User talk:Achowat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Regarding the Renaissance:Black Death

I've read the book that is cited by user:Aleydanichol. The pages that are cited describe later plagues and diseases in Europe, not the Black Death. What the user describes then is not relevant to the Black Death, which is the only plague discussed in this section of the article. -Ecimino

In any situation where it's one editors word over another concerning a treeware source, I think the community would much rather see a discussion take place. Being bold is good, but building a consensus around your interpreation of the souce (which clearly differs from another User) would be a much better way to improve the article Achowat (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Honors/Honours

There was a user who corrected me using "Honors" in the Vancouver box, changing it to "Honours," so I changed Toronto and Montreal to "Honours" as well. Is that what you were trying to do with Toronto's box, and didn't realize I'd already done it, or is "Honors" appropriate in Ontario? I honestly don't know. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A quick check of the Toronto Star seems to use 'Honor' exclusively. I can find no verifiable use of "Honors" or "Honours" in regards to sports trophies, but the lack of U's anywhere would lead me to believe that the sans-U variant would be preferred. Achowat (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Anti-vandal barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. Made me pretty happy to get it, seeing as its my first one and all. The vandalism levels are severe right now, so let's keep up the good work. :) -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as everyone does what they can. People vandalize just to see how long it stays up. The quicker we take things down, the less there will be. -Achowat (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Achowat. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ^X 21:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Bengali Brahmins

It is not clear why you introduce Hindu templates in the article. Hinduism and Brahminism are not same. I donot know whether you are aware of social dynamics of India.It looks poor.Anti-cleaning you are introducing with your medals.117.194.199.126 (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Such a large removal of content is inappropriate without consensus. If you truly think that hinduism is irrelevant to Bengali Brahmins, you may be right, but such a bold action absent consensus isn't the best for the community -Achowat (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Algimia de Alfara

Algimia de Alfara and Algímia d'Alfara both refer to the same town, that is why I redirected the first into the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.109.35 (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the page you are directing to is the one without the content -Achowat (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The page I was directing to is the one without the history content but the one with the correct official name, and probably this cannot be fixed in an other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.109.35 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would propose moving the content first (a simple copy and paste job) and then putting in the redirect. A redirect should never rob a viewer of potential information. -Achowat (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: revert

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Seismology: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The user added disruptive prose and has been warned and thrice block for Vandalism. My assumption of good faith has its limits. -Achowat (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Right. I'm just reminding you to post a warning at whatever severity level you consider appropriate. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary and unfair usage of the term Vandalism

Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.

For the entry "Actors Playing Ebenezer Scrooge" I have added the name of a noted actor who has played Scrooge no less than 1,000 times over 20 years. He has his own Wikipedia page stating that fact.

Perhaps you don't know of this actor, or don't approve of actors. Nevertheless, your accusation of vandalism is capricious and arbitrary. Rather than libel you publicly, as you have done, I am contacting you in private.

Please remove the accusation of vandalism, re-read the definition, and please restore the page as I have edited it -- or give an explanation for your actions which hews to an actual Wikipedia guideline.

I don't expect to hear back from you, but I'd appreciate it nonetheless. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.222.82 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I offer my fullest apologies. It was my understanding that the Scrooge played-by list only included actors in movies, and as such, 1,000 was far too many to be a legitimate source. As such, your fact has been re-added. I take full responsibilities for my actions, but have some helpful suggestions to keep this from happening in the future. If you were to include a pithy response (perhaps about how it is true per the actors page) as an edit summary, it would help both myself and the rest of the Recent Changes Patrol. I had a quick trigger finger and didn't Assume Good Faith. I offer you nothing but apologies. -Achowat (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Achowat. I will follow your advice and put my comments into the edit summaries from now on. And I have also put "theatrical performances" into the entry so as to clarify. Thank you again for your quick reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.222.82 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected your user page

Due to vandalism, I've semi-protected your user page indefinitely. I hope you don't mind: if you don't want the protection, just leave me a talk page message or just request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thanks for your anti-vandalism work! —Tom Morris (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a barnstar to add to start your collection.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being friendly, encouraging, and an overall really pleasant guy to work with. :) -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or a Barnstar to start a collection. Thank you, your kind words mean more than any agricultural structure adornment could. Achowat (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm the first! I feel honored. :P. Keep up the good work, friend. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Keep it up! RandomAct(talk to me) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Pyrrhic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Dactyl

Thuppakki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Action-adventure

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

barnstarring it up :D

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		This is for always beating me to reverting vandalism :3 Glacialfox (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't be that hard on yourself; you've beaten me a few times, yourself. Keep fighting the good fight, comrade! -Achowat (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I remember thinking wikipedia vandalism was awesome, but after you actually see it all the time it's just annoying. xD I'm disappointed in the wikipedia vandals, they need to step up their game and get more creative. Except not really. :| Well anyways, let's kick some vandal ass :D Glacialfox (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Holland Codes

