User talk:Harlem Baker Hughes/Archive 1

Harlem Baker Hughes, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Harlem Baker Hughes! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:African-American female Crunk&B musicians

Category:African-American female Crunk&B musicians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Secret ^account 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PL3DGE, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cascade Investment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nas Is Like (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hot97

Raanan Gissin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Louis Brandeis Award

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User:117.202.91.43

I've reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Peter James (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ty, give User:117.202.91.43 a hard block.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That IP is already reported and I hope it will be blocked soon. Torreslfchero (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Generally, reports such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/117.202.91.43 are unnecessary for simple vandalism, particularly if the vandal isn't using registered accounts. It is simpler and more efficient to report them to WP:AIV instead. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and advice Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, don't worry about re-adding "you've been blocked" notices to a blocked user's talk page - they are allowed to remove them, under WP:BLANKING. Just ignore them if they do this, as it doesn't matter. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings

Hi there. I've been noticing that you're being fairly liberal with your use of level 4 warnings. I didn't think a message was necessary, but this was just over the top. I'd recommend just sticking to the normal pattern of escalating warnings rather than jumping straight to level 4. Also, remember that 4-im ("only") warnings should be used for severe abuses and defamation only. But overall keep up the good work! Thanks, Swarm ^X 20:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

k, I'll keep the normal pattern of escalating warnings in mind, when I issue warnings.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac

You accused me of vandalism in your edit comment on Fleetwood Mac. That is not only rude, but a personal attack, not to mention false. Please reconsider your habits. --91.10.59.85 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies as I didn't initially see that you were removing comments adhering to WP:MOS. I initially took your edit as vandalism since I saw referenced material being blanked or removed and didn't realize that the IP was removing a comment which breaks WP:MOS on Fleetwood Mac, which you placed in an edit summary after my reverted edits.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF next time. --91.10.59.85 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Got it.00:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC).Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure ?

Are you sure this is vandalism ? Grant there should be an edit summary explaining the edit but, I'm not sure it's vandalism. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See message on your talk page.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom Lee Music

Hi there! I'm an administrator of Tom Lee Music Co.. We've noticed that some of the information placed on our page has been sourced from the Hong Kong tabloid newspaper "Apple Daily". As tabloids can be an unreliable source of information, may we request an edit to remove all content sourced from "Apple Daily"? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.110.113 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I only eradicate vandalism on Wikipedia. I'm not that punctilious when it comes to removing material, especially sourced material. I had no responsibility for the addition of these tabloids on your page. I'm not sure which ones you are pointing out as they seem to point to sourced Hong Kong tabloids.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Question.

I thought that most album pages featured a ratings section. The one that I added the rating too did not. Isn't a rating a legitimate thing to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.218.6 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

According to your edits, you add ratings based on your brothers point of view. Wikipedia only accepts legitimate ratings based on a reliable and well know sources such as from a well known newspaper column, magazine, or a highly reputed review site and not the inclusion of ratings based on the opinion of your brother's personal music review blog.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Athens High School (Troy, Michigan), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I never added defamatory content to Athens High School (Troy, Michigan), it was an edit made by 69.14.57.28 which I accidentally mistook as vandalism. Blame 69.14.58.198 for adding it in the first place as I'll be more careful next time when reverting vandalism.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Created in Error?

Hello Harlem Baker Hughes, my name is Howicus. I saw the page you created, January - February 2013, and I noticed that it matches your user talk archive exactly. I think you probably have created this article in error, so I'm going to go ahead and nominate it for Speedy Deletion, if that's ok with you. Howicus (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, someone else already did it. Howicus (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But thanks for the reminder though, I'll still finding my way around archiving old pages.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. Your SPI report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.130.223.241, was declined and closed for a couple of reasons. First, there doesn't appear to be any violation of the sockpuppetry policy going on. The editor's ISP uses dynamic IP addressing, so the user likely gets a new address each time they connect to the Internet. Secondly, since there weren't any named users in the report, the use of CheckUser would not have been appropriate. Before filing any additional SPI cases, please take some time to read this information and this policy. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

K, thanks for the efforts nonetheless.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Veryverser SPI

Hello, Harlem Baker Hughes! I am probably more familiar with User:Veryverser than any other active editor, and I am the one who placed the tag on the user talk page of that IP (and many others). I apologize if this tag led you construe the most recent two edits from that IP to actually be Veryverser, since it is merely an IP he used awhile ago. Since his indefinite block he has used dozens of IP's to "sock", and I put that in quotes because he always announces who he is rather than trying to pretend he is someone else. I tagged these talk pages IP he has used to record his behavior; but all contributions from an IP are not always the same editor. I've tracked a few IP-hopping vandals who use an IP address for a few edits, and then a completely different user comes along and uses the same address. When looking at these IP's it's important to analyze all of the contributions in order to determine if it is the same user through behavior. I actually haven't seen Veryverser active at all in awhile, but his modus operandi is always to troll talk pages with inappropriate comments and then sign his name after the IP sig. He's very predictable ;P Just wanted to further explain my comment at the SPI without clogging it up with text, and it should be closed as unrelated. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

K, got it.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. not vandalism

This falls under the "not vandalism" category - the IP was tagging a dead link with {{dead}}. Slow down a little bit if you need to - it appears that you are still learning the ropes as far as vandal fighting goes. The occasional mistake is fine, but we definitely don't want to risk scaring off new users who only want to help. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for that rudimentary blunder, I'll be more meticulous next time.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

While I'm glad you are taking vandalism very seriously, what you have recently reported is not an incident of sockpuppetry. If these were accounts, then yes, it would be sockpuppetry. But what we have here is nothing more than one vandal changing his IP address very frequently. It may not even be intentional on his part. Regardless, the correct place to report this would be WP:RFPP for the article to be protected (which I have done) or WP:AIV to request the IP blocks. However, when you have someone on a dynamic IP, blocking individual IPs is actually pointless. If the vandalism continues over many different IPs, you can request a rangeblock at WP:ANI. Let me know if you have any questions. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

k, got it.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please stop creating SPI reports for dynamic IP vandals, IP talk pages and sockpuppet categories. If you continue making extra work for the rest of the project's volunteers, you're going to find yourself in hot water. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Better stay out of this for now before creating more trouble then.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad revert

I've undone this revert you just made. The original edit is explained by its edit summary. 188.28.85.27 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

k, state a concise edit summary next time.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you suggesting there was a problem with the edit summary? 188.28.85.27 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I had no problem with the edit summaries you made. I'm just giving you a reminder that everytime an edit is made, an edit summary is much appreciated to prevent other editors/edit patrollers from mistaking IP edits as vandalism. Especially editors editing from IP addresses to state a concise edit summary every time an edit is made. The majority of Wikipedia Article vandalism I have witnessed come from IP addresses and newly registered accounts. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above. What is wrong with this edit summary that would lead you to call the edit vandalism? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I must admit that I got thrown off after 188.28.85.27 (talk) revealed my mistake. My apologies for that revert as I initially took the edit as blanking and removal of material as well as also initially perceiving the edit summary as spam leading me to revert the entire edit as well as regarding it as vandalism. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If you thought that edit summary was spam then you need to slow down with your anti-vandal patrolling and actually read the material. This is not the first time you've been asked to slow down, so I strongly suggest that you take heed. Okay? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd better as I have a penchant for speed reverting and sometimes treat reverting vandalism like a competition and taking it literally when reverting edits/combating vandalism. I'll take my time being more cognizant when reverting edits as well as being more punctilious when reading the edit summaries. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN

You need to slow down, as several other have already suggested. This includes slowing down the archiving of your talk page - you shouldn't be archiving discussions within minutes of them being initiated. Wait at least a week. A month would be better. Right now, you need to move everything from your talk page archive back to here, it's all less than a month old.

