User talk:Wayne Slam/Archives/2010/November

Reply

Hello Wayne Slam/Archives/2010/November, You left a message on my talk page:

Also if a user or IP address vandalizes my user talk page, will you please revert it?

My reply:

will do :) althought yesterday Huggle went funny and only showed the top lines of pages =/

_{If you can not see your message anymore, I have probally archived it.}

Sophie ^(Talk) 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain your vandalism comment

Did you look at the discussion page?

What is incorrect or unreferenced about my updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you put an edit summary explaining your changes? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Wayne Olajuwon & Dabomb87

Hello Mr. Olajuwon,

Here is what I wrote on October 30, 2010:

My sincerest apologies for any misunderstanding. I am new to Wikipedia & understood that I could offer valid information to the site. Please help me understand what I did wrong. Others on this site have interesting information that also leads to blog pages or other content that complements it. Thank you very much for your kind response. Know that I will honestly & fully abide by Wikipedia's rules. Architect7

Trying to respond again, I wrote: Hi Dabomb87, I appreciate your help. 1) I do understand that. I've done a full review of the Policies, and 2) I will herein describe my useful edits: The updates were to describe a type of Walking Cane not listed in the Assistive cane article, but is prevalent. These are canes made from wood and it's many forms, all listed with interesting articles in Wikipedia. How can I write this short addition in order to fit the guidelines precisely? Also, I submitted the wrong supporting URL. The correct one is Why-To-Choose-A-Wooden-Walking-Stick written by a third party from a respected web site called About.com. Does this informational URL better fit the guidelines? Grateful for your help, Architect7.

By the way, how do I use the Sandbox? How does it work for the Wikipedia team to preview my contributions? Thanks, Architect7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architect7 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were spam links as well as unreferenced edits. You use the sandbox and click edit on the top of the screen and then when you make an edit, click preview and it'll show yours edits before it's saved. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Daniel J Smith

Hello Wayne Olajuwon. I am just letting you know that I deleted Daniel J Smith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:North American Lutheran Church

Hi Wayne, I am the one attempting to edit the North American Lutheran church's Discussion page. I am the one who wrote the comments I am attempting to delete because they ALL refer to the older article which no longer exits and my discussion comments no longer relate to the current article or the content that has been listed, which corrects the previous article. That is why I wish to delete them. You should note that what I wrote refers to specific content in specific paragraphs which no longer exist. Therefore I wish to delete all my discussion, which would also render your later comment mute as well. You apparently did not see the replys from the original poster, and I see they removed their comments from the discussion, so I would like to remove mine too. If you can do this for me, rather than restoring them, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Rodney Lilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.47.130 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't edit or delete other people's comments unless if there is a reason put in your edit summary. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Who is this guy who keeps adding garbage about time travel and nuclear reactors in the Midsummer's Night's Dream entry? Any way to block his IP? wheatdogg (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

95.131.110.104 was blocked three months by JohnCD for vandalism. Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

NASCAR Newsletter

Hello, again! Since you are fine with creating the new newsletters, after the next one, please change it to the second volume. Or do you think it would be better to wait until the time of the year that the first one came out. (June to August, I think) Also, you can reply here, as of I added your talk page to my watchlist. Nascar1996 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it because this is the first year of WP:NASCAR and next year it would volume 2 because it's the second year of WP:NASCAR. You may change it to volume 2 if you want. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR was created in either 2004 or 2005. Nascar1996 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was created in July of this year. Now I know it was created in either 2004 or 2005. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, in July I referbished it so the project will be ready for future editors, and good ones at that. Also, since all of the vandalism, you may consider talking to an admin for semi protectection. You can also create another talk page for them. Nascar1996 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the vandalism on WP:NASCAR? Do I create a non-protection WP:NASCAR talk page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about your talkpage. Nascar1996 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry because I thought you was talking about WP:NASCAR but my user talk page was semi-protected once by Tide rolls on 28 October 2010 at 00:07 (UTC) time. Should it be semi-protected again? Also, will you put my name on this edit? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It up to you. Also, sure I can add your name to the list. Nascar1996 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until the vandalism picks up on my user talk page again. Thanks! Also, I'll keep creating the newsletters as well as creating the talk pages for the new NASCAR-related articles while you keep editing each race doing what you're currently doing is by adding the race results, race winner, etc and Airplaneman can protect the pages. Do you think this plan will work? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It might untill November 21, 2010. Nascar1996 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What's going to happen on November 21, 2010? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its the last race of the season. After that I'll probably will try to reach each of this seasons race articles to GA form. Maybe some FAs too. Nascar1996 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know but shouldn't it also be nominated as a did you know because not a lot of people know about NASCAR? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYKs are only for newer made articles. Nascar1996 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but what are we going to do on NASCAR articles and WP:NASCAR during the offseason? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We can also work on the biographies, update the 2011 seasons articles, and update all statistics. Nascar1996 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, but if there's an IP address that put something unsourced, I will revert it because Huggle doesn't mention it unless if somebody's vandalizing it. I will also continue to fight vandalism on Huggle when I'm not editing a NASCAR-related article but how do assess a talk page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See if you can understand: WP:NASCAR/A. Nascar1996 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Also does size matter to determine what you need to assess an article? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just from a stub to a start. A stub has less than 900 words. Nascar1996 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it. Is WP:NASCAR missing anything that it needs? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice new signature! Nascar1996 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you want to change your signature? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is recently new. I changed it a couple months ago, and I still like it for now. Nascar1996 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your signature looks nice anyway! Are you still working on the NASCAR articles? Do you think you won't always be working on NASCAR articles? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Once the season is done, I may start doing more automated edits, such as using AWB and / or Huggle. However, I will continue to edit NASCAR articles probably until I retire sometime in the future. It also depends what happens in the races, if my favorite driver does't do well, I may not edit because I have a bit of a temper sometimes. In otherwords, that is a completely different story. I will edit the season article, and I'm also working on imporving P:NASCAR to FP status. Nascar1996 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know if Jimmie Johnson struggles, you may not have to edit or use Huggle more if you want. What are you going to do when your favorite driver retires from NASCAR? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably will retire by them. He still has about 10+ years left. Nascar1996 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard Petty raced in NASCAR until he was 55 in 1992 and please don't leave Wikipedia when Jimmie Johnson retires. Younger drivers like Joey Logano may dominate like Jimmie does now. But, please stay on Wikipedia. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends what happens in real life if I leave or not. I'm not planning to retire anytime soon. Once I get a job, and a family I may, but that is still some time away. (10+ years) Nascar1996 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some people have said that you need to work at 18. Do you want to become an administrator? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably am, that date above is for like permanet jobs and stuff. I would like to be an admin, but not right now. I'm not ready. Nascar1996 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep doing what you have to do, and you should be an admin. WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Huggle's Project Config

Hi Wayne. You may not have realized this, but with

this edit you removed our ability to template people for removing speedy delete templates from pages in main namespace that they have created. With this edit, I restored it … at least I think I did …

As I understand it, no one other than the people who maintain, compile, and release the Huggle software are supposed to change either the project config or the global config. We are only supposed to change our own personal config files (yours is at User:Wayne Olajuwon/huggle.css). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spike, but what you just restored won't work because of this edit and that's why I removed it because of that edit. Wayne Olajuwon chat 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn! He should never have removed those. I know he developed and has maintained the program, but I think he needs to take a step away from Huggle for awhile and let Sidonuke maintain it. He should never have removed those templates unilaterally like that. We Hugglers have to be consistent with the structure that starts with {{Uw-speedy1}}. Removing those templates from Huggle means having to manually template the offenders. The whole point of Huggle is that, once we decide to revert, the program takes care of the templating. This introduces an unusual requirement inconsistent with the rest of Huggle’s operation. Damn! I think we need to keep that page watchlisted and object to any such changes in the future. In the meantime, I reverted him with this edit. Now let’s see the sh*t hit the fan! I’m sorry I thought you were the one that made it inoperable. Thanks for the explanation. — SpikeToronto 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I declined to block User:Mountaineer1976 at WP:AIV

Wayne, I declined^[1] your WP:AIV block request for this editor.^[2][3][4] Mountaineer1976's edits did not appear to be a classic case of blatant vandalism. I see this guy has created 3 decent-looking articles; if you disagree with their creation, I suggest you pursue the appropriate deletion venues.

I'll also note that this person did not have enough warnings to justify blocking as of the time of your report.^[5] You reminded me a few hours ago that we don't template the regulars. We don't block them without sufficient warning, either. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, is that he kept removing speedy deletion tags from an article and that's how he ended up being reported. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the back-and-forth with this, and tried to dialogue with this user via their talk page regarding it -- but have so far been unsuccessful. For what it's worth, it looks like the article did get speedily deleted and the user re-created it after that, and it hasn't been tagged again (yet). -KGasso (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He's probably try to make the article look more better. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Hey, You keep flagging me up for vandalizing the 'Quiff' page and I was wondering why, I have a feeling I'll be banned if it happens again. I noticed there was a post saying Jedwood were popular quiff wearers, so I thought I'd also mention Mark Kermode, seeing as he's one of if not the most famous film critic in the country and his quiff is so well known. I was pulled up for not referencing so i made a reference to the BBC page where he's described as having an 'impeccably-coiffured quiff'. I was pulled up again, not sure why, so I quoted from the page to show why I was using it, the BBc, a reliable website, describing Kermode, a famous film critic, as having an impeccably-coiffured quiff on his biography, therefore showing it to be key to his public identity as perceived by the bbc. Post deleated again. I was just hoping you could tell me where I've gone wrong so I can get through the barbed wire. Do you just consider Kermode less relevant than Jedwood? I'd consider him a much better example of the quiff, as Jedwood's are exaggerated caricatures. Man I need to get a life. Cheers, R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.252.115 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable reference and it won't be reverted if you explain it in your edit summary. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, so can I use the BBC site as long as I explain why its relevant? Or do you not consider the BBC reliable? Does that apply for all references? R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surells (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You may add it as long as you put a reference and explain why its relevant and it shouldn't be reverted. If it does get reverted, report it as a false positive. If you don't know what a reference is, please see WP:References. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll read the rules more carefully before I edit again.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surells (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and please remember to sign your signature like this: ~~~~. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, another lesson learned --Surells (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it right by signing your signature a few minutes ago right above my signature. I added a welcome template on your talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to read those articles --Surells (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome but why don't you create a user page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

see above

sorry, haven't edited for ages an remembered I have an account. Don't know if it matters but feel free to message or respond to me here in response to my 'quiff' question above.

