User talk:TheEpTic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disruptive Editing

Hi: My edits to the Baek Ji Young page are not disruptive. I wanted to mention Baek's popularity in terms of endearment from the Korean public, which is something that was not mentioned on the page... --Nctserf (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)nctserf

Writing She is extremely popular and many of the Korean ppl love her.....period! on Baek Ji-young's wikipedia page is not constructive at all. This isn't a place to be a fan. It's an encyclopedia. TheEpTic (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of addition to EEL ULF 2 article

I'm awfully sorry, if you still can see, search EEL ULF 2 in 'Images', the engine this EEL ULF 2 airplane installed is a twin-flat, 2 cylinder air-cooled, the description indicates is an engine from Citroën Visa car, and the only air cooled engine these cars had (there was also a four cylinder liquid cooled engine in some later versions of Visa), was a 652 cc, Flat-twin engine, please, before deleting, it takes my time, and takes valuable information away from readers, check, double check, and think for a while. It seems some people have deep in their minds the pleasure of throwing stones to dissidents, they're looking for an occasion, and as lapidation is not practised today, search for less notorius equivalents. My addition was right, please correct your serious mistake, your overzealous action. By the way, Citroën lovers indicate alloy in crankcase of Visa was worse than in Citroën Series A (2CV, Ami, Dyane, Mehari) Twin-flat, 602 cc engines, some suggest purchasing an specially machined crankcase able to fit the Visa Cylinders, pistons and heads, e.g. the one sold by Filip van Gool, www.vgs2cv.be. Aufwiedersehen. Gesund +

Okay, thanks TheEpTic (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

<33333 TheEpTic (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi

There is an open Talk about the latest "edit war" of the Spanish Empire article header.

As I have seen that you agreed in my edition (Reverting that of Barjimoa) I thought you would like to contribute your opinion.

Greetings. SmithGraves (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I think you must have the wrong person. I've checked my contributions and I can't seem to find any edits from me on the Spanish Empire article. With that said, if I was to be involved and reverted someone's edit it would 9 times out of 10 be due to vandalism. I hope that clears it up :) TheEpTic (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so sorry. I thought you had edited in the article. Well, if you are interested in giving your opinion in the open Talk you are well received. Especially if it is to reach a consensus, haha.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmithGraves (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries! Unfortunately, I'm not too knowledged on the Spanish Empire but I wish you the best of luck of finding a consensus with it! :) TheEpTic (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa Page

The reason for the removal of the content is that it is not relevant enough for being where it is, at the top of the page. There is a section within the article related to the Apito Dourado affair, which is enough.

Furhter, the user that is always adding that content has SLB in its name, which is the acronym of the main rival of the club that Pinto da Costa presides.

There was no explanation for the removal because it is the same reason as before, it is not relevant enough to be where it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.155.99.19 (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Although, I do recommend you give a brief summary as to why you're removing such large bits of the article so other Wikipedians can understand your reasoning for it. Kind regards TheEpTic (talk) 13:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Shepherd Bushiri

Thanks for reverting the changes made by Wamaka2018. From its editing history it seem the account was only created to remove large portions of the Shepherd Bushiri page. I have no special interest in the page, I found it by accident. It piqued my interest so I have it on my watch list and sometimes make minor additions. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wyatt Tyrone Smith: No problem, my goal is to help fight vandalism as much as possible! I've looked at their contributions, and I somewhat have to agree. I've already put two warnings on their talk page, and I'm sure others will add to it if they continue. If they continue after the 4th they'll be submitted to admins for review so rest assured it'll be sorted if they continue! I've also added it to my watchlist. :) TheEpTic (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I'm Janbery. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Oluwaseyi Makinde—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. janbery (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. First time on Huggle. --janbery (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Janbery: Haha, no worries! I was super confused at first, but realised after a second or two. We all make mistakes! Just keep an eye on the history tab ;) - Good luck! - TheEpTic (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect revert

I hope I'm doing this correctly. My edit on the "slave catcher" page was removed by you. I had previously included two citations with page numbers that included instances of "Black slave catchers". One was an anti-slavery manual from the 1850s and the other was a scholarly work by Kellie Carter Jackson. Both were removed by an editor. The current citation is only limited to the Carolinas and Virginia and makes no reference to the rest of the US during the period before the Civil War, therefore the current definitive sentence included in the Wikipedia entry is not accurate. I simply asked for additional sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.104.10 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I do apologise! Sometimes legitimate edits get caught up in the vandalism patrol so if you believe this is correct, please, undo my changes and someone else will review it instead. Kind regards! TheEpTic (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

A mistake was made on The Year of the Mouse from Tom & Jerry

You had reverted my edit of The Year of the Mouse from Tom & Jerry. What you removed was that Chuck Jones was a co-writer of the cartoon. I have seen the cartoon many times, & I remember Chuck Jones' name being in the story credits. I even had a reference link for the evidence, & you deleted it without any warning. I hope you understand, & I'm sorry if I had wasted your time.

OH, also, you changed Don Towsley to Don Towsley. I'll give you some time to find the mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.135.4.140 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@73.135.4.140: Mistakes are common and I appreciate your feedback. Redo the changes, and another user will review them as necessary. I apologise if I made a mistake in my reverts. TheEpTic (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Psimonson's contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll keep an eye and make my input if necessary! :) TheEpTic (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd personally be happy if you could take a moment to explain your reverts there, regarding the reliability of the sources and the burden to demonstrate verifiability that seems to have been on you there twice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I pretty much explained my side of things, I’m not exactly knowledged on the article itself but made the reverts due to section blanking with no reason as to why. It was all in good-faith. I appreciate you reaching out to me TheEpTic (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I added a second comment, and apologised for my reverts. The reverts were made in good faith to protect what I thought was sourced and original. I was wrong, and explained it as much as I could along with reassuring that I have learnt from this, and will definitely be checking sources & checking for edit warring before making reverts as such in the future. I saw section blanking, and mistakenly assumed the worst of the situation. My objective for being on Wikipedia is to help fight and protect against vandalism. I hope that gives some more detail behind the reasoning of my involvement. I look forward to your response TheEpTic (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey TheEpTic, thank you very much, and don't worry. The situation seems to have been resolved. Thank you very much for your work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Great to hear! Wikipedia has helped me so much over the years so it's great to pay it back :)) TheEpTic (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Akira

Exactly what is wrong with category sorting the article Akira (franchise) to becoming the topic article of the category Category:Akira (franchise)? Why did you revert me? -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@67.70.33.184: Hey there, nice to meet you! I'm sorry about this, I accidentally removed it, please redo your change and I'll remove the warning from your page! Hope that clears it up :) TheEpTic (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've reimplemented the edit. I would have preferred if you deleted the message. So I'll do that now -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I put a strikethrough on my warning, but you're welcome to remove it entirely if you wish though. TheEpTic (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Newspapers as cited sources

Hi: Why is a news article used as a source on a Wikipedia page that discusses statistics? Neither of these articles can be accessed, one is behind a pay wall and the other unavalable? And why is snopes cited on a page in which statistics are being presented? This is very unscientific practice on a page dealing with statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.142 (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@85.255.236.142: Hi there! I reverted your change as you were asking this same question within the article itself. I cannot give you an answer as to why they've been sourced, but the best place to ask is the page's talk page. Talk:Deportation_and_removal_from_the_United_States - You can also fix it yourself if you wish to be bold. Just remember articles shouldn't be used as a place of conversation, use the talk page. Hope that helps TheEpTic (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate it! I’ll be sure to take good care of my actions with this role! :) TheEpTic (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)