In response to the reminder you gave me here, I have some reminders for you:

1. always read the edit summary, and make sure you understand it, before reverting
2. never tell anyone to "state a concise edit summary next time" when you have no problem with any of their previous edit summaries
3. don't remind people who ALWAYS leave edit summaries that they need to leave edit summaries
4. take the time to fully understand what others have written on your talk page before you reply
5. remember this? WP:AGF applies to IP editors too

Thanks. 188.28.85.27 (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Its my nature here and in real life for being in a hurry as I have a huge tendency for wanting to accomplish large amounts of tasks with less time. but I realized reverting/combating vandalism and informing other editors isn't my forté. I found out that it would be much less of a burden for the other editors that I focus on expanding other undeveloped articles of my own interest and focus less on combating vandalism.

Regards,

Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to curb that "hurry tendency" while watching for vandals, or you're going to get yourself blocked. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll might as well stay away from the vandalism combat sector. Furthermore, I better get rid of my own personal defects or else I'll land myself in hot water. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please...

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Marfan syndrome, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Please pay some attention before you accuse people of vandalism.

My apologies for my editing blunder, please disregard the warning I placed on you earlier. I made the warning to another IP already at Marfan syndrome, and ended giving the same warning to the real vandalizing IP and accidentally to you as well. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Maasai people

When you revert the edits of a different type of IP address using Twinkle, and made by the same user, only one edit was reverted because of its username being too long in the edit summary, so it will be a bug. Eyesnore (pending changes) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I'll have to resort to the "[restore this version]' function if the other twinkle options don't work or if there is a bug involved.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ponaganset High School

Hello. The IP 184.63.245.143 does not seem to be a vandal. I think he wants to contribute to the High School article. But he needs some help I guess. --Avoided (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep a close eye on him then, see what he brings to the table.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Tebow

In what universe is Tim Tebow not a notable alumnus of the University Florida?

My apologies.Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

IP talk page

Please don't do this per WP:BLANKING. Can you also explain where this user is blanking and edit warring? Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is obviously blanking his own talk page and edit warring me while I revert it. Check the edit history. I see nothing wrong with reverts and edits I implemented. The IP is deliberately trashes and blanks his own talk page after a number of repeated warnings. Obviously his own talk page, he is exhibiting blatant talk page abuse. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that blanking your own talk page violates any policy? It appears that your entire interaction with this editor is based on your misunderstanding of the rules. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. After carefully reading the guidelines and rules by Wikipedia such as WP:TPO and WP:BLANKING that you mentioned earlier, it was my misunderstanding of Wikpedia's rules pertaining to the blanking policy. I initially thought by my own intuition violated Wikipedia's User page editing policy. Yet from my perspective, the IP twice removed all the past, significant and verifiable pieces of warnings given by other editors on his talk page without any valid reason is not a legitimate reason for blanking. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read it a bit more carefully. You are still doing it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You say above that you made a mistake and didn't understand the guideline. You then proceed to make the same mistake again. Please explain your reasoning here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just offering my point of view from other IP's blank and vandalise their own talk pages. To me, that kind of blanking is talk page abuse. I'll be more careful when reading the guidelines yet I think that IP's need to understand that blanking is illegitimate. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Watch your accusations

Only warning for what? Please remove that message and watch where you fire it. --86.40.203.135 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Next time make a more articulate edit summary when making your change. Your edits trigger the vandalism tags. Its your edits that seem to the trigger the vandalism and BlP tags (See: Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism). Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

HBH, are you actually checking the content of edits before you revert for vandalism? Only warnings are very rarely appropriate. Definitely not appropriate in this case. You seem to have a history of incorrect interpretation of vandalism. Perhaps your efforts are better spent in other areas of the project. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and in fact, this isn't the first time someone has brought the use of "only warning" to your attention. Knowing that pretty much the entire history of your talk page is comments and warnings about problems with your vandal fighting, I will give you a final warning: If I continue to see complaints here about your mistakes, I will take the matter to an appropriate noticeboard for review by the community. Certainly, the project needs people patrolling for vandalism, but when it is done in a hasty and slipshod manner, it becomes more of a problem than the vandalism. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