R

I sent you a message on your talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Salvio giuliano has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

My pleasure. See you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See you around too! WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Caution on Automated Tool Usage

I saw the work you did (and undid) on Ripley Hampers (disambiguation). Please evaluate what the change is before clicking or using an automated tool. I know I had some difficulty with getting the tools to work the right way, but I found that at bare minimum, manual editing is nearly always the safest solution. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I use Huggle, but everybody makes mistakes. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

86.32.109.14

You reported this person to Administrator intervention against vandalism and I initially blocked this person but on closer examination of their edits, I believe they were trying to make good faith edits however incorrect they might be. Please engage this editor and discuss the merit of their edits on the article talk page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those good faith edits that this IP made is unreferenced. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not template^[6] editors for adding material that is unreferenced! We explain politely the need for references and invite them to provide references. This editor's contribution that you reverted^[7] is supported by other references and material in the same article as well as this press report that I found in a 30 second Google News Archive search.^[8] You, Cirt and I made what I consider to be a grave error in hassling this editor regarding an innocent edit. (Cirt and me more than you). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How come there are unreferenced warning templates? Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Wayne, point well taken. Personally I prefer to use a more personal more touch for situations like that but clearly community consensus allows for use of these templates. But then let me ask this -- how come you gave this person a level 2 vandalism warning instead of {{uw-unsourced1}}? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to get slap-happy with templates, how about I give you a {{uw-agf1}}, a {{uw-bite}} or a {{uw-tempabuse1}}? (Heck, I deserve these even more than you do.) Do you start to see how chilling this can get, especially for a newcomer? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't give him an unreferenced warning because the edit looked like it was either vandalism, unreferenced or both, A.B. I know but I wouldn't want to receive a template. Please see WP:Don't template the regulars. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I encourage you to reflect carefully on this whole fiasco and consider being more judicious, if for no other reason that stuff like this could really come back to cause problems for you later. Our community has become very sensitive to potential admins being too bitey and trigger-fingered as a quick scan of recent unsuccessful RfAs will show. The sort of stuff Cirt and I did is exactly what they don't want to see admins doing and you want to avoid it like the plague.

And don't worry, I don't think I'd ever give you a template. If I was that way, I wouldn't have invested 30-60 minutes discussing this with you. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins being too bitey won't make them very successful. Can you give me tips to show which types of warning templates I should give to each user of each type of edit a user makes? Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just look at their edits and if they're made in good faith, leave them a note explaining the issue. I like to refer them also to Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; that's a good summary and a way to steer them past our labyrinth of red tape. If you really want to use a template, see the grid at WP:WARN. I really prefer a personal note, though, for good faith edits, even if they're inappropriate in our eyes. I think that anonymous editor from Sweden was just clumsily trying to improve our article and we really chewed him up badly.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It also says be civil an assume good faith. If some rule on Wikipedia doesn't help you succeed, then ignore it. -Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I can give some, albeit unsolicited, advice, here’s what I do:

• If someone adds to an article something that is unsourced but not egregious and not obvious vandalism, I do not use Huggle to deal with it. Instead, I open the wikiarticle in a broswer, I go to the text that they have just added, and I add a {{Citation needed}} tag. Then, if I am so inclined I use an {{Uw-unsourced1}} template on their talkpage because that template — unless it has changed at the time of this writing — does not say that their addition/change to the article was reverted. It just alerts them to the need to use verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). An example of this might be someone who adds to an article on McDonald's that the Big Mac is made from two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onion, on a sesame seed bun, but doesn’t source the statement. That only requires a {{Citation needed}} tag. But, if they say that Big Macs are made from rat tails and snake skins, that’s vandalism and you can Huggle it.
• If the addition/change to the article is vandalism, then label it as such and warn as such.
• If the addition/change is to a biography of a living person and unsourced, is it potentially libelous or not? If the addition/change is potentially libelous, then Huggle selecting “Inappropriate biographical content” since the warning template that that selection uses indicates to the editor the potential for libel. If the addition/change is not potentially libelous, but, because the article is a BLP and therefore requires greater adherence to the rules pertaining to verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), then Huggle selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc.

Does this help? If not, let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This should work but does libelous mean vandalism or something else? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Libelous means text that is likely to get Wikipedia sued! An example might be someone adding to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he used to beat his third wife mercilessly all the while he was having an affair with his children’s nanny. That requires reversion and warrants a warning using “Inappropriate biographical content,” which gives the offender a template similar to the series starting with {{Uw-biog1}}.

An example of something added to a BLP that is not libelous, but that should still be reverted, would be if an editor adds to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he earned $20 million on his last picture and gave 75% of it to charity. It’s not libelous per se, but it still needs to be supported by a verifiable reference/citation. So, revert selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source,” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc., using a template similar to the series that starts with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.

Libelous text is inappropriate biographical content and needs to be labelled as such. It is not mere vandalism.

Pure vandalism would be something like someone who adds John is gay to an article. (By the way, adding that a living person is gay to an article about them, without a supporting citation, needs to be reverted as inappropriate biographical content.) Or, adding Sarah sucks sardines. Those are obvious examples of vandalism. But, changing the name of a president, without a reference, and you and I do not know the real name, is most likely subtle vandalism. So revert it, but do so as discussed above here where you indicate in both your summary and the warning to the editor that the problem with the edit was that it required a reference.

Another example is, The moon is made of cheese: clear vandalism. However, The moon has a density twice that of Earth’s: add {{Citation needed}} to the text, and place a {{Uw-unsourced1}} on the editor’s talkpage.

Another example, in the article on William Henry Harrison, for example, if someone adds that his favorite food was honey and that he opened the first Chuck E. Cheese’s, that’s plain old vandalism.

So, yes if one labels everything as just vandalism, one will be fast, but one will not be accurate, and one will get into a sh*tload of trouble. The more time one spends deliberating over each diff, the more accurate one will be, the better informed the editor being reverted will be (after all, what does unconstructive mean?), and the less negative feedback one will get. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 04:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens if someone does revert an edit that needs citation needed? WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit that really only needed a {{Citation needed}} tag, I will sometimes restore the edit, and then manually go into the wikiarticle and add the appropriate, inline template. (By the way, there is a whole raft of them at {{Fact}} when you scroll down.) Unfortunately, because we can rarely edit another user’s comments on a talk page (see WP:TALKO), we cannot take back any warning template the other editor may have given the editor reverted. — SpikeToronto 20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Please say don't edit other people's comments. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your response confuses me. What I was trying to say above is that if you decide to revert a revert, and instead add a {{Cn}}, you will only be able to reverse one half of the previous transaction. That is, you can revert the edit to the wikiarticle and add the {{Cn}}, but you cannot revert the warning that the reverter placed on the reverted editor’s talk page. — SpikeToronto 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean I could revert his revert but not remove his or her warning. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You can revert his revert and add a {{Citation needed}} instead. But, because of WP:TALKO, you cannot remove his warning. You got it! — SpikeToronto 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it! WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Davina McCall

How did I vandalise the page by adding that URL? Davina McCall presents the show on ITV, and is on the televsion right now.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbennett87 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't explain it in your edit summary. The link looked like spam. Change it, but explain it in your edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RE:Vandalism on Santa Cruz Monastery

Why in blazes would my edit constitute vandalism? "Iglesia" is Spanish, and NOT Portuguese. 95.93.137.186 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese both have many similar and identical words. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It may do have similar and identical words and his edit didn't look like it was Spanish. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whack! to all those who reverted the IP without checking to see if it was a legitimate edit. Which it is. —Soap— 19:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I only reverted his edit once, until he explained it in his edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page Vrenator (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

More specificity required than “vandalism”

Hi Wayne! When you reverted this edit, you templated the IP editor for vandalism (here) when in fact s/he should have been templated for spam. You’ll notice on that IP’s page, the other three Hugglers templating him/her used the template that specifies linkspam. There is a pulldown list in Huggle that provides greater specificity for most edits being reverted. When there is a more specific classification available, we are supposed to use it. I’ve seen some Hugglers raked over the coals at ANI for this. Some have even had their rollback privileges revoked. It means we won’t be as fast, but we’ll be more accurate and the editors being reverted will have a better understanding of why they were reverted. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Spike. Next I see an edit like that, I'll know it's spam. Thanks and your welcome! If the edit a user made is a test, should you warn them with vandalism or with a test template? Wayne Olajuwon chat 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what I do: if the talk is showing as red for them, then this will be their first ever warning, so I make it a test warning, unless the edit was really egregious. If the talk is blue, and I think that test might be a possiblity, then I select Advanced to see how many warnings they already have for today: if zero, then I select test; if they have already received warnings and are still vandalizing, then I select vandalism. Have fun! — SpikeToronto 02:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If an edit is really bad (i.e., rascist), then I go right to Level 4 with my warning. Then I make a null edit on the talk page so that I can insert an edit summary somthing like this: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism. — SpikeToronto 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you skip to the level 4 warning on Huggle if the edit is racist? Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You know how when you are in HG, the button for reverting and warning is the leftmost red button that has as its icon the overlaid image of and ? Right next to that button is a ▼ that brings up a pulldown list of revert/warn choices. At the bottom of that list is the choice Advanced. Choosing Advanced brings up a dialog box that does several things. At the bottom is a window that shows what warnings the editor has already received (be careful to note the dates). Above that is the place where you select the warning Level: Automatic, Level 1, …, Level 4. Above that is a pulldown list from which you select the type of warning. Finally, at the very top is where you can put in an optional revert summary that will appear in the article history. You can leave this blank, and the system will use HG’s default summary.

For instance, HG presented me with this diff. Now, to change the name of the 1960 President of the country without a reference, is significant. In such an instance, I select Advanced; for Level, I leave it on automatic; for type of warning, I use Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source; and in the Revert summary, I put the following:

Significant content change w/out citing a verifiable reference/citation and/or providing explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

In the end, the article history has that summary and the editor has received a warning template similar to the series that begins with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.

Going back to your actual question, if you use Advanced to select a Level 4 vandalism revert for an edit that is egregiously racist (e.g., Anti-Black, Antisemitic, etc.), then immediately after, go to the editor’s talk page, edit it by placing one blank line above the Level 4 template you just added (i.e., a null edit of sorts), then place the following in your edit summary:

Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism.