Apologies - I've been away for awhile and realized I forgot to login and just did. I restored your revert to the page. I've been trying to develop the article by adding more sources and developing the background. If you have further suggestions, I would be interested in hearing them. I am still officially "away" so only periodically check in, but I'll look for your response. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All I was attempting to do was restore the removed references, but thank you for reaching out. Achowat (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to restore - it's just been a big clean up and after a few GACs and FACs I tend to cut a lot. What would you like restored? -Classicfilms (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears that you've already restored what needs to have been done. And I apologize for inconveniencing your larger project, it's just that my Assumption of Good Faith has its limit, and there's only so many times you see an IP remove references with no edit summary before some legitimate updates get caught in the crossfire. -Achowat (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's my fault for both not logging in and simply being lazy about edit explanations. Don't blame you one bit. Will be better about both -after years on the WP it's easy to get a little lax. If you have knowledge on the topic would love more contributions - it's an article worth developing though many more sources are needed. And if in the future you have suggestions, feel free to ask. Again, I'm not sure how often I'll be on but I do check once and awhile. Thanks for you diligence in general. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, it is much appreciated! 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism on your user page

[1] Thanks!! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the least I could do. You do good work here, you shouldn't have to put up with those shenanigans. -Achowat (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

If you're rolling back vandalism, can you please leave an edit summary/user warning? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My policy has always been to issue warnings only when the comments added were done so maliciously or persistently. Most of the vandalism I come across appear to be tests of the software or tests to see how quickly we can get around to removing the comment. In the latter cases, I feel that warnings are just as likely to lead to retaliation than to lead to constructive edits (My Assumption of Good Faith pretty much ends once you vandalize). Any persistent or malicious vandalism is met with a warning, but given the chance to either revert more vandalism or to warn an IP for a harmless test (and potentially cause malicious edits), I'm going to choose the latter. -Achowat (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this not harming the encyclopedia? Not issuing warnings means that vandals have carte blanche to continue and that administrators have more cleanup to do because vandalism blocks (at least those reported at WP:AIV) are typically only issued after a level-4 warning. As for retaliation, I don't see how that is a problem at all--this is why we have blocks. If the retaliation for being warned for vandalism is more vandalism, then you're dealing with a vandal who is better blocked than not. And you are welcome, of course, to choose what you think is the appropriate level--a level 2 warning from a week or two weeks ago on an IP's page may be followed by a level-1 warning, if you so choose. I'm just telling you that in my opinion, and I don't think I'm the only one, these warnings serve a purpose. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You make a compelling argument. Looking at the User Templates now, it seems there is little harm of biting the IPs, and will endeavor to use templates as are appropriate. Thank you. Achowat (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons I dropped by was that you seemed to be doing a lot of useful work--this makes it even more helpful. BTW, your point about biting is well taken: there are editors here who automatically pull the Huggle or Twinkle trigger on IP edits, so extending more (as you did) rather than less good faith is in itself a positive thing. Most of the time you never hear back from an IP after such warnings, but sometimes you do, and sometimes that's positive and people get pulled in and become solid contributors. All the best, Drmies (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

What Achowat said is my policy too, so I need to do more warnings then? I love how I just kinda intruded into this conversation :P Glacialfox (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It helps to think of the Templates as simple reminders of policy than 'warnings', but as gentle reminders of policy. Always Assume Good Faith, and the templates do that (warning levels 1 and 2 for vandalism, for instance, just call it a 'test'. Use them just to remind the new users about the policies that we have here. Honestly, they're nothing more than that until level 3 or so. Achowat (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Look at the text of the templates for levels 1 and 2--it's actually quite gentle. And you can do other things as well: you can leave a note if it seems a genuine good-faith edit. You can add the welcome-anon template. Keep in mind also that a. a lot of vandalism, though by no means all or even the worst kind, comes from IP editors; and b. one of our automated anti-vandalism tools is down (see User talk:ClueBot Commons). What I'm asking is that if you run into what meets the definition of vandalism (WP:VANDAL) that you tag it as such, as long as you are convinced that it is vandalism (if you're not, err on the side of caution). I don't want anyone to go around yelling at IP editors, or cuss them out, or anything--but if the actual vandals get tagged more quickly (and then blocked), there's more time to do the real work that needs to be done. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

		The Multiple Barnstar
		in my 6 years as a reader on wiki, i havent done as much as you have in 3 months. for all your works fighting trolls, have these Bkoopa6464 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words (your generosity is overwhelming). Just remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, and judging by your contributions, you've been inactive for quite some time. If you have any questions or would like to know how to help out here, just let me know. (I also reformatted your stars, I hope you don't mind) -Achowat (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

El Hierro

You reverted my good fauith, factual and referenced edits. The info I added about the fourth research ship and then removed was becuase I realised the ship had already been mentioned and the source had made a mistake, not me. I ahve re-added the edits. 86.133.208.190 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My deepest apologies. What I saