User talk:Serols/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Why is my edits Vandalism

How did you remove those flag indenfites an Australian artist how is vandalism Serols? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.88.123 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were partly nonsensical or had no value and you did´t stop with it. This is insult. --Serols (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeanette Aw

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jeanette Aw. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.233.141 (talk)

Why do you delete the date of birth? --Serols (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

deleting my contribution

Hi, I think you've made a mistake removing my contribution. The Common Brown Lemur Song is a valid contribution to this page. It has raised a lot of awareness for the common brown lemur and has brought a lot of attention to the animal. If you would not like to have it in the behavior section please add it back to the page in another spot. Thank you! Kikidoyle (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Kikidoyle, sorry, but Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a songbook. --Serols (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Right at Home

Hi, obviously I must have erred in some way, although I'm not sure how. Could you tell me why you have reverted my change to link to the UK website (as is already done for canada, australia and ireland)?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Hi, no links in flow text - see Wikipedia:External links. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. It looks like this page should be refactored to move the external links into an "External links" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:2381:1614:100:0:0:0:2 (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "External links" is the right place. Regards --Serols (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: my edits on How to Kill Edsel Ordaz

Should I revert my edit[1] so that your CSD tag doesn't seem like you used the wrong one? I only deleted it due to it's being not appropriate, but if you want me to revert it, that's fine. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, the article was deleted. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 08:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hasdell page

I changed the picture as it is much better suited for the page. I do not understand why it keeps getting reverted back to this old picture. (Claudio Productions) ClaudioProd2007 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello ClaudioProd2007, what do you mean by that "Wearing gi"? Regards --Serols (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Info-box

Dear Serols, I left the info-box there all is well now.

macuoco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macuoco (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Serols (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Change to Catholic Relief Services

Serols, greetings to you. Can you please explain why you reverted an edit that we made to the Catholic Relief Services page? We removed that section, which was added (and continues to be re-added) by one user because the content is problematic for two reasons: 1) that section contain information that is known to be false; and 2) that section contains other information that, while based in some truth, leads readers to draw false assumptions. Given this reality, we feel we are correct to delete the false or misleading content. Thanks.

Hello, pleas use the talk-page before you delete anything. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Pls whys re you guys reverting my edit so fast ?

Hey I see you are reverting my edits to the Nightmares page, however when you type Nightmares novel in google you get this info which I added. Pls don't revert 86.99.12.66 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello 86.99.12.66, please use the talk-page before you delete anything. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but no one is active on that pages talk and no references are there for the info. I tried to get some and came up with this.86.99.12.66 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello 86.99.12.66, here you write in, why you delete some sections. Regards --Serols (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the reason is

I believe there are two Nightmares novel series. When I type Nightmares novel in Google, I get results about a book written by Jason Segel and Kirsten Miller. The only results I get about the other book are from Wikipedia. This info doesn't have references. I believe the more famous book is the one written by Jason Siegel and Kirsten Miller, and so that info should be added on the page. It is also a trilogy novel series but has no affiliation with the other Nightmares. Thanks 86.99.12.66 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. --Serols (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting IP

Please don't be so quick to assume IP edits are automatically vandal edits - this revert here was done by you without looking at the content you were reverting - you restored vandalism and unsourced content. Garchy (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Garchy, in the quantity of vandalism, you sometimes get the wrong one. Annoying, but sometimes unavoidable. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

GNR NOT IN THIS LIFETIME TOUR

Dear Serols, I do not understand why you have reverted to the old info on GNR page - those figures from balbermouth.net were indeed factual and not made up. It took me a lot of time and effort to put those numbers in, for them to be undone. Would you mind if those numbers are put back up again? Thanks. ~~americanavatar~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanavatar (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Americanavatar, I think you get it yourself. --Serols (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mean Machine Edit

I saw that you left a vandal warning, but did not undo the vandalisim. So I did. Just remember.... Tschuß! Copernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:CopernicusAD, see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. DoneCopernicus The Vigilante — User:CopernicusAD or my talk User talk: CopernicusAD :D —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Harris (musician)

You reverted the changes I made to the "Andrew Harris (musician)" page. I blanked out the article because it should be deleted. The article is riddled with "citation needed" tags and there's only two references for the article, one of which is a dead link. It also seems to be about a non-prominent musician and, especially with the lack of any sources, doesn't meet Wikipedia's Musician Notability guidelines.