This way, when a blocking Admin sees that the editor later got reported to AIV without having received four warnings, s/he knows why. (Of course, said blocking Admin can always decline to block.) Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I use the edit summary: Reverted addition of unsourced content and/or unexplained removal of content? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to be as specific as possible. If the revert is for unsourced content, say so. If it is for unexplained removal of content, say so. And remember, for some unsourced content, an inline template like {{Citation needed}} or {{Fact}} is preferable to a revert. But, overall, be as specific as possible. It my mean you have to take longer deliberating over each diff, but you’ll be much more error free and get little to no negative feedback. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But, what happens if this happens on a disambiguation page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a disambiguation page is not supposed to have article-like text. So, there would never be unsourced issues. If someone adds to a disambiguation page text about someone/something on that page, it is very possible that they are a new editor who doesn’t know that they are not supposed to. Use Advanced to determine what other warnings they have already received that session, and take a look at their talk page to see the warnings. This will help you to determine if they are vandalizing or making good faith edits, however misguided. If you feel that it is a good faith edit, but that it was simply made in the wrong place, use the Huggle button that only reverts and does not warn the editor. It looks like this: . Select Advanced and manually type in an explanation for the revert, something like:

Reverting good faith edit incorrectly made to disambiguation page. Please enter such text in appropriate wikiarticle.

Just in case the reverted editor is so new that s/he doesn’t know how to look at the page history in order to read edit summaries, a little note left on his/her talk page explaining why their edit was reverted might be in order. Plus such a note will obviate the need for them to come and complain on your talkpage.

If they remove content without an explanation, then select Advanced, warn using Removal of content, and add an edit summary for the revert something like this:

Removal of content w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

If they removed from a wikiarticle text and verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) without explanation, then use this edit summary:

Removal of content including verifiable references/citations w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

(By the way, I keep all these special summaries in a simple little .txt file from which I cut and paste the appropriate message.) Recent changes patrol is not for the faint of heart. It’s a lot of work, takes a lot of time deliberating, and is relatively thankless. To be done right, one needs to bring to the recent changes table a certain amount of content creation/editing experience in order to understand where the editors whose edits we are reviewing might warrant reverting. (Hence why I am probably the slowest Huggler out there!) I hope all this helps! — SpikeToronto 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I add those three summaries to WP:Huggle/Config? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We’re really not supposed to toy with the progject config. Is there anyway you could add them to User:Wayne Olajuwon/huggle.css? That is your personal config file. — SpikeToronto 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't I add it in my edit summaries section? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Try it! Let me know how it works out and I’ll add it to mine. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try it when it happens. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I added to my config the various edit summaries I use when I think that the HG default is insufficient. I have also added to my config some single-level templates that are useful on occasion. You can cut and paste the config into yours if you want. It is located at User:SpikeToronto/huggle.css — SpikeToronto 06:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay but why don't you use your main account to fight vandalism? WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I use a legitimate doppelganger account for maintenance purposes. Thus, these thousands of HG edits are kept separate from my content editing and content creation edits. Thus when one runs one of the edit analysis tools on my main account, the results won’t be skewed so badly by the so-called automated edits, even though there is very little that is automated about HG since one must deliberate and ponder over each and every diff before taking action; it’s not AWB after all. I only just started this, and I made tonnes of HG edits in October on my main account, so it will take a h*ll of a lot of content edits on my main account to tamp down the impact of those automated edits. — SpikeToronto 18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that why your alternate account is called SpikeTorontoRCP? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The RCP stands for recent changes patrol since that is the specific use of that account. You will note at WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:DOPPELGANGER that such accounts cannot be used for editing — for which one uses one’s main account — and the user and talk pages for the doppelganger sock account are supposed to be redirected to the user and talk pages for the main account, as mine are. — SpikeToronto 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true and some people put a message on their alternate account's talk page saying if this account causes harm, please let the main account know. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They’d be better off putting a redirect on the alternate account’s page to the main account, which is what policy requires. And, then they should add the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template to the top of the main account’s user page, which policy also requires. — SpikeToronto 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you don't follow this policy? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, it seems. But, I’m a stickler for the rules, so I follow them. Plus, why would one not want to? Why would one want to maintain more than one userpage and more than one talkpage? By redirecting, and using the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page, you reduce your maintenance workload since you only have to worry about one userpage and one talkpage. And, the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page explains the connection. — SpikeToronto 01:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It would just be a waste of time and people would be able to find the account easily instead of taking forever to find an alternate account. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking about blanking pages... (COTIK)

Hey... what about this page? The author blanked it, but it was created more than three years ago. What is the procedure?” T_eLeS (PT @ L C G) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think tag it for speedy deletion, but the article is too old for it to be speedy deleted. I still tagged it for speedy deletion anyway. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this page is too old for being speedy deleted too... but I'm not sure about it. Maybe a BLPPROD would be better (it has no source by the way). Regards.” T_eLeS (PT @ L C G) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It only happens to BLP articles created after March 2010. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, you tagged it for WP:CSD#G7, which does not apply. So, an Administrator reverted. Try WP:CSD#A7 instead. I do not think that it will work, because the threshold for A7 is pretty low. But, it’s worth a try. Most likely you will have to use AfD on the basis of notability (specifically, WP:BIO) and that it has been flagged as an unsourced BLP for over a year. — SpikeToronto 22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was, Spike. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m confused. When you say, “It was,” what was it? — SpikeToronto 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When you said the article was unreferenced for over a year. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to say, and sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, was that if you wanted the article deleted, you could have set up an AfD for it. You could have used as your rationale that it (1) seems to be an autobiography; (2) that the primary editor of it seems to have a conflict of interest; and (3) that, since it has no verifiable references/citations, it is essentially an unsourced BLP. It would have been good experience for you to have set up and participated in an Afd. As it stands now, the article has been PRODed (see here) and seconded (see here). If the PROD fails, you could try the AfD route then. (I suspect, however, that this PROD will succeed.) — SpikeToronto 20:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It should succeed in the next week when it's deleted and Jeff then put the template {{prod2}} under the bottom of the Afd. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Message added 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A discussion about this stuff is going on at the village pump. Usb10 ^Connected? 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GLOSS FM

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLOSS_FM

I freely admit I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, but I'm mystified by what has happened to our page and why you apparently seem to now have ownership over it and have told me I'm a vandal! Bazaar!

I created the page. I am a Director of Severnvale Media CIC which wholly owns and operates GLOSS FM - which is a community radio station serving the South Gloucestershire region of the UK.

When I checked tonight I was surprised to see a wholesale editing (deletion) of our carefully input text for this page by "Mwingereza". I am confident everything I wrote was factually correct. What I now see on this page is vastly less than what we wanted to say, and some of it is now factually incorrect.

It appears there are multiple edits which cite "minutiae" etc. Surely this is a matter of opinion? Why should a random commenter be permitted to make changes, whilst I, the creator of the page is not permitted to, and branded a "vandal"? Bazarre in the extreme!

Hopefully this is a mis-understanding. If you would like to confirm my identity, please can you visit the website address quoted in the page, click the "Contact Us" link, "General Enquiries" and send a message to the Directors. This experience has severely undermined expectation of Wikipedia which I previously thought was open and unbiassed. If the originator of an article cannot comment upon and undo incorrect edits then I really start to question the whole concept of Wikipedia. It opens up huge question in my mind when/if I use this resource for other subjects and situations.

Sorry if this comes over wrong, but I took loads of time to create this page (which is not so simple for ordinary people) and was dismayed to see it vandalised like it is now. It kind of makes me regret ever submitting anything. It's so easy to criticise, but rather more difficult to be constructive and create something, which in GLOSS FM's case after all is non-profit making and helping the local community.

In summary - How do I restore any ability to correct a page that I started?

I hope I've done the mysterious == and 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) signs right!

Radiohead319 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That article may need some more categories for it to be more notable. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand. My question was, how do I recover any ability to edit our Gloss FM) page without you or someone else calling it "vandalism" and undoing all my changes? The page now has factual inaccuracies which need correcting, and some interesting and useful information has been removed which needs to be restored. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.2.44 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss it on the talk page. You can't edit your own company article without discussing it on the talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 23:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your often get to vandals before I do, but you do it day after day. Well-earned. Rodhullandemu 00:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

dance team

bboy club is one of the major clubs and has been around longer than the dance team. its been around for years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.104.122 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were unreferenced. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

IM SORRY!!!

im really sorry!!! O: i wasnt trying to vandalize!!! i was just saying that!!! IM SUPER SUPER SORRY!!! I didnt mean to pllz dont be mad at me i didnt know that was vandalizing! omg is this vandalism too? im sorry, if it is just delete it, i didnt mean to! IM SORRY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornpopz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers Book info

Can you explain what vandilism, I was merely putting in my references, with this particular one I realised I'd not used the right wepage address and website name and so put it right with the edit. Explain please.81.111.127.132 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You changed some stuff without explanation and you added something named Dead Duck and that doesn't have to do with the show. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wayne! Sorry for cutting in, but I think you were too fast in this case. I'm using Huggle as well, but IP 81... worked hard on the article (37 edits in the last 26 hours). Obviously he/she is not familar with the best style practice (e.g. manually numbering lists and adding sources). Please reconsider WP:AGF and WP:NEWCOMER before simply pushing the button. THX Alfie↑↓© 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! He/she reverted you in the meantime. At least I will reformat the lists over there. ;-) Alfie↑↓© 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I gave them a welcome template on their talk page. Then I removed it because the talk page already has a welcome template. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine! Cheers & good night (it's 4:00 a.m. over here). Alfie↑↓© 03:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and have a good night too and it's 11:06 P.M. here. WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

L2 vandalism warning?

On 30 October you gave an L2 vandalism warning (template:uw-huggle2) to 121.52.51.50. I have inspected the edit you mentioned, and all this user did was remove a section that did not cite any references or resources. It is an English Wikipedia policy that anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed. This user was given a template:uw-delete1 for not filling in the edit summary only two minutes before this edit. I do not think he/she could have read it before making the edit you mentioned, so this user should not have been given a L2-warning at all.