With your advice, two months in on this site, I'm quitting, this project is simply not for me. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Single Ladies

What doyou mean with vandalism? Is there any agreement not using the Intwerwiki data provided from Wikidata now? -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the interwiki data you provided triggers a vandalism tag. Youapparently removed well sourced content that has reverted twice by two different editors. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've only removed the redundant Interwiki links that are provided since today by Wikidata. I don't see any policy not to use Wikidata. This was not vandalism. So please don't blame me for that.-- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not blaming or accusing you of anything yet removal of sourced content is, since your edits were reverted twice by two different editors. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So I repeat my question: Is there any policy not to use Interwiki links by Wikidata and not to remove redundant interwiki links? -- 109.48.74.139 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not, and I have some fault towards the revert that I made but the previous reverts done by me and User:Isarra (HG) serve as a testament towards your addition of unsourced material. I'll be more careful with Wikipedia policy while you should add more effort towards properly citing material. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thai

You're not even Thai. I am Thai. You've been reported and warned by other users several times by many people. I haven't. I don't actually know if you are in the Turkish mafia or not, but your behaviors clearly shows that you are.--110.49.225.202 (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your comments in your reverts are not polite. If I bother you, I can move to Chiang Mai Province (ISO TH-CNX; CAT area code 50; abbreviation ชม; coordinates 18N 98E) now. Just support me to move it this september. I can move if you want. There's no mafia there. Lots of mafias here in Bangkok (ISO TH-BKK; CAT area code 10; abbreviation กท; coordinates 14N 102E)--110.49.225.202 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep and practice lucid dreaming now.--110.49.225.202 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I'm in Wikipedia for 13 years, you just 2 months.--110.49.225.202 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, 13 years, yet you have no established or reputable account of your own to back up your claims and you edit and reply like an amateur. No need to act like a keyboard gangster and start firing false threats and accusations at me. BTW, what does this have to do with me being Thai? First of all, I "eradicate" vandalism and protect the articles from vandals or people like you who put unreferenced material without any proper sourcing. If I was that cold-hearted, I would vandalize every Wikipedia article left, right, and center and be blocked and banned by the community by now. I can be a bit aggressive with my edits and warning other editors but by no means I exhibit poor netiquette or start threatening other editors on Wikipedia. Keep "lucid dreaming", I mean "marinating" your false allegations, threats, and accusations pertaining me with any affiliation to the Turkish Mafia or you're the one who will ultimately end up getting blocked. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand

Why were you so rude to the IP editor who added text to the Australian section of the Prohibition article?

Sure, the content added was inappropriate, but it was the first post ever from that IP address, so probably an editor making their very first post. It contained perfectly valid information and pointed out what's almost certainly a problem with that article.

A welcome note, a thank you, and an explanation of the problem with the edit would surely have been more appropriate than the threatening note you posted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Chill out. I removed the harsh warning and replaced it with a less harsher and more polite one. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still inappropriate. You're now telling the IP editor that his edit was non-neutral. It wasn't non-neutral. It wasn't an expression of a different opinion. It pointed out a problem of logic and fact. (Legislation in the ACT before the ACT existed?) It was in the wrong place. THAT was the problem. Don't worry. I've explained it to the IP editor further down his page, and taken his perfectly valid point to the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I used an automated warning when I warned the IP and when I modified with a new one, which was also automated. Apparently, the modified warning failed to articulate what I specifically meant since it was just a general level one warning. I agree that the it was logical and factual error, yet the IP'S use of the article as a talk page coupled with personal analysis still constitutes patent vandalism as well as neutral POV policy on Wikipedia since the IP gave his personal analysis at the time of the edit. Harlem Baker Hughes (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It was his first post, ever. It's extremely likely that he had no idea he was breaking any rules at all. I'd recommend a read of WP:BITE. And automated warnings are often unsuitable for completely innocent first offences. If YOU really cared about the article, by now you would have commented on it's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)