) and unfortunately, it reverts all the edits made by the other contributor in a row rather than one. Although, I could use the undo feature, I much prefer the tool Twinkle to revert vandalism, I'm sorry for this but I can't do or change annything about Twinkle. Unfortunately, idk how to restore your eighth, tenth or eleventh edits but I guess you will have to do it manually. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll restore them and cite any sources I used that weren't already cited in the same article. AngelenoCrow (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi, you should not be using either the Twinkle psuedo-rollback button or actual rollback to revert anything but obvious bad-faith vandalism (see WP:VANDALISM for the definition of this - it's very specific, and introducing unsourced content that's not negative/a WP:BLP vio or minor content changes are not vandalism), because, as shown in this thread, these tools can be incredibly destructive. Please use undo or Twinkle's "revert good faith edit" button in future. Thank you. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 07:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try. But I can't guarantee that I will use Twinkle perfectly. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 08:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.jolielover♥talk 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]