Please remember the following things before you hand out a warning:

• Assume good faith
• Be welcoming

I have left a reaction on the talk page of the user as well. If you wish to do so, you can withdraw your warning on the user's talk page using using <s>HTML strikeout tags</s>. --Tjibbe I (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. He removed sections with explanation and that's I reverted it. Sorry for trying to bite. I don't know a lot about the warning templates. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I will forgive you. I see you already have withdrawn the warning. Thank you. --Tjibbe I (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and your welcome. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Horndean Technology College

I think you've been a bit overzealous. Although user:ROTFLSHMSFOAIDMT1 vandalised the page Horndean Technology College earlier today, their contribution that you reverted wasn't vandalism at all, it was an accurate (although uncited) addition. Matt J ^User|Talk 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I reverted it. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So we're reverting all uncited facts out? In that case the whole article needs to be blanked since it has no citations.Matt J ^User|Talk 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that would not work. You would just put the unreferenced template on the page. Blanking the page would be consider vandalism if you're not the creator of that page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that would be a bad idea, but that's the logical conclusion of the policy you're implementing. Since this fact is not directly about a person, it should not have been instantly removed, and the editor adding it did not deserve to have a level 3 warning given. See WP:PRESERVE. It took me less than 5 minutes to find a citation and add it to the article. Matt J ^User|Talk 20:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It has a citation needed template. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it does, so why did you take such an overzealous approach to the user that added a minor uncited fact? And please try and indent your comments properly. Matt J ^User|Talk 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this, was I edit warring because I was not. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? And by the way, for each reply in a chain, you should increase the indentation level by one with a colon. Matt J ^User|Talk 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind about that question but, like this? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But seriously, assume good faith, don't bite newcomers. Matt J ^User|Talk 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, and a few users have told me the same thing about not biting the newcomers. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You have been reported for 3RR. 128.151.26.110 (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've closed this report as frivolous since you were correctly reverting addition of contentious unsourced material. Rodhullandemu 20:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I was correcting it because it was a contentious of unsourced material. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mina

I already explain in edit summary and other user talk page. Please do not change things you are not understand. Read edit summary! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.60 (talk) 02:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do understand. You were supposed to cite a reference before doing that edit. Please cite a verifiable reference before you redo that edit. Please see WP:References before doing that edit again. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are liar. If you are not liar then you would tell these things before, not after change. You only want discriminate Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.60 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Diannaa resolved the issue by removing the word 'holy' from the article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

She did so it wouldn't be put again on that article. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism regarding Anorthosis Famagusta page

Hello, Thx for correcting the last post there, im facing this problem constantly, i wish i had the power to warn people my self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento1985 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You do have the power. Just go to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace (shortcut → WP:UTM), read the instructions there very, very carefully, and then place appropriate warnings on the pages of individuals vandalizing articles you work on. As a rule, you either start at Level 1 with a warning, or start one Level higher than the previous warning if it has been within the last 48 hours. You then escalate from there to Level 4. Vandalism after Level 4, means you go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut → WP:AIV) and file a report.

To understand what constitutes vandalism, you must read and fully acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism (shortcut → WP:VAN), and especially the section on types of vandalism (shortcut → WP:VANDTYPES). Good luck, and if you have any questions, be sure to ask! — SpikeToronto 23:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You may either ask Spike or myself if you need help or put {{helpme}} on your talk page and somebody will help you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueyanks3 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

• Fundraiser: November 15 launch, emphasis on banner optimization and community involvement

• News and notes: Second Wikipedian in Residence, {{citation needed}} for sanity

• In the news: WP prose praised, Public Policy update, education debate, WP documentary

• WikiProject report: WikiProject California

• Features and admins: No, not science fiction—real science

• Election report: The countdown begins

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Date delinking sanctions reduced for one party; History ban extended

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of vandlism

Sophie ^(Talk) 20:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Too much vandalism out there this afternoon. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Noah Hutchings profile

I have been reverted. I am trying to clean up Noah Hutching's biography because it is libelous, inaccurate, and disgraceful to a man who has served this country and served the Lord. For example, the 'predictions' section is false. The 'Antichrist speculations' are misinterpreted. The 'Y2K fears' section is inaccurate. Furthermore, some of the authors such as Richard Abanas, who have produced libelous statements have stopped under threat of legal action. You have been kindly informed that the biography is inaccurate, and as legal counsel, I will change it to be truthful and accurate. 70.182.77.236 (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You may change it as long as you don't remove it with explanation. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean “without explanation” Wayne.

Also, you should consider filing an enquiry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (shortcut → WP:ANI) regarding this thread, per WP:LEGAL, to seek the guidance of the ANI Administrators regarding how to deal with this thread and that article.

You will need to provide diffs. Simply say that, with this edit, you reverted this back to this, and received this possible legal threat in response.

Note: In fairness to the person above, a great deal of this article is unreferenced. And, this is a biography of a living person.

Good luck! — SpikeToronto 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Spike, I did mean it without explanation and yes it was a possible legal threat. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think it comes close to being a legal threat within WP:LEGAL; these have to be pretty plain to fall under that policy. Editors who complain about incorrect information about themselves, or in articles they edit about living persons, should be directed here. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be against the law or it could get Wikipedia sued? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always understood a legal threat to be a direct attempt to get Wikipedia or its editors to take actions on pain of actual legal action. Empty threats are commonplace here, but still produce the "chilling effect" described in WP:LEGAL. However, this wording came far from being that, in my view, although it was undoubtedly a sideways attempt to strong-arm Wikipedia. A warning would have sufficed, but I don't think it came close enough to a "threat", as such. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is WP:LEGAL the same as legal? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu: I must not have been clear enough above. Sorry about that. I did not say that it was a full-on legal threat. Hence, why I was suggesing to Wayne that he make an enquiry to seek guidance as to this possible legal threat. One has to read the line, “You have been kindly informed … as legal counsel … truthful and accurate”, in the context of that editor’s earlier line, “some of the authors such as Richard Abanas, who have produced libelous statements have stopped under threat of legal action.” [Emphasis added.] Or, at least, interpreting single lines in the context of the whole was what I was taught when I earned my law degree back in the mists of time. Nonetheless, veiled as it was, I realized that it may not have been a clear-cut legal threat under Wikipedia’s policy at Wikipedia:No legal threats (shortcut → WP:LEGAL).

To sum up: I did not tell Wayne that it was a legal threat. I suggested he seek guidance to determine if it was and how he should deal with edits to that wikiarticle from that wikieditor. Had I known that there was a sysop with whom Wayne regularly communicated, I would have, of course, directed him to you for an interpretation right away.

Wayne: No, the wikiarticle, Legal, is not the same thing as Wikipedia:No legal threats (shortcut → WP:LEGAL). Legal redirects to a wikiarticle on the Law, while WP:LEGAL redirects to a wikipolicy that applies when one wikieditor makes a legal threat against another wikieditor. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 01:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stuff on Wikipedia, Spike, aren't the same as the stuff in real life, right? WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for getting my User page semi protected, I appreciate it! Seaphoto^Talk 02:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Already sufficiently warned

Hi Wayne, If you read the talk page, I've already given User:Cannondale1 a final warning for disruption (removal of the BLP PROD). He doesn't need to be run through all 4 levels of warning templates prior to being reported at AIV. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't give him anymore warnings. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I just didn't want you to think you had to wait to report him if necessary. Looks like he's added a very very basic source now, not sure how verifiable it is though. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't report him unless if he's doing something worse, such as vandalism and cheers too.WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help in reverting vandalism on my talk page - he was very persistant! Vrenator (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and yes he was! WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry for dragging you into this, but you might be interested in it. (Note that you are not the subject of the thread, you are only marginally related to it.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The user you reported may or may not be lying of what they said. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism.

I was just trying to add round corners to the background; it was not vandalism. The Merchant of Uncyc (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mess with his user page without asking or if you have a good edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the edit summary. Can I revert it to my revision now? The Merchant of Uncyc (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You may but please explain it in your edit summary why it should it be what you want it to be. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Something for you :)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		The amount of times I get beaten by you :) You deserve one of these, keep Huggling! -- methecooldude Contact 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and you do good work on Huggle, too! :) WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tollens' reagent

Hi there

Want to let you know, I reverted your revert [9]. The IP's edit was good. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that previous edit. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

Just a quick question for you. Have you got the same issue as me with Huggle, in that sometimes it refuses to revert when you press the Revert and Warn button? (Not including when someone else has already reverted) Thanks -- methecooldude ^Contact 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's happened to me. I keep pressing the Q button and it still doesn't revert. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Lancos

Wayne you warned me twice for "vandalism" of Chris Lancos' wikipedia page. I believe you took the word partner the wrong way which is why I was warned the first time. Chris and Marc are small business entrepreneurs. The second time I posted it I left out the word partner due to the ambiguity and was warned yet again. I have updated Chris' page several times over the years as I am a close friend and I know he would not take the time to update it as he is to humble to believe people are interested in what he has been up to. Please do not warn me for keeping interested parties updated.

Thank You, Pat Cross —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtizzle (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were unreferenced. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your getting pretty fast yourself!

Good job - and thanks for watching out. Seaphoto^Talk 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and thanks. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Wayne. Hi. I just want to say thanks for your good work around here and specifically for the vandalism reverting on my talk/user pages. I appreciate your effort even though it feels like we're not making much headway in keeping this encyclopedia presentable. I'm sure your talent would be better put to use in actually creating content, but here we are, just chasing our tails. Dawnseeker2000 02:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I do make some contributions to articles when I'm not reverting vandalism. I've created articles before, too. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards

Hey when you get a minute can you look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article. I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure, and I seen you where the last to revert the page. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure either but this should be reported to WP:ANI because this is tough to figure out if it's vandalism because I'm not sure. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

You're doing well, but please can you note that in cases such as this, this, there is no need to request protection: a block will do. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

After a user has been blocked I don't need to request protection of those pages and other pages that get vandalized after a user is blocked. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right - but I mean that requesting page protection isn't really appropriate when the vandalism is a single IP or a vandalism-only account. These are cases where reporting to WP:AIV might be better. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Cheers, too. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Derild4921 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

It tasted nice. ;). Derild4921☼ 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does taste nice. :) WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

76.176.108.51

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page and for reporting it. Kiore (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 05:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Atomic orbital material

message to User talk:71.217.73.148

I see that you were adding a lot of informtion to atomic orbital that was simply mathematized versions of what is already discussed in the main article. I've moved it to an old version of spin-orbital, see here. But the math probably isn't appropriate here, but in the Schroedinger equation wiki. So don't be disheartened. Use the talk page.

