User talk:Sole Soul/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

József Tóth (footballer born 1929)[edit]

Hi, may I ask you what was the source for this particular edit [1]? I can't find any proof for his 1990 death. Thanks --217.224.245.40 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That edit was based on the Serbian Wikipedia version of the article, which I judged to be probably true. But I can be wrong. Sole Soul (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the author of the Serbian Wikipedia version has removed the category he had previously added. I'll do the same here. --222.106.49.73 (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Links[edit]

May I ask why you removed the link to CueTracker from a lot of snooker players' pages? I had cleared with Armbrust that these links could be added. (Visionaire87 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I removed them because their addition carry all the signs of spam. May I ask you are you in any way connected to the CueTracker site? Sole Soul (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which signs of spam do they carry? Do they not provide links to further information on the subject? to a page without affiliate links or spam of any kind? (Visionaire87 (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A user whose main contribution is adding a single site to multiple articles is most likely connected to the site added. Kindly review WP:ADV. Sole Soul (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sole Soul,

I am hoping you could keep the reference "From Classical to Quantum Shannon Theory" that I inserted on just four pages of the quantum information theory wikis. This text is a full book on the topic, covering many aspects of the theory not available in other texts. It might be useful for you to look at this book to determine that it is a good reference as suggested. Also, it is not clear to me that you have expertise in quantum information theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.159.126 (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting section for Apple Sleep Proxy Service[edit]

Can you explain why you removed the link to troubleshooting hints for Apple Sleep Proxy Service?

Cheshire (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to a site you are connected with is discouraged. Kindly review ADV. Sole Soul (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But do you have any objection to the actual content of the linked page, or just that it was me who added the link? "Discouraged" doesn't mean a blanket ban. It means that such edits should be scrutinized to see if they are in fact an abuse. Would you mind taking a quick look at the page in question, and if you think it's informative add the link back for me.

Many people seem to be interested in how the Sleep Proxy works, enough that there's a Wikipedia page for it. I also have a page explaining further details and troubleshooting steps. Connecting the two together seems helpful for the people trying to find that information.

Wikipedia's "Sleep Proxy Service" page is pretty thin right now. I'm hoping to find time to update it with the specific details of how it actually works, which I think a lot of people might be interested in (Google searches find plenty of articles speculating — often poorly — about how Sleep Proxy works) but there's no point my wasting my time updating the wikipedia page if all my edits are going to be reverted just because it's me.

Cheshire (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who are interested in how the Sleep Proxy works, and who do not have conflict of interest, will eventually find the best links for the article and add it.
"Discouraged" doesn't mean a blanket ban. It means that such edits should be scrutinized to see if they are in fact an abuse.
No, it means you should not do it in the first place.
It will be a great advantage for spammers, and you are not necessary one of them, if they can add links to dozens of articles and we have to scrutinize each link before we can decide to remove it or not. Sole Soul (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So who can add the link? Is it okay for you to do it? Is it okay for someone else to add it? I'm just trying to understand the process here without getting into a fight with you. I'm trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Would you like the designer of the Sleep Proxy Service to help improve the Wikipedia Sleep Proxy page by correcting mistakes and providing details and supporting documents about how it works, or would you rather the page remain as it is?

Cheshire (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy if you improved the page. But correcting mistakes and providing details does not equal adding a link to your site.
Who decide if the link should be added?
The answer is absolutely not the site owner, because he/she will always think it should. A site owner is welcomed to suggest his/her site in an article's talk page. Neutral users is the correct answer. Sole Soul (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011[edit]


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sole Soul. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#.22Wuss-rock.22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

your email[edit]

Read it, I will work on it tonight or tomorrow. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filter[edit]

Sole Soul, I understand I need to thank you for the filter taking out DJ Nihilist: thanks! I have another request: we have an IP hopper (referred to as the Roman vandal, or the RC vandal) whose edits are exemplified here. I have a list of IPs that have been used, User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?, that a few users help out at. My question: can you find a way to filter these edits out? The above linked contributions have typical edit summaries that they simply copy every time, from one IP to another. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for making this filter! Playing whack-a-mole with this guy was getting a little tedious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MASSIVE irony[edit]

As per WP:SNITCH, if you make another edit such as this you WILL be blocked from editing. The Regimental Goat (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he won't. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 November2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter 384[edit]

Thisa filter is no longer doing what it's meant to do - most hits of this filter are adding lots of words, ot just 1. And the word "balls" you added here seems to be too prone for false positives - the filter should definitely not have stopped this edit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 442[edit]

