User talk:Darkwind

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on your talk.

Archives

Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Ryan. I am contesting the speedy deletion of the page Allen Christopher. The bio on imdb.com is mine. I expanded it a bit for Wikipedia. I was citing reference sources such as youtube videos, newspaper articles, radio interviews etc. when it was deleted. How do I go about getting it posted. Thanks for your assistance. Allen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeright (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allen. Thanks for contacting me to discuss this article. Given that you signed your message here with the name Allen, I'm assuming you are the Allen Christopher who is also the subject of the intended article. If that's the case, the basic advice that the Wikipedia community gives to contributors is please don't write an article about yourself at all. (Please click that link and read our advice page about autobiographical articles, especially sections 1 and 4.) —Darkwind (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the date released does not match the T-pain album singles chronology. It says is was released in 2012 but the singles chronlogy says 2005. 108.99.250.231 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add incorrect information to the article. I added another reference, which is an interview about the movie with lead actress Jeon Do-yeon. [1] 203.215.116.169 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Darkwind. I find myself very confused by instructions here, in Wiki, and tried to follow them but still messed up. I'd like the dome article to be corrected but probably can't be trusted on a second attempt either. I tried to get info to let me pass the text to someone else who could make sure the changes would be correct, but failed in that also. Absolutely not being a vandal but just incompetent. 50.92.122.6 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of reasons that your edit came across as inappropriate and/or vandalism. One of them is that you didn't provide a reference/citation beyond a YouTube video, which is not a reliable source. If you believe the information you added is correct, you will need to cite a reliable source when adding the material. If you have questions about finding reliable sources or how to write in an encyclopedic tone, try visiting the Teahouse where you can ask questions and receive help in a friendly manner. —Darkwind (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Darkwind,

Recently you reverted an edit and identified it as vandalism on the Jill Duggar page. I mentioned that she got fondled by Josh and you deleted it. Google it! Real talk!

Today, however, an article has come out that her and Jessa admitted to having been fondled by Josh.

I want you to apologize for reverting my edits and marking me as a vandal.

2602:301:7744:61C0:4870:EF52:8687:5E08 (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)xwestsidex[reply]

To add material to Wikipedia, several things are necessary. One of the important ones is use of an encyclopedic writing style or tone. The reason your edit was determined to be vandalism is that you did not even try to use an encyclopedic tone. You used an inappropriate metaphor and came off as having a ridiculing tone, which is vandalism. I stand by that determination. Just because you might be writing about an actual event or true fact doesn't mean that you can write whatever you want about it in whatever tone you want. —Darkwind (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkwind. I wonder if you would mind blocking IP address 175.143.233.179 - the account is only being used for vandalism and they keep removing themselves from WP:AIV. Thanks. 59.167.86.120 (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 59.167.86.120 (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have archived the discussion and banned Judae1, but I don't see a closure statement on the archived discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravpapa: My block of Judae1 (t c) came from the Checkuser evidence provided on the SPI page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babasalichai/Archive#24 May 2015, where I left a statement at the bottom that I performed the blocks in accordance with the evidence presented above. I did not participate in, or close, any other discussion involving this/these users. Can you point me to the discussion you're referring to? —Darkwind (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Ban_on_Ronn_Torossian_to_be_extended_to_his_company.3F --Ravpapa (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravpapa: Yeah, I was not aware of the existence of that discussion at the time I closed the SPI and blocked the users listed on the SPI page. I was not intending to perform an actual ban per se, but the obvious sockpuppetry (confirmed via CheckUser) was a clear policy violation, so I issued the blocks against those accounts in accordance with WP:SOCK. I had nothing to do with the discussion being archived; I think that was just because it had been a certain amount of time since someone had commented. —Darkwind (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the confusion. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firepool, I am interested in creating an article titled Nkandla compound firepool controversy. Requesting userfication of Firepool to User:Northamerica1000/Firepool, where I can perform the changes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Done. As with all userfied articles, if you use any of the existing text, please remember to move the completed article into place instead of copying-and-pasting to preserve the attribution/edit history. —Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, will perform the move page function when it's completed (I'm already aware of this, but thanks for the advice, in the event that I was not). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the article. Given that it was his 5th version, 3 at Ollie Forsyth and 2 at Ollie forsyth could you WP:SALT the titles please? Bazj (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Darkwind (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you fully protect the page rather than semi protecting it? The issues between us experienced editors have been sorted out, by and large, and it's just IPs and brand-new accounts (or long-dormant-but-not-autoconfirmed-accounts) ignoring this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukeno94: Unless I'm interpreting the situation completely wrong, this is a content dispute and not pure vandalism. Semi-protection is inappropriate for any content dispute where any of the editors involved are autoconfirmed. See WP:SEMI, "Guidance for administrators". Put another way, semi-protection would imply that you and the other registered editors are "right", and the anonymous/new editors are "wrong", and until/unless there's an official policy on the matter, that's not a statement I am willing to make. —Darkwind (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, when you put it that way, I can at least understand your position. I don't really agree with the action you took, but I understand it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your warning about my engaging in repeated reversion, and specifically your criticism of my comment about vandalism on the Samuel Johnson page: If you scan the Johnson history and talk page, you will find that I have in fact already done the things you asked. The inclusion of "United Kingdom" has been debated and discussed at length on the talk page and reasonable consensus was reached. An anonymous vandal insists on returning to change it again and again for no reason. The same is happening on the Burl Ives page, a vandal keeps changing oral cancer to mouth cancer despite valid reasons given against it. Someone has to clean up these frivolous and ill-intentioned changes that only cause harm, and do not have improvement of the article as a goal. Any edit that cannot be defended on the grounds that it improves the clarity and readability of the article must not be allowed to stand. You also ask that I engage in discussion and compromise with other editors, but this 97.104.13.41 on Burl Ives's page will not even attempt to justify his actions, proving his standing as an anonymous, malicious charlatan. How, then, is a conscientious editor, who cares about his subject, supposed to defend a page against such mindless meddling? I don't claim "article ownership," I merely stand alone in a desperate attempt at "article protection," which, given the restrictions you impose, is difficult if not impossible.