You can leave your opinion on the talk page, but you will not delete the article. --Serols (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Serols: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 23:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I have been patrolling the Recent Changes page for a few days and often see you reverting vandalism. This barnstar is to thank you for reverting vandalism! Omkar1234talk 14:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Trinity Western University

Hi, you reverted the changes I made to Trinity Western University. I added additional information regarding their school of education that was not mentioned in the previous version of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulingleephd (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Yulingleephd, no links in the flow-text - see Wikipedia:Weblinks. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I object your decision to undo my edit

I find it very offensive that you would undo my edit that I made to the article on Muscle hypertrophy. Anabolic steroids is a very powerful stimulant that is used to induce muscle hypertrophy and many IFBB pro athletes rely on the use of substances such as Trenbolone Acetate to increase muscle hypertrophy. There is no proof that Anabolic steroids cannot contribute to the growth of muscle. The image that is used to portray muscle hypertrophy is very likely to be one that is of an individual that has undergone injection of anabolic steroids to achieve such as physique, and I suggest that you should not undo my edit which is CLEARLY used to educate the general public and not to vandalise the article. Please do not randomly undo my edit because currently I find that this article is very misleading and inaccurate by portraying false and otherwise unclear images about the status of athletes and the involvement of anabolic steroids to achieve muscle hypertrophy. If you still do not believe the information I am giving is legitimate and do not have any critical thinking skills, here is a source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589853. I have done the research so please apologise immediately as I find that not only the undoing of my edit is clearly outrageous, but to comment and say that it is not constructive is a total lack of respect for people who have actually gone out of their way to do high quality research. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.93.203.78 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You can create a new username to prevent IP confusions. Xyaena 15:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello 180.93.203.78, this article is about the natural muscle building and not with steroids. --Serols (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Serols. No, this article is about muscle hypertrophy. Steroids contribute to muscle hypertrophy. In no way shape or form does it state that this article is about NATURAL "muscle building". Please provide proof, because I still object your decision. I also find it quite funny that later in the article.. "Taking additional testosterone, as in anabolic steroids, will increase results. It is also considered a performance-enhancing drug, the use of which can cause competitors to be suspended or banned from competitions. Testosterone is also a medically regulated substance in most[7][8] countries, making it illegal to possess without a medical prescription. Anabolic steroid use can cause testicular atrophy, cardiac arrest,[9] and gynecomastia.[10]". There is discussion on steroids, yet you have not removed this part? I thought this article was about NATURAL "Muscle building"? Please admit you were wrong to undo my edit because I have provided you with 2 pieces of arguments on my behalf that clearly counter your decision to undo my edit.

Hello 180.93.203.78, sorry, but related to the article, I find your argumentation is nonsense - the discussion is also finished for me. Regards --Serols (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Accredited in Public Relations

Serols, I am confused as to why you reverted my edits to this page. I am updating the content to add additional context, sources and history - as well as updates to make it current (some of the content is out of date). Please allow me to edit this page, as I'm a member of the UAB (referenced on the page) and have factual, accurate knowledge to share. BBN1234 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello BBN1234, no links in the flow-text - see Wikipedia:Weblinks. Regards --Serols (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Serols. I have taken out links in the flow-text and will edit appropriately now. BBN1234 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My Edit was unjustly removed.

I noted that you removed an edit I made regarding the battle of Fredericksburg. I noted that Abraham Lincoln needed lots of support for his presidency because he did not win the popular vote. You said it was not productive and I would like to ask why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.127.232 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2017‎ (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's a goof on either George W. Bush or Donald Trump. Lincoln won the popular vote in 1860. CityOfSilver 15:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

hello 76.3.127.232, you know exactly why. --Serols (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

regarding Vishwakarman oage

Can I know the reason for deleting the reliable information provided in the Vishwakarman page. Ajeyarudra (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ajeyarudra, please use upper and lower case. Regards --Serols (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have used as you have prescribed of upper and lower cases sir. I believe there will be no issue for editing reliable and legit information. Ajeyarudra (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ajeyarudra, perhaps it`s better you read at first this article - Writing better articles. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Saltburn