To other editors-- this editor was obviously adding material in good faith, but has been bitten and treated a bit shabbily, unless I've missed something. What he was doing certain wasn't vandalism.

SBHarris 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops; sorry. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Give it Up for "The New Thing" intelatitalk 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar! :) WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vrenator has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for eating my cookie! WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative.

Why did I get a warning for vandalism for editing Pejorative? I dont think this was appropriate. I was undoing the work of a bot that got my edit wrong as an act of vandalism. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you report it as a false positive? You were supposed to also put a reference. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I put a reference in the page history section. On a further note, I dont think I should I have to go through the effort of logging a false positive with the bot? I undid the edit twice and it just keeps on reverting it. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it thinks your edit is vandalism and that's why it keeps reverting it. It should know that Wikipedia is not censored if it doesn't know already. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well imho maybe the owner needs to fix up its code.. just makes normal users give up on fixing or adding the occasional bit of (hopfully) useful information while reading pages. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He undid his edit and I'm talking about Acather because he just undid the revert he did to your edit because he knows Wikipedia is not censored. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Help!

Are you an admin? Because User talk:67.71.137.134 is vandalising like madness! Do something! RomeEonBmbo (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

I'm not an admin but I will report him. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! What was their problem anyways? There was someone else making edits with him, are you going to report him as well? 19:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

They were vandalizing. Which other user other you talking out? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Catenanuova

I am sorry I dont understand how this constitutes vandalism?I have asked twice the intervention of TWO administrators for dispute and content resolution.I have DONE EXCATLY as you asked by providing an edit summary and have provided 3 references in total one of which clearly refers to the AM response that this temperature is not official in Italy.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You removed stuff and added stuff without informative explanation. You may also want to see WP:Vandalism to see what is vandalism and what is not vandalism. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I MUST REPEAT that I have provided explanations of my references and edit summary from the time I was warned onwards.Much earlier I have asked the intervention of TWO administrators for content and dispute resolution!Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please report this at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, you shouldn't be sending someone to the False positives page if they haven't triggered the edit filter. This is a content dispute, plain and simple, and moving it to the False positives page just had the effect of making the situation more confusing for all of us. —Soap— 09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi,I have already reported this.Any idea on when I should expect to hear from them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherextremes (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wait a few minutes and they will answer you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A few minutes? Nobody is online 24/7 and some people don't have time to login more than a few times per week. And like I said the False positives page is not a good place to talk about content disputes. —Soap— 09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Where can you report this if it's not the false positives page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User warnings

Suggestion for the future: When issuing a warning to a user who is engaged in vandalism, edit warring, or the like, please look at the user talk page to see if there are previous warning messages, check the block log for previous blocks, and provide a message that fits both their history and their recent actions. It seems incongruous that you issued a level 1 warning at User talk:Editermaster12345 just 25 minutes after my "final warning" (which was not templated, and was in the "November 2010" section instead of the new section that Sinebot had created). For what it's worth, I have blocked the user. --Orlady (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave the user the first warning after I reverted it and that's what Huggle did. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle isn't awfully smart sometimes. It failed to notice all the warnings the user had received in the past week. --Orlady (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle isn't aware of many warnings out there, either. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but Huggle doesn't warn users -- it's just a tool that users employ to warn other users. The human (that's you or me) is responsible for teh content of the warning. --Orlady (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Why? i'm trying to put homer pic. Japol1 —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

There's no picture showing. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

4chan spam wave

Sophie ^(Talk) 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On User talk:NawlinWiki. Hope you don't mind if tell you this: Please don't feel embarrassed that you're a child. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

yep, and i dont get you =/ Sophie ^(Talk) 02:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean about your age. You can't just take a break because of your age. You're in eighth grade and you shouldn't feel too bad. Don't worry because you're going to harassed. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice one

You must be getting your time-to-revert-fact scores down pretty low. How about reading, oh, two paragraphs of an article before reverting factual changes? 111.69.232.213 (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You reworded it differently. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this does constitute editing. Other forms of editing include the removal of words, the addition of words, and the addition/removal of wiki markup. I may have missed something. 111.69.232.213 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have. You could have put "killed" instead of "shot dead" in that edit you made. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Please do not do that. It does not seem to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T2c^ (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, please do not put your signtaure in an article. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just a long-term-vandal sock/meat-puppet. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He also ended being blocked. Thank you for blocking that long-term sockpuppet. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification

I have given your latest talk page vandal a level 4 warning. Personal attacks will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Utahraptor! WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please pay closer attention

I noticed an incidence of vandalism on this page. I reverted the change, upon which ClueBot autoflagged my revision as vandalism, restored the original version, and placed a generated warning on my walk page. I reported this on the ClueBot talk page, removed the warning from my talk page, and restored my edit as ClueBot's message instructed me to do so. You promply re-reverted my change and placed a warning on my talk page. If you had looked closer at my revision, you would have seen that I corrected an instance of vandalism, and you in fact restored the vandalized copy of the page. --24.72.122.184 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was unreferenced. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, slow down, seriously. That an edit is unreferenced is not a good reason to restore vandalism like this. Besides, he was just fixing vandalism, not writing the translation himself, so someone on Huggle could just as easily have made the same edit, the only difference being that it would have HG in the summary. Please try to think everything through before you do it, even if it means you get beaten to the punch by someone else most of the time. You didn't use to be like this. If you're ever planning to run for adminship, little mistakes like this will cause people to oppose. —Soap— 22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Soap. I normally do not revert edits if I'm not sure if it's vandalism or not. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE tutorial

Hello, Wayne. Thank you for signing up for the Guild of Copy Editors November 2010 backlog elimination drive. Per request, this is a brief tutorial describing the GOCE and its backlog elimination drives.

Who are we?

The Guild of Copy Editors, formerly the League of Copy Editors, are a WikiProject dedicating to copy editing articles. We hold backlog elimination drives every other month to help reduce the size of our backlog, which is currently over 5,000 articles long.

What is copy editing?

Copy editing includes, but is not limited to, the following: fixing grammar, fixing spelling mistakes, and fixing formatting errors. Copy editing improves the quality of an article, often in preparation for a GAN or FAC.

What are backlog elimination drives?

Backlog elimination drives are efforts by the Guild to reduce the backlog of articles needing copy edit. The backlog is currently over 5,000 articles long, and will require several more drives to completely wipe it out.

Further instructions and information can be found on:

• Wikipedia:Basic copyediting
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this looking so far? WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking good so far. Keep it up! The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this now complete? WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple things, but other than what I fixed, it all looks good. Go ahead and remove the copy edit tag now. Don't forget to add it to your totals on the drive page. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's now there. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

• News and notes: Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership

• In the news: How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

• WikiProject report: Sizzling: WikiProject Bacon

• Features and admins: Of lakes and mountains

• Dispatches: A guide to the Good Article Review Process

• Arbitration report: No cases this week; Amendments filed on Climate Change and Date Delinking; Motion passed on EEML

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic view of Aaron page problems

I got a new message for my last change, telling me the changes I made to Islamic view of Aaron were unconstructive. May I know why? Is there any possibility of reverting the changes? User:Imadjafar —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

You misspelled a word by changing it from narratives to aarratives which is why I reverted it. Every other edit you previously made was not vandalism expect one until the last one and that's why I reverted it. You also changed some information without explanation. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

L Kensington

I think you're overreacting. I'm tired of him beating me too (I now know when to use Huggle), but it's not a big deal. That, and wishing for him to retire is immature on your part (no offense). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

All those messages I sent to him are good faith edits and no offense to those messages because it was all good faith and he's using Huggle like a bot, fast. I hope he doesn't take it as offensive. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be good faith to you, but what appears as good faith to you may appear as a personal attack to others. I'm not saying you were attacking L Kensington, I'm simply suggesting how one could misinterpret your messages. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I still learning how to deal with those circumstances because I'm not used to it. You can be beaten to vandalism once in a while but not like a bot, such as ClueBot and ClueBot NG. I need some help and tips in that category. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine if a user continually beats somebody to reverting vandalism. Although I'm sure L Kensington is aware of other Hugglers, I don't think he's trying to beat them to "steal the show" so to speak. He's simply trying to clean up the encyclopedia, just like all the other vandal fighters. So he beats you to a couple reverts; it's not the end of the world. There will come a time when it is your moment to shine here on Wikipedia, Wayne. You just have to wait for it and be willing to find it. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I will get it, Utahraptor. Probably there's a lot vandalism mostly at night. Which other Huggler has edited from morning to night every non-school day and from afternoon to night on school days? I can only sleep up to a certain hour and yes there will a day when it's my moment to shine. Most of those edits he's beaten me to have come on Saturday and Sunday. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're on Huggle every waking moment when you're not in school. I find that rather disturbing, Wayne... you made 11,000 edits last month, and have already made over 8,000 edits this month. Frankly I don't know where you manage to find the concentration to use Huggle for that long... you should take a break, obsessing over Huggle like this is not healthy. Even when I've been using it, it may have been every day, but usually I take the afternoons off because everybody else has things covered. Try doing it in the mornings, perhaps, or during your lunch... more often than not, during that time, the only person you would have to contend with is, well, me. (And I usually do it for a few minutes, then do something else (like actual schoolwork), then use Huggle for a few minutes, then something else, so you would actually have a fair chance of getting some edits in during those periods.) Then take the rest of the day off, do something else, like doing some recreation, or if you can't pull yourself away from Wikipedia, do some newpages patrolling and stuff. The Thing ^T/_C 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the computer all day is not good either, The Thing. My mom even told me don't use the computer all day. I will take a break, The Thing. When I'm not on the computer, I play video games or relax. I did not do this on Wikipedia when I was an anon user. I'll try not to use the computer too much especially since I have to help my dad and I may not make a bunch of edits every day that I normally do because it's bad for your eyesight. I have those huge edit counts each month because I've edited too many hours every day. I'm doing this to help my edit count go up, The Thing but I will take breaks like I said. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The main goal of Wikipedia's users should not be to get their edit count up, Wayne. It should be to improve the encyclopedia, whether it's through anti-vandalism efforts, copy editing efforts, dispute resolution efforts, article creation efforts, etc. If you notice, I only revert vandalism on Huggle for fifteen minutes at a time, twenty at most. This is because there are other aspects of Wikipedia that I can contribute to besides anti-vandalism efforts. Perhaps there's something else you would like to do, Wayne? Perhaps you could work for a WikiProject? Or perhaps you could gather sources and create an article? For example, I am a co-coordinator for the Guild of Copy Editors, and I created and run WikiProject American Old West. Have a look at Wikipedia:Job center to get a better outlook at what things other than anti-vandalism you can do to benefit Wikipedia. Happy editing! The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I do edit other stuff on Wikipedia other than reverting vandalism which is edit articles. What is the WikiProject that you, Diannaa, NerdyScienceDude and another user are working one? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Guild of Copy Editors. Feel free to sign up for it if you haven't already. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you said it earlier. I added the category to my user page. How is WP:Guild of Copy Editors? Why does it have a backlog? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The project has a backlog because it hasn't been very active until recently. Feel free to sign up for our November 2010 backlog elimination drive. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What do I do after that? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at how to copy edit articles, then when you feel like you know how to copy edit articles, choose any article from the backlog and copy edit it. Don't forget to add your finished copy edits to the appropriate section on the Drive page. If you want a brief tutorial from me, just let me know. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I do need a brief tutorial. Who do you think is more popular and does better work on Huggle, L Kensington or me? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're both outstanding with managing vandalism, but it's not a competition. I hope you keep going with that, but like I mentioned the other day, your skills can be used in other areas of Wikipedia also. The copy-editing thing is a great idea. Many of us get consumed with scooping the poop that we just don't get around to actually reading the articles to make sure they're coherent. Dawnseeker2000 02:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just finished copy-editing an article. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The drives aren't meant to be competitions, Dawn. A competition would be several people competing against each other for one large prize and a couple smaller ones. Rather, the drives are for users to collaborate with each other for the purpose of reducing the size of the copy edit backlog. And sure, the top copy editors do receive prizes, but so does almost everybody else that participates in the drive. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Raptor. I think you may have mis-read my comment. Dawnseeker2000 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

