User talk:VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:24, 14 December 2010

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

[[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 13:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

School articles

Hi. I note you're creating a series of articles about Australian schools. Before you spend too much time on this, I should let you know that, generally, kindergarten / elementary / primary school articles are very rarely kept, unless they demonstrate some notability out of the ordinary - e.g. for schools in the USA, schools are notable if they are Blue Ribbon award winners, or win some other major academic award. However the primary school articles you;re creating aren't really notable. Schools that aren't notable generally get redirected to the article about the local school district. This isn't a hard and fast policy, but the general precedent set over many, many decisions on articles - have a look here : WP:OUTCOMES#Education. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want to discuss this or need any help. CultureDrone (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you think you can demonstrate sufficient notability, then by all means add it to the article. However, I'd suggest you concentrate on high schools first (as these are normally kept regardless), then work downwards by age range - notability becomes an issue around the ages of 14/15 - schools teaching below this age range generally have to show something out of the ordinary in order to have their own articles. The actual size of the school isn't generally relevant - a school that teaches 50 pupils but has won a major educational award is much more likely to be kept than a primary school which may have 1000 pupils but hasn't done anything notable. And, you're an experienced editor so I probably don't have to remind you, but it's best to add notability and references before submitting the articles, or you'll get people like me redirecting them (and believe me, you don't need any more people like me ! :-)) CultureDrone (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the redirect ? Not really - as I mentioed in the note I've dropped on your talk page, you really need to cite notability in the article when it's created, rather than hoping someone will add something to make it notable - otherwise Wikipedia's notability guideline goes out the window as articles could be created about everything in the hope that they'll become notable at some point. CultureDrone (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...claiming a school is notable because it's in an old building is an argument that's come up before - unfortunately, the opinion went much along the lines of this comment (not from me): "This still means that notability can be bought by an utterly non-notable school simply by buying or renting a notable building. I don't wish to repeat the whole of my rationale for this objection, but in a nutshell I've pointed out that we rightly do not award notability to any other body or person simply for occupying a significant building. This would simply be double standards". Therefore I don't think that the building can be considered to impart notability to the school - however, an exception may be where person who built a (now notable) building also founded or made some major contribution to the school. Notable ex-students however would be a good means of indicating notability - but we're talking well-known or famous people (as a rough guideline, people who'd qualify for an article of their own (or who already have one)) - a minor local police official or storekeeper probably wouldn't be enough. Bear in mind however, all this is just my view of the current policies/guidelines :-) As regards WP:SCHOOL, no, it didn't gain consensus, but even if you ignore that, you still have WP:ORG and WP:N which need to be met. Also, the WP:OUTCOMES link I gave in my first comment to you shows you what generally happens to school articles. CultureDrone (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - happy editing :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AllambieHeightsPS.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AllambieHeightsPS.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AnnangrovePS.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:AnnangrovePS.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user response

Hey, I've looked over the IP's "contributions," but the attack on the user talk page is the only edit they've made so far. There's no need to take this any further. I've issued a 4im warning to the user, which can be seen here. If the user comes back, you could report him or just message me and I'll handle him. Thanks! Netalarmtalk 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Roentgenium

See WP:RS and this post. There were dozens such "discoveries" in the field of new elements. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please discuss the issue first and then revert edits in the articles? Thanks. Arxiv is not peer reviewed, thus as a scientific discovery this has almost zero value right now. As to news, it should be notable, i.e. picked up by major news publishers. Did this happen? Even if it did, wikipedia is not a news publisher (there is wikinews, by the way). Further, I hope you realize the importance of this discovery, if true (stability island, etc, issues), thus WP:REDFLAG applies here. Materialscientist (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also this - anything published on wikipedia creates an avalanche on the web, and then hundreds of writers point their fingers saying "wikipedia is not a reliable source of information - we've told you that, not once". Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I've been only friendly to you, but your last revert sites no sources of notability and no sources for "previous claims" and thus borders disruption. Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not WP:edit war. If you continue to do so, you will be WP:blocked. You may want to read WP:BOLD on how to proceed. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian schools

Please note, Australian schools use {{Infobox Aust school}}, not {{Infobox school}}. Please stop changing articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Danjel, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Danjel/RBSCInfobox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Newcastle High School (Australia). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not remove citations from articles. This is disruptive AussieLegend (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Newcastle High School (Australia), you may be blocked from editing. Again, do not remove citations from articles AussieLegend (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no justification for removal of the citation that I included at Newcastle High School (Australia) on either occasion that you have removed it, so it appears that you're deliberately being disruptive to make a point. For this reason I've marked both of your removals as vandalism. If you persist in edit-warring over this you may be blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Frank | talk 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Newcastle High School (Australia). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not making edits that weren't in "good faith", as noted by other contributors to the discussion at ANI [[1]] [[2]]. Throughout my interaction with the other side I frequently tried to engage him in discussion both on his talk page and at WP:EIA evidenced throughout [Talk page], and in the summaries for the changes I made [[3]], and in fact went further to communicate his case when he was reluctant to do so. I had committed to not making further edits until discussion had taken place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#A_second_opinion.3F, which was what I had been trying to encourage from the beginning.