(moved from User talk:Timotheus Canens) I have removed it from Mr.Z-bot/filters.js to avoid flooding WP:AIV. I have no experience with that vandal, but upon a cursory look I only see false positives. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to talk to Sole Soul (talk · contribs), who maintains that filter. T. Canens (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preventing these edits [2][3][4][5][6][7] was intentional. Dealing with this user is difficult, to quote another user "[the user] seems to have a mix of useful copyedits and such...". Anyway, I've disabled the filter. Sole Soul (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I think it would be difficult to filter that because admins handling the WP:AIV won't know the details. The problem is edits are mixed and wikilnks are allowed. We've got the Verizon vandal filter which suffers from the same problem - catching wikilinking from a huge IP pool, but there at least the targeted edits are easier to distinguish (wikilinking extremely common terms, in an odd fashion like watch[[list]]). Materialscientist (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 November 2011[edit]

Roman Catholic vandal[edit]

...is using an IP outside his normal ranges: 209.33.105.12. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False positive on filter 445 ("self harm")[edit]

Edits by 89.239.213.163 were brought up on WP:AIV as having triggered filter 445 (Disruptive user threatening self harm). In this case this would appear to be a false positive. No apparent threats to cause self harm, just a rather incoherent rant. Abuse filters are beyond me so I couldn't really say what the problem is. Regards Tonywalton Talk 01:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a FP - see block log and click on "Tor check" at the bottom of that page for an easy test (also, note that lack of tor nodes does not mean it is not Yourname - he uses some proxies which don't have tor ports to wikipedia). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Tonywalton Talk

The Signpost: 05 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 19 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011[edit]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 January 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 February 2012[edit]

Edit filter[edit]

Hey there. It looks like Filter 441 is blocking some normal talk page comments, seemingly randomly (I see no connection between this, this, and this, either in the attempted edits or in the users' contribs (not to mention the lack of any spamming whatsoever). Either there's a pattern here that I'm totally missing, or the filter needs a tune-up. Swarm X 22:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The filter is in log mode, so these edits are not blocked. The filter is still on the vandalism reporting list, though. Can you remove it from there, please. I'm trying to detect activity by a specific spammer who knows that he is being watched. Sole Soul (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. I just assumed that it was blocking the edits, as most edit filters we see at AIV seem to do, but I see now that it's not. In any case, removed from the list now. Thanks! Swarm X 01:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2012[edit]

Adminship?[edit]

Hi Sole Soul, would you be interested in adminship? Best. Wifione Message 05:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to take some time thinking before saying yes or no. I appreciate the offer very much. Sole Soul (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll await your reply. Kind regards. Wifione Message 05:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 March 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2012[edit]

Smile![edit]

A Barnstar!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012[edit]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Sole Soul. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012[edit]

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool[edit]

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2012[edit]

Special:AbuseFilter/441[edit]

Hi Sole Soul, please can you re-enable it? He's back! --Vituzzu (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sole Soul (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ty --Vituzzu (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 September 2012[edit]

Tags[edit]

Hi, I see that you have edited [8] and I cannot find any other talk page to bring this up.

This edit [9] slipped by without getting a tag added to its summary, I am wondering if "rape" is one of the terms that can be added to cause a tag or if it already is, but didnt trip because the article itself is not about a person? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is because the article is not about a living person. Sole Soul (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK - thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 24 September 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 01 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

Edit filter disabled[edit]

Disabled... why?--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 29 October 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 12 November 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 19 November 2012[edit]

Filter 491[edit]

I think this filter is causing way too many false positives to be set to "disallow" - EFFP has been seeing quite a number of legitimate reports against the filter.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 November 2012[edit]

Special:AbuseFilter/260[edit]

An IP editor has posted to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page, and appears to have confused the edit filter with page protection. Contacting you as having made the last change to it. It looks like the filter triggering was a false positive, but edit filters are a bit out of my league. If you could help sort (particularly whether anything needs to be fixed) it out it would be appreciated. Monty845 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sole Soul (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2012[edit]

RC vandal[edit]

We're making progress at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gullucum1956. Thanks for adding that other brother. Who knows what else turns up. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2012[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2013[edit]

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter[edit]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 March 2013[edit]

Another Barnstar[edit]

The da Vinci Barnstar
For your wonderful creation of abuse filters. Even though many may not be actively preventing edits, I think they could be a valuable source of information for human editors.Marechal Ney (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 March 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 March 2013[edit]

Special:AbuseFilter/96[edit]

See Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#.22new_article_with_no_mention_of_title.22. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AbuseFilter/30[edit]

I suggested a change to Filter 30.
WT:Edit_filter#ASCII_art_.2F_non-standard_characters
I would appreciate your feedback.
Mattj2 (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 26 June 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 03 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 10 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sole_Soul/Archive_3&oldid=1168308284"