L Kensington even said that he was busy on weekdays and when I got on Huggle today, he was already Huggling. I think he needs to do something other than Huggling on Wikipedia. He's not a bot to be that fast and I'm not saying that he can't use Huggle is that he should do something else on Wikipedia. This user thinks he's a bot and he's not. He's supposed to be busy and he's not on Huggle because he said that's he's busy. When's he going to stop doing that because he's not a bot? He could use Huggle is that he's not a bot. He may need to know that, Lol. He shouldn't be cleaning up Wikipedia like he's the only user on Wikipedia. At least, other people need to do to it do, not just him. I think he only uses Huggle just to get his edit count up. I do know it's not a competition like you said Dawn. I do not use Huggle to get my edit count. I don't only revert vandalism on Wikipedia. I just need to try to get over this situation and then not feel worried anymore that he or others users have been beating me to vandalism. I can't let that worry me anymore and keep making complaints about him. This user just Huggles to get his edit count up. Why is he like this? He also is getting every revert other there. What type of user does that like he's ClueBot? I will learn my lesson about what happened between me and him and it'll all be settled in a positive way. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cerruti 1881

Cerruti 1881 is the diffusion line of the Parisian fashion house Cerruti, not the firm itself.

Sincerely yours

Florent PERRICHON, CEO of Cerruti S.A.S french company, 3 place de la Madeleine, 75001 PARIS, FRANCE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.124.179 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, I suspect it was becuase I removed extraneous content and used a simple but short link? Please check. Thanks, Kim

Hi I was editing the 2011 Oliver E. Buckley Prize Page, Peter Johnson. The links there were for the wrong Peter Johnson. This is a correct link below. Thanks, Kim

http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/Admin/Johnson_Peter.asp

You removed it without explanation and that's why it was reverted because removing stuff without explanation is vandalism. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

False positive

There was no need to revert my edits to user_talk:Agradman. I have two declared accounts. AGradman / talk / how the subject page looked when I made this edit 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know that it was your alternate account until now. I undid the warning I gave you on your alternate account's talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Camel

Hi Wayne, Good work on patrolling Camel. What is it about that poor beast that draws so much vandalism? Idiots. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They're pretty much bored kids coming home from school. WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about my edit at The creeds. Will apply speedy deletion template next time. Guoguo12--Talk--  20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, but use {{Db-g7}} when you do that, please. I was letting you know on your talk page but I didn't save it in time before you told me here. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it coming... Guoguo12--Talk--  20:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what you should when he's the creator of the page but if this situation happens on an article he or she created years ago, you should PROD it. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand the policy, but I simply can't tell what pages are blanked by their creator from Huggle. Opening the page history in a new window takes too long... Guoguo12--Talk--  20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does happen. People do revert edits by the creator of a page the creator created. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No prob :)

Dylan620 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

--Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

The previous change was not vandalism. Please do not say that it is. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.231.189 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit other people's comments without a good reason why in the edit summary. If you don't explain why, then the edit is vandalism. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 23:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 23:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Nascar1996's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nascar1996 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle and talk

Hi Wayne. I've a question re this edit you made to Huggle. Please could you point me to the discussion(s) that initiated the change? I ask because I have a concern the edit may in a way be counter-productive, but I don't want to speak out of turn, so would like to bring myself up to speed on prior discussions. Many thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Gurch and Iridescent didn't want it there so I removed it and before that I asked Jeff on his talk page and he said it shouldn't be there per Gurch and Iridescent. You may ask him about this if you want. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.. Actually, I see somebody's reverted it back now, so my quest is now over! I think it's better as it now stands - i.e. WITH the (talk) parameter - as now when one looks at a user's edits, one can see if the reverted users still may need to be warned/welcomed. Thanks anyway. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and it should be better. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere!

Wayne, I see you everywhere, especially at WP:AIV. How do you spot all this stuff? Do you have a 10,000-page watchlist? Use IRC?

Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on stuff. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I use Huggle and I have made over 1,000 reports to AIV, A.B. I don't have a 10,000 page watchlist and some people may believe that. Your welcome and thanks for the compliment! WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you ever on IRC? If so, which channel? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not use IRC. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure I'll see you at WP:AIV. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you will, but are any of the other helperbots coming back? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

By Who's Authority?

Could you please list articles you have written?Vasser24 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with your article. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

David Papaleo

You responded to my recent edit as vandalism and reverted to old copy. I know which facts are true and not true - which are libelous or false because I am related to David. We would ask that this information be removed - thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpapaleo (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and it will not be deleted by an administrator unless if the page is vandalism or an attack page which is neither. You can't want it deleted just because of this. Wikipedia knows what is libelous and what's not. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This Edit

is awesome. [10] Thanks for making me laugh. --TwistOfCain ^(talk) 23:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Level 2 violation for informative writing?

Dear Wayne Olajuwon,

I have been informed that my recent edit has come under vandalism lol.

Well in all seriousness I don't see what was offensive about my post. If ITV don't like it why are they hiding the truth? I have my article saved on my work doc would you mind me posting it here so you can read my article and the links and give me feedback? I understand that you are busy but if you are going to remove someone's article that took hours of research I would hope you would at least have the decency to read it to see if it really is valid or not for yourself.

I don't understand if a "source" from the media lies in it's articles you can post it here because it was put in black and white, yet my information was 100% accurate and I can't because ITV have removed all evidence from the verifiable site. Doesn't that tell you more about them than me? Although this link proves what I wrote is not lies as it has quoted some of the transcript. </ www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/65728.aspx</

I'm not trying to make you sound foolish Sir, I just don't understand the logic. It's as if your saying the media are entitled to lie to it's audience which is something I don't agree with. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I appreciate feedback, however it is late here so goodnight Mr Olajuwon

Kind regards,

Audience awareness (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Chris mountstevenAudience awareness (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) 18 November 2010

You're not supposed to put that on article space, and you only put that message on a talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm new at this Sir so I'm not insulting your intelligents, so I try and understand, you saying I can write it but I can't inform people on their ITV or This Morning history or whatever catorgories they have presenters you know all those segments, why? They don't like their dirty laundry out in open on their page? Don't there audience deserve to know all their history not just the bits they want? If I put it on a talk page no one will see it and it won't be informative as I want people to see them for the snakes they are. And thats being polite do you even know what was said Sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Audience awareness (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved this userpage to userspace to be worked on to comply with our guidelines. It's here. Rodhullandemu 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He should know that that article is not a talk page for him to do that. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have specifically directed the editor's attention to WP:SOAPBOX and other guidelines. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

He was probably trying to promote it. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Rod Hull or the Mr Olajuwan can you explain to someone who is new to this what is wrong with what I've done? I'm really not trying to be smart. I'm new at Wiki as my account would prove. I wasn't aware society thought it was acceptable to question 3 minor children's right to live? So, I did an article to inform them of the situation to see if they agree. Why is it wrong? I have no interest in promoting myself just wanted to post one article thats all.

Audience awareness (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Audience awarenessAudience awareness (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a talk page and you weren't supposed to do that. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Let's not dilute this discussion unnecessarily, thereby potentially sowing the seeds of confusions and doubt. Audience Awareness, you have a reply on my talk page, to which I am about to add. Wayne, I'd dip out of this, if you like. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You can send this coversation to your talk page, Rod. Cheers, too. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Julie Walters Edit

I apologize,I, too had attempted to revert it but I did not know that you had already addressed it.

My apologies again,

Goswamir14- www.rohangoswami.webs.com 20:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goswamir14 (talk • contribs)

That's okay. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism

The edits were not vandalism. You either don't know what you are talking about or are engaging in personal attacks in order to control a webpage.

I can see that on your webpage, others have already informed you of this.

You can find the definition of vandalism on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

The changes I made were to statements that clearly required references and citations. They were clearly personal opinions (maybe yours).

Please do not engage in webpage censorship, or you'll have to be reported to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.46.154 (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not need to put your opinion on that page, but you could have put the citation needed template and explain why on the talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

Probably in the near future. Got schoolwork. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but good luck! WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Inka 888's talk page.
Message added 23:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yo

Um, I wanted to edit a page and you didnt allow me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.112.116 (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This happened when I gave you your final warning before you got blocked. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding 263 (number)

Hello. I recently introduced an expansion of the article 263 (number) listing an example of the number's unique quantity by providing readers with a visual interpretation using the Wikipedia logo. I'm curious as to why you reverted this and considered it vandalism? Thanks. 71.33.33.47 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, you can do the same thing on any number such as 23 (number) which you can add 23 Wikipedia logos or 100 (number) where you can add 100 Wikipedia logos. It wasn't that constructive, that's why. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well 263 is quite a notable number, with hundreds of millions of Google results (see here), so it seems reasonable to expand the article. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused Wikipedia's readers. Thank you for your explanation. 71.33.33.47 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, and your welcome. You may expand it if you want to. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, don't even bother talking to it.

The edit summaries alone show it to be another Catalyzingevent (talk · contribs) sock. I've reported it. HalfShadow 18:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You should put the template on their talk page saying that they may be the IP used Catalyzingevent. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just did. I figured I'd wait until they were blocked first; watching the page was more important. HalfShadow 18:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Watching the page is important to determine what an administrator is going to do the IP. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they'd be able to do much; the guy's using multinational socks. The current one is from Toronto, the one before was from Croatia. HalfShadow 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Report every sock you see. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for your edits today, reverting edits to my talkpage, and for your reversions on the article for Dwell (retailer), both with regards anon 81.100.64.222. I have started a discussion on WP:COIN with regards Dwell, which you can follow on that projects page. Once again, thank you, and if ever you think that I could help you, please - just ask! With Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thanks! WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows revert

Actually, this was an accurate edit, so I removed your warning. I was undoing it anyway, since it was covered under "worst fears", but the warning was unnecessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I warned him because sex is the most common vandalism if you look at the IP's edit. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

False vandalism warning

Could you please read my note at User talk:70.26.181.136 and actually read the text of the edit you reverted. This user was falsely warned as a vandal and I believe you should strike the warning. Not all IPs are vandals. This one actually improved the article and did so in good faith. I have restored their version. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's now crossed know, and I know not all IPs are vandals. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Michigan Museum Doesn't Exist... It is now the National Museum of Surveying. Check the Links.

I have no idea how this works, but the Michigan Museum of Surveying doesn't exist anymore. The museum is now the National Museum of Surveying. The new website is http://surveyingmuseum.org. The museum is now in Springfield, Illinois. I was just trying to update the page to show that there is no longer a museum there. The webpage linked is dead. The museum is no longer in Lansing. I was just going to create a new page, but this page needs removed, so I thought I would just use this page. Plus, this page showed me a template. Now to be mean, perhaps you could have checked the links before throwing vandalism around, as you forced me to lose a lot of information and time. Once again, the Michigan Museum of Surveying hasn't existed in over three years. It is now in SPringfield, Illinois.

Mattp87 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You even changed it without explaining why which is considered vandalism. You may redo your edit but please explain why. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!!

Attempted to revert vandalism on your talk page and I think I accidentally reverted it to a revision that was already vandalised. Genuinely didn't realise - sorry! Came on to resolve it without Huggle but I see that you've already managed to revert it :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay but thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page anyway! :) WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

• News and notes: No further Bundesarchiv image donations; Dutch and German awards; anniversary preparations

• In the news: Jimbo Wales interviewed and parodied; Wikipedia in politics

• Book review: The Myth of the Britannica, by Harvey Einbinder

• WikiProject report: WikiProject College Football

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Candidates still stepping forward

• Arbitration report: Brews ohare site-banned; climate change topic-ban broadened

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page

This is not vandalism. You may remove any comment from your talk page as you please, but that edit did not deserve a warning on the user's talk page. Assume good faith, and look into an IP's edits before you revert and warn. The "Big Dumb Book of Stupid Lists" is in fact a component to Cram, and the user was just trying to help. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that it was true until he told me. Many users have told me that I was bitey to the newcomers. If I don't know that this true, I could tell that it was vandalism because I didn't know that until he told me. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the edit could be questionable to a vandal-fighter like yourself who goes through hundreds of edits a day, but my point is that you reverted his/her message on your talk page like it was vandalism and subsequently warned him for it. I suggest you strike out your warning on his/her talk page and offer 76.125.242.77 an apology/welcome. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done earlier. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection of this page

What do you think of semi-protecting this page for a while? It looks like all Ip edits are bad ones. You could create a subpage at User talk:Wayne Olajuwon/Alternate talk (or something) for good Ip edits and link it at the top similar to HJ Mitchell. I am quite sure that admins on WP:RFPP will agree. Regards, →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This page was semi-protected by Tide rolls the last time it was semi-protected. I can't request it now because I have school tomorrow but I will request semi-protection of this page when I have a chance. Creating an alternate talk page means I have to go back and forth to both pages so I would just want to have one talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough but consider making it long term. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 02:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to make an alternate talk page right now because the vandalism on my talk page isn't like the vandalism on an article. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ebe Gilkes

 22 Nov 2010

 Dear Mr Olajuwon,

 This was my first submission to Wikipedia and maybe I missed a procedure or two for which I must 
 apologize. I regularly view Wikipedia and  recently discovered the erroneous information about Mr Ebe 
 Gilkes whom I have seen perform many times before I left Barbados in the early 80's.  As a record
 collector of many years and Jazz enthusiasts I recently acquired Mr Gilkes' first cd from a friend 
 in Barbados along with a program from a free concert he gave to launch that cd. Prior to making the 
 edit I instructed that friend to have a look at the information and we both had a laugh. 
 Maybe I made a procedural error but I can assure you my information is correct and would appreciate 
 any pointers with a view to having it reinstated.
 It is also my intention to read Mr Warren R Pinckney Jr.article/book on the subject since Ican add a 
 bit to music/jazz in Barbados.
 While on the subject I also intended to edit some other erroneous music related information on 
 Barbados music, bands etc. However I will now postpone that until I am sure of all procedures.
 I am sure that the intention of this site is to publish correct information and that was all I set 
 out to do, correct the incorrect.

 Yours faithfully,
 xm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushhall (talk • contribs) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 

You will be fine if you don't make those mistakes again. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Next Palestinian general election

Hello. The recent deletions by User:Mikebutair on Next Palestinian general election appear to be legitimate, and not vandalism, since he's deleting unsourced and possibly defamatory allegations about a living person per WP:BLP. May I therefore suggest that you allow the deletions? Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He's still removing content without explanation even if it's unsourced. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cougar

Why is my edition vandalism? 187.112.20.20 (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What does it have to do with cougars? Did you report this as false positive? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, do you sometimes look at the revisions or do you just revert every IP edit without an edit summary? There is no rule that everyone has to expain their edits in the summary (at least I don't know of any). I know that everyone makes mistakes, especially those who fight vandalsim, because they want to be fast and do a lot of reverts per day – however, reverting vandalism is not supposed to be done for raising one's reputation, but to perserve the status quo of Wikipedia. Whenever you feel you don't have enough time to read added or deleted text, you should certainly slow down and take the time! (this is not ment to discourage you, just a note on how to avoid making too many mistakes :)) --95.223.206.151 (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't revert every IP edit. I only revert IP edits if I'm sure if it's vandalism or if it's unreferenced, sometimes. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push

Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (November)

The WikiProject NASCAR Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 5 · October 26, 2010 – November 25, 2010 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue
Project discussion • Project resources • Project Standards (discussion) • Project Category Structure (discussion) • Project Participants (discussion) • Project Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Project Award • Popular Articles
Current contributors Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) Airplaneman (talk · contribs) Wayne Olajuwon (talk · contribs) New members XnascarX24fan (talk · contribs) 11 November How to help WikiProject NASCAR Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Expand the articles in Category:NASCAR stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See all here Assess : See all here Cleanup : Days of Thunder, Rusty Wallace, NASCAR Thunder 2003, Bill Weber, Wood Brothers Racing, Amber Cope Copyedit : NASCAR, Dale Earnhardt, 2010 Aaron's 499, Mark Martin Expand : Road course ringer, BAM Racing, Greg Erwin, Donnie Wingo, 2008 Daytona 500, 1991 Daytona 500, Ken Schrader Racing, Win-Tron Racing, Venturini Motorsports Maintain : 2024 NASCAR Cup Series, 2024 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2024 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series, 2024 ARCA Menards Series East, 2024 ARCA Menards Series West, , List of female NASCAR drivers NPOV : Criticism of NASCAR, RahMoc Enterprises, Mara Reyes, NAPA Auto Parts 200, NASCAR Kinetics Photo : see all here Stubs : See all here Update : 2025 NASCAR Cup Series, 2025 NASCAR Xfinity Series, 2025 NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series, 2025 ARCA Menards Series Verify : NASCAR rules and regulations, 2008 Dickies 500, Frank Cicci Racing, Scott Lagasse Jr. Other : More Add content to the portal Portal:NASCAR is a place where we can exhibit our best articles and most interesting free images. Any article which is FA, GA, High or Top importance can be added for display as a Selected article or as a Selected biography, free images can be added to be displayed asSelected pictures. All of these are chosen randomly for display on each page view to avoid both bias and having to manually update the page monthly. If you've created or seen an article or image that you feel would be a good addition to the portal, follow the instructions on the pages linked above. Please nominate it on the talk pages. Images Below is the NASCAR Picture of the month (found here). The picture has to be one uploaded in the last month. It is exclusive to the Newsletter. REMEMBER, YOU CAN VOTE. The Alan Kulwicki Ford Thunderbird that he used to win the 1992 NASCAR championship displayed at Alan Kulwicki County Park.	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Article alerts NASCAR articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 8 1 9 FL 1 1 2 GA 4 7 51 25 87 B 23 42 42 84 191 C 41 74 151 751 11 1,028 Start 42 157 665 1,837 1 22 2,724 Stub 3 38 233 1,073 6 1,353 List 12 35 27 29 103 Category 434 434 Disambig 49 49 File 131 131 Project 24 24 Redirect 1 7 14 32 400 454 Template 406 406 Other 15 15 Assessed 114 338 1,199 3,831 1,460 68 7,010 Unassessed 73 373 446 Total 114 338 1,199 3,904 1,460 441 7,456 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 26,592 Ω = 4.93 New Good Articles: Auto Club Speedway Current Good Article Nominees: 2010 Sylvania 300 2010 AAA 400 2010 Price Chopper 400 Phoenix International Raceway Daytona International Speedway Indianapolis Motor Speedway New articles: Colorado National Speedway Portland Speedway Labonte Jeff Fuller (NASCAR driver) 1989 Holly Farms 400 TNN Motor Sports/TNN Sports
Article of the month – Auto Club Speedway, a recent good article Auto Club Speedway (formerly California Speedway) is a two-mile (3 km), low-banked, D-shaped oval superspeedway in Fontana, California which has hosted NASCAR racing annually since 1997. The track was also used for open wheel racing events until 2005. The racetrack is located near the former locations of Ontario Motor Speedway and Riverside International Raceway. The track is currently owned and operated by International Speedway Corporation and is the only track owned by ISC to have naming rights sold. The speedway is served by the nearby Interstate 10 and Interstate 15 freeways as well as a Metrolink station located behind the backstretch.Construction of the track, on the site of the former Kaiser Steel Mill, began in 1995 and was completed in late 1996. The speedway has a grandstand capacity of 91,200 and 28 skyboxes. In 2006, a fanzone was added behind the main grandstand. Lights were added to the speedway in 2004 with the addition of a second annual NASCAR weekend. In 2011 the track will host only one NASCAR weekend. (More...)
New images

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 12:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

Sorry

Hi, I'm sorry I was wrong « CA » ^Talk 16:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it because I undid my revert and I reverted the warning I gave you on your talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for db-g7 i have created this page for test, OK? « CA » ^Talk 16:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and okay. WAYNEOLAJUWON 16:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Jeff G.

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Murda

Hi Wayne. With this edit and this edit, you tried to revert vandalism to the Uncle Murda wikiarticle. However, you didn’t get it all. I got the rest with this edit.

For future reference, it is sometimes better to deal with vandalism by checking the article’s page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version (in this case, from the 16th of November). If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal(s) is lost. You cannot always rely on Huggle. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your right, Spike, and your welcome. Huggle can't do everything for you such as this. The clean version may be from a few days ago. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome, (not sure if I'm quite ready for the hugging part but the cookie definitely brightened up my day) ;-)

Pol430 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Okay. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bachal

Hello!!, I saw you had undid the revision on Bachal page. User:Mkrestin has found a novel way of vandalism, he just redirected the page to another similar page without mearging the contents or giving such notice. I have re created the page to it's original version, as per your last edit. Can you please keep a watch & help fighting this vandalism. Please see [11] history of page. I have mentioned this also on talk page of article. Thank you.R P Jethwa (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I use Huggle so the vandalism should pop up on there. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you just check the [discussion page].The sources sited in articles such as Jayas, bachal, Raghav (surname) etc are same and put by the same user who created these articles.I searched for raghav mention in these sources and didn't find even mention of word Raghav.[See].Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Some talk pages have less info about this than other talk pages. WAYNEOLAJUWON 15:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Mr. Berty's talk page.
Message added 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Mr. Berty's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Mr. Berty's talk page.
Message added 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

YAY! I LOVE FLODDING PEOPLE'S TPAGES WITH TB'S! Mr. Berty ^talk/_stalk 19:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my talk page, Wayne. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, Eagles. I'm here to help. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle Milty

Sir, I am not trying to Vandalize anything. This Milty guy is harrassing me and retarding my edits. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to make a personal attack about this. You did that twice on his talk page. You've been reported to AIV now. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How is that a "personal attack"? You've just shown yourself to be a self-righteous, sanctimonious person now. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You were harassing him, then. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are harrassing me, then. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Wayne was correct the first time. You attacked User:Uncle Milty by calling him an "idiot" and "numbnuts." Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Eagles, do you think that for an account created only today, Tomas’ level of sophistication with wikicoding might suggest a sock puppet? — SpikeToronto 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, he does seem to have edited before, but for now I have blocked him for 48 hours for personal attacks. I'll check with a CU though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

And edits like this too. Tomas Gilbfarb, Tebsongay, Cracked acorns, 94.192.52.28, and 90.199.44.78 are all suspects in my mind (thuough I doubt that all five of them are the same person since the IP's at least trace to different parts of England).—Soap— 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless his life takes him and his laptop to various parts of the country … — SpikeToronto 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, it appears that User:Tomas Gilbfarb could be User:Tebsongay and at least one of the IPs, but User:Cracked acorns is definitely not related. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Cracked acorns has only made good edits from what I can see and would not really need to be checked in an SPI since they would come up in a CU if they're him and if not they're not there's no need to bother them. The only reason I even mention it is because sadly I've seen cases where vandals create a fake "good" account just to help draw attention to the one that is actually vandalizing by putting him on ANI, etc. —Soap— 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, Cracked acorns is definitely not related after comparing editing times of all users. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Have either of you guys filed an SPI, or passed along (y)our suspicions to a CheckUser? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's going to block them if they are the confirmed sockpuppets? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK#Blocking, any admin can block the confirmed sockpuppets indefinitely, involved or not. However, an uninvolved admin makes the decision to block the main account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If you report a sock puppet and you're an administrator can you block the user that you reported? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case I am looking for confirmation that Tebsongay and Tomas Gilbfarb are the same person, as well as looking for other sockpuppets since it appears Gilbfarb has edited before. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Arch Coal

I am new and also got a vandal warning and all I did was edit some text that needed some caps at the start of the sentence. Maybe someone should check before accusing someone of vandalism just because they arent signed on...didnt even realize I wasn't until I got the warning.98.108.162.182 (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit other people's comments unless if you have a reason why it should be changed. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think what happened here is that you might have accidentally deleted others' comments, which is normally considered disruptive. However, I don't think you intentionally did that, and I recommend that you disregard that last warning. –MuZemike 01:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He didn't know that he's not supposed to delete or change or other people's comments. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Next WikiProject Newsletter

You can create the next now. Nascar1996 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I remove the {{User}} so it would be easier when I request to send it to you all at MessageDeliveryBot. (I have aready done it though for this months.) Nascar1996 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where you will be creating the newsletters, change the volume every July issue. Nascar1996 21:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but I created the three newsletters including the next newsletter. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that you will not create any more newsletters? Nascar1996 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, since you edit massively with Huggle, please watch the Hendrick Motorsports articles, such as drivers and crewchiefs to make sure all of that unnessary stuff about the team swap will not be on the articles, except for the Hendrick Motorsports article. Nascar1996 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I will, and I reverted an edit on Jeff Gordon for the same reason you told me. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He did it again, and I reverted. Nascar1996 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Same thing I did. You should let him know on his talk page about this. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He will figure it out once he sees we will not allow him to put it on those articles. Nascar1996 21:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes he will, and that's the same thing that happened to the IP on those articles. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he is a sockpuppeter, though. I left a message on his talk page. Nascar1996 21:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He's edited on Wikipedia longer than that IP, so I don't think he's a sockpuppet, either. Telling him on his talk page is telling him what he shouldn't have ever done on those articles. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to semi protect you talk page? I am watching and those IPs are warning you and all kinds of crap! I am really surprised that you haven;t done it yet. Oh well, another suggestion, :) Nascar1996 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to request protection right now. WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Isobel hale

The article wasn't negative in any way - where did you get the notion it was an attack page? Anyways, I've deleted it under WP:A7. Airplaneman ✈ 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like it was an attack page because the haha part was why I thought it was an attack page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.96.202.101

Please review WP:VAND#NOT. Adding a userbox is potentially unhelpful, but also quite possibly a good faith action. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic honorifics

Hello, Wayne Olajuwon … Please cite WP:PBUH to newbies when you revert PBUH in Islamic articles. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)}

Redirect

Wayne, you were right to revert the very recent undiscussed redirect from Pluto (mythology) to Hades. Roman Pluto is not the same as Greek Hades; he became so. He has an independent, though probably related Roman origin. I'm not sure why you undid your reversion. The editor who made the change has recently made several similarly drastic edits without discussion. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't very sure at first but a few seconds ago, I reverted his redirect. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Pluto is a latinized form of Plouton a name the Greeks give him. Pluto was never a serperate deity. I reverted it back. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Take this to the talk page of Pluto (mythology) about talk about it there. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did days ago. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you do it again? Just don't keep redirecting it to Hades without explaining why again on the talk page because you may be blocked for 3rr if you keep redirecting it. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I did. Pluto and Hades were always the same. As I explained on the talkpages for both. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you give a good explanation of why it should be redirected to Hades? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Check yourself. Talk:Pluto_(mythology) 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how some talk pages are when they don't have replies. You have a new message on your talk page. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since people keep eating them....

To TPS - if you steal this.....

Sophie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

- Sophie ^(Talk) 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC) :)

Thanks for the cookie! :) WAYNESLAM 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

• News and notes: Backlog drive; youth and confidence among Wikipedians, brief news

• In the news: Fundraising banners continue to provoke; plagiarism charges against congressional climate change report

• Interview: Interview with Johanna Niesyto and Nathaniel Tkacz from "Critical Point of View"

• WikiProject report: Celebrate WikiProject Holidays

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Election report: Voting in full swing

• Arbitration report: New case: Longevity; Biophys topic ban likely to stay in place

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

New Username

Why did you change? Sophie ^(Talk) 00:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed my username because I didn't want people to think that I'm related to Hakeem Olajuwon. WAYNESLAM 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

o...k =/ why would someone say your related? - Sophie ^(Talk) 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked me that am I related to Hakeem Olajuwon and I said no. They probably asked if I'm related because they looked at my username and it said Olajuwon in it. It was pretty unnecessary. Someone asked me if I'm related. In my revert summary on Huggle, I answered there with no. Why would someone make fun of your username by asking if you're related to Lil Wayne or Hakeem Olajuwon? Wayne is a common name such as Wayne Gretzky and Reggie Wayne, for example. My username isn't my real name. I didn't want to have a weird username like I had. WAYNESLAM 00:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My best wishes on the new user name. I never had a problem with the old one, but I wish you continued success, whatever the name you use! Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? cool :) and yea...my old username (which i cant remember) changed because it was sooo hard to rememeber so when trying to log in, i would have to look at an edit i had made on a queit page to get it :) - Sophie ^(Talk) 09:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Alan! I'm still the same user no matter what user name I have. But one thing is for sure that I will never change my username ever again. Alansohn, why don't you borrow my edit notice? WAYNESLAM 22:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Shaun Ryder

I am not sure you should have reverted Shaun Ryder. The info is overly detailed about the kids, and the first item in the "controversy" section was a 13-year-old incident where he swore. I have removed both these things from the bio. The edits may have been performed by the subject of the article trying to get this overly detailed set of facts about his children removed from the internet. Oh by the way is that basketball player you in the photo? I had no idea you were so tall. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He didn't put that in his edit summary but no that's not me in that photo. That's Michael Jordan in the photo. WAYNESLAM 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there was no edit summary; its just my gut feeling. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I heard gut feeling on the radio before. Soon it's going to December. WAYNESLAM 23:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)