I have read Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks and WP:Block and it doesn't seem like I've done anything to contravene any strictures therein. I am not a current threat to Wikipedia and I have been trying to be productive. This could well be a "go to bed, Danjel" (but I'm not sleepy), but I don't know what argument I'm defending against as the only reason I've got is "give them both 24 hours". Could I please have further information to build a better case for unblocking? -Danjel (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for edit warring, which isn't an accusation of acting in bad faith, but is something that has to be taken seriously because of the disruption it causes. In a dispute, you should stop and discuss, even if the other party doesn't. Once you've offered the olive branch by starting a discussion, you should stop reverting and wait for the other party to respond. If they don't, you can request full protection of the page or seek a third opinion, both mechanisms exist to prevent a dispute from getting to this stage. By continuing to revert, you escalated the dispute and that's why you were both blocked. If you make another sincere unblock request based on what I've just said and agree to avoid that article and any others where you're in dispute with AussieLegend, I'll seriously consider unblocking or shortening the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for your input HJ, but I'm afraid that I still do not understand. Could you please explain this further. I did stop, and go to discuss the issue, evidenced in the history of the page 8 and 9. I made my first edit to the page at 10:07, it was reverted at 11:00. I then raised it at AussieLegend's talk page at 11:03, suggesting a compromise so that we could move forward. I then left the page to participate in discussion until en edit at 11:45, which was undone quickly, and discussion continued. My final 2 edits to the page were at 12:55 and 12:57, by which time /I/ had taken it to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#A_second_opinion.3F and directed the other side to the discussion (the second time as forcefully as I could), as I had been repeatedly suggesting the other side do, for further discussion and directed the other side to that spot to discuss the controversial information that he had been trying to edit in. It was at that point that I made the ANI report. It had been hours after the ANI report was made that I was blocked, and I had stopped editing for hours (even if I was unhappy with a situation where a non-neutral and radically inconsistent default position formed the basis for discussion) awaiting an outcome either at the ANI report or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#A_second_opinion.3F. You'll note that, at all times, I was civil and tried to suggest ways to move forward.

You're right, though, that I should have asked for request full protection, but I honestly did not know that this mechanism was available for an issue that really should have been discussed (as I had demonstrably and frequently been trying to do and encourage the other side to do).

I'll avoid that particular article, seeking full protection, until it is resolved in discussion at WP:EIA (after which, I will continue the work that WP:EIA has been doing), but I can't say that I'll stay away from other articles in the ongoing dispute over Template:Infobox school with Aussielegend as that would frustrate a process where myself and other editors at WP:EIA have been seeking to improve the wikipedia project, letting him "win" (and I use the term with some joviality). Otherwise, I'll take this as an (enforced) opportunity to cool off. -Danjel (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is always unacceptable, even if you are also at the same time civilly discussing your disagreement. Your statement does not convince me that you won't carry on with similar edit wars if you are unblocked. Sandstein 11:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Block

Commas in numbers and motto translations, WTF? - a short, cooling-off block was the best thing for both of you. Continued edit-warring over minor issues like this will only result in longer blocks. –Moondyne 01:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. Far out. I had been trying to be reasonable, but it was just headbashing. OWNERSHIP gets to me a little bit and I lost touch with reality. -Danjel (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. Your opponent got unblocked unilaterally by a sympathetic admin, so it's only fair you have your block shortened too. Be good! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:37, 14 December 2010 edit Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 187,800 edits Unblock declined. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:24, 14 December 2010 edit undo Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 39,672 edits →Block: unblocked Next edit →
Line 108:		Line 108:

	:Yeah I know. Far out. I had been trying to be reasonable, but it was just headbashing. [[WP:OWN\|OWNERSHIP]] gets to me a little bit and I lost touch with reality. -[[User:Danjel\|Danjel]] ([[User talk:Danjel#top\|talk]]) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)		:Yeah I know. Far out. I had been trying to be reasonable, but it was just headbashing. [[WP:OWN\|OWNERSHIP]] gets to me a little bit and I lost touch with reality. -[[User:Danjel\|Danjel]] ([[User talk:Danjel#top\|talk]]) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

			:I've unblocked you. Your opponent got unblocked unilaterally by a sympathetic admin, so it's only fair you have your block shortened too. Be good! [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim\|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim\|Talk]]</small>) 14:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)