Hi Serols. I really don't think that this was vandalism. The council page they linked to, here, does call it Tramway (despite its non-matching URL!) I am not sure what to do about this as it could be a move debate or it could just be premature. And I wish I could get the responsible user on the IP to register an account ... Hope this helps, cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello DBaK, the article-name is Saltburn Cliff Lift, the url from the gov-link is also cliff lift, also the references 1, 3 and 4. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do understand those points, including the one about the Redcar site where the URL says one thing and the page another. But what I think we see here is an inexperienced editor trying to make an improvement. I don't see how this was vandalism in any shape or form. I might take it up on the article Talk page and try to get some agreement on a way forward (which may be "no change" or "not yet") but I don't think this was a bad user deliberately messing up the encyclopaedia. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello DBaK, with the Ip there are unfortunately many problems, as most of the posts are vandalism. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, and thanks again. I do see that, and you will see that I have suggested that any serious editor from that IP needs an account. Indeed they are so nearly out of warnings that this will probably become inevitable when they get blocked, I hope for quite a while! Nevertheless, the reason I thought it worth pursuing is that there are still some serious attempts at contributing going on, and I don't think it helps to label something as vandalism when it is just patently not. But maybe we have discussed this to death and should leave it? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello DBaK, But maybe we have discussed this to death and should leave it? - for me it was a good discussion. Best wishes --Serols (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kind of you DBaK (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aggressive warnings

Within six minutes, you left four escalating uw-vandal notifications on another user's page. Please see WP:WARNVAND: you should not warn multiple times for a single instance of vandalism (even if spread across multiple edits); though you may skip some warning levels if that is justified.

In addition to that, this was not a case of vandalism i.e. purposeful destruction of Wikipedia - the editor left a plausible reason and did not seem to act in bad faith. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tigraan, he deleted whole sections without plausible reason, in a few minutes. This is not acceptable. --Serols (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason given was deleted sources of gossip and tabloid which is totally plausible (even if that particular editor is on a whitewashing campaign, the edit in itself is not obviously bad faith). I do not think you would have rvv the same edit from an established editor using the Wikispeak per WP:BLPSOURCE, rm tabloid-supported allegations edit summary.

I am not going to argue whether the sources are or are not sufficient for the BLP allegations supported - I tend to think they are but it is not obvious and should have been taken to the talk page, and your revert not marked minor. But in any case, that was definitely not vandalism (at worse disruptive editing, which is not the same and uses different warning templates); and even if it was, you should never ever have used multiple warnings for a single instance. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tigraan, plausible is with references and the warnungs were individually for each edit. And that is more than understandable. And this is also ok for you?--Serols (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed that the warnings came without edition between them because they were separated by 6 minutes (in which case WP:WARNVAND demands to treat them as a single instance), but I now see that there was a mild edit war.

My other point still stands: this is by no means vandalism. The edit summaries claim the sources to be tabloids, which at least two of them are; WP:BLPSOURCES says Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. It is totally unreasonable, and contrary to policy, to expect references saying "such and such source is not reliable" when someone challenges sources; and even if the sourcing has been discussed before and there is a solid consensus for the article, you are supposed to assume good faith that they are not aware of it rather than jump on automated warnings. FWIW I see nothing on the talk page.

Also, while I obviously do not condone undisclosed paid editing, (1) at the time of warning you did not know that, and (2) poisoning the well does not work on Wikipedia: an edit does not change categories between constructive, misguided, disruptive and vandalism by the mere virtue of who does it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tigraan, four warnings for one edit would be more than unfair and I was not alone with my opinion. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Blanking

Hey, they do have a right to blank their own TP, as long as they aren't removing the Shared IP header. TJH2018talk 17:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJH2018, with a cut-off sentence and a new vandalism? --Serols (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Believe it or not, they can do that...see WP:BLANKING. I personally don't agree with it but so be it. TJH2018talk 17:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello TJH2018, thank you for the link. --Serols (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)