PS: Real editors should always overrule anonymous time-wasters playing with their cell phones. SamJohn2013 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to try to address this by individual points, and I'm going to aim for being clear without being condescending, so this is going to get long.

First, the warning about edit warring, specifically the part not in italics, is from a template message designed to alert users who may or may not be aware of the rules about edit warring. It contains advice on how to avoid or resolve an edit war situation that may or may not be appropriate for every single article and situation, but the point of the warning is to tell you that your behavior is unacceptable to the Wikipedia community.

You reverted an editor three times because you didn't like their wording. That is not acceptable. Period. There are very few exceptions when multiple reverts are OK. The big one is if you are reverting pure vandalism, meaning, those things which are listed in the "Types of vandalism" section of that link. Someone changing "oral cancer" to "mouth cancer" IS NOT VANDALISM. The other exceptions are listed at WP:3RRNO, and the edits you reverted did not fall under any of those exceptions either. Therefore, your reversions were edit warring. Period.

It does not matter if you think you're "right", because the other editor thinks they're "right" too. It doesn't matter if you have one reason or ten reasons why you don't like their edit. Repeatedly undoing someone else's changes, or repeatedly inserting your preferred version of material, is not acceptable. At all.

Calling another editor's changes "frivolous and ill-intentioned" or "mindless meddling" is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith, which is one of the fundamental principles that maintain the health of the Wikipedia community. Along the same lines, referring to "article protection" in the sense of defending an article from changes you don't like, is further evidence of your apparent failure to grasp the inherent principle that makes Wikipedia work — it is collaboratively edited by a wide variety of people from all walks of life, countries, races, genders, etc. Some of these people are going to have ideas about how to improve articles that differ from your own opinions. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the sole defender of an article, protecting it against changes they don't like. Credit to WP:OWN for some of that wording.

If someone makes a change to an article and you don't agree, then feel free to edit their wording if possible, or revert if necessary — once. Ideally, they will respond by discussing the changes with you on the article talk page or on your talk page. This is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, if they instead re-insert the change you don't like, DO NOT revert them again. It's that easy. You start the discussion with them if needed. Put a message on their talk page and on the article talk page, or something, but don't just keep reverting them.

Failure of another editor to discuss changes with you, 1) does not prove that they are a "malicious charlatan", and 2) does not make your reverting any more correct than theirs is. It just means your continuous reversions are a demonstration of you stooping to their level. Be the bigger person and start a discussion yourself instead next time. —Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and finally, IP editors are just as "real" as you are. Really, take a few minutes to read that page and reconsider your attitude toward IP editors. Also, because I forgot to in my first reply to you, ping: @SamJohn2013:. —Darkwind (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the explanation, and I now have a much better understanding of the workings of Wikipedia. I will take these factors into account if ever I do any more work on here. But here are the facts: No edit that I have ever done done in my life has been affected by what I like or dislike. My only concern is what is correct or incorrect according to the highest standards of written English. There is no such thing as "more correct" or "less correct" as you claim. There is right and wrong, especially in this case. I state now and for the record that the Burl Ives "mouth cancer" change was pure vandalism, even by Wikipedia standards, because any search for it links to the "oral cancer" page. The vandal's ONLY motivation is to cause annoyance, there is no good intent whatsoever in his actions. And as for your supposed good intentions, you only contradict the Wikipedia "community" paradigm. Much like our society today, no one here has any real authority, except for a hidden elite like you who are able to dictate and make arbitrary judgments according to obscure rules and confusing procedures, being held accountable to no one. It is you who commit the very offences of which you falsely accuse me. Meanwhile decay and destruction continue, and honest people who really do practice good faith are insulted and punished because of it.

A public restroom indeed. SamJohn2013 (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SamJohn2013: Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. The fact remains that you are not the arbiter of what is "right" and "wrong" with the English language. Neither am I! There is, in fact, a whole debate about whether "right" vs. "wrong" English even exists. See English usage controversies and Linguistic prescription, for example. There are also variations in the use of the English language among countries; do you also propose to change those articles using another country's conventions to match your selected version of the language? Anyway, you are already aware that other people have different ideas about the correct usage of English on Wikipedia, for example from your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2#Present tense from 2 years ago.

In the particular case of the Burl Ives article, perhaps maybe the IP editor simply thought "mouth cancer" was easier to understand? If there's a redirect to the correct article (which there is in this case), no harm is done with that change, except for the fact that it reads differently. "Mouth cancer" is not "bad" or "wrong" English, and the link would lead to the same article. However, your failure to assume good faith keeps you from even admitting this reading of events as a possibility, and thus predisposes you to think ill of the IP editor.

Furthermore, I will just point out that I am not the only editor to have raised concerns about your tone and/or behavior, which I can tell from reading your talk page history. If you try to assume good faith a little more, and "right [the] great wrongs" of the English language a little less, perhaps people won't have as much cause to call you names in the future. Just a suggestion; history certainly shows that editors like yourself with negative attitudes either "get it" and reform said attitude, or they don't — and end up leaving the project or becoming the subject of an ArbCom case. Either way, I'll be shot of you. Good day. —Darkwind (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:50.82.14.181 -- can you remove their talk page access for a little while? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraphine Gryphon: Thing is, it's OK for them to blank their talk page, see WP:BLANKING. The only inappropriate thing they did was the "break your fingers off" implausible threat via edit summary, which I've deleted from the page history. —Darkwind (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought removing active block notices wasn't allowed. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraphine Gryphon: *points at WP:BLANKING again* "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." is probably what you were thinking of. —Darkwind (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: Block notices aren't particularly important because the system displays "blocked" in several places already, like at the top of their contribs page, and it's also logged in the block log. —Darkwind (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing this. Could you move the history of Natalie Holt to Natalie Ann Holt? It makes sense to keep all the article history together. Thank you.--Launchballer 15:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Performing a history merge is an annoying and tedious process, and is usually only required when text has been moved via copy/paste instead of the normal page move function. In this particular case, since the text of the two versions of the article have nothing to do with each other (that is, the newer article was created from scratch, not from the old text), there is no pressing need to have the history of the redirect merged with the history of the new article. In fact, it may make determining attribution for RaVen Quartet harder to understand if they get merged. —Darkwind (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why my edits were deleted? They/them is not the proper way to refer to a single person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilnims (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilnims: I already left a message on your own talk page about this, but I'll repeat it here: it is not up to you to determine "improper pronoun usage". If a person prefers to be referred to by a particular set of pronouns, current Wikipedia guidelines are to respect that usage in the article about that person. Changing the pronouns, especially to something like "it" which is generally considered offensive when applied to a person, is ignorant at best and malicious at worst. Please stop. —Darkwind (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So ascribing to the rules of the English language is not Wikipedias policy, but content added to the site, per your comment on the Jill Duggar story, must be written in an encyclopedic manner? You sound like you're on a power trip. Furthermore, for someone who doesn't want to be identified by a gender, it is the only proper word to use when referring to it by itself. They/them is used to refer to a group of people, meaning two or more. Gilnims (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilnims:I'm sorry if I am coming across like these are my rules I'm making up or trying to arbitrarily enforce. They're not; pronoun usage in regard to an individual's identity is covered by this guideline, while encyclopedic tone is covered here.

Also, you're kind of missing the point. The entire point of the identity/pronoun guideline is to allow an individual to express themselves (including their gender identity) in a manner of their own choosing. It is not your job as a Wikipedia editor to say "but that's not right". Here's a hypothetical: let's say someone's chosen pronouns are ze/hir/hirs. Would you revert those pronouns out of an article because they're not "real words"? If so, then you're on the wrong side of the guideline, and thus, people would be likely to revert you.

Either way, intentionally using a pronoun not chosen by an individual, especially one with non-person connotations like "it", is offensive on its own, even if it weren't against Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Please just don't do it. Also, if you're replying to a person's commentary on a talk page like this one, please insert your comment directly below theirs so that everyone can follow the conversation easily. Thanks. —Darkwind (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkwind. I just noticed that you responded to this EWN report at the same time as I did. My internet has been pretty slow tonight, so it looks like we've overlapped here: you responded with no violation while I was blocking the editor for 24 hours. I chose to block the editor because there were strictly 2 reverts in 24 hours and, although the first was reverting a change from a while back, the tendentious nature of the edit (changing the Palestinian flag for the Israeli one), combined with some of the edit summaries ("there is no palestin") and talk page comments suggested an intention to edit war and disrupt the article rather than work collaboratively. Hence I felt a 24 hour block was necessary to prevent further disruption. However, I recognise that your response is an equally valid one and am happy to discuss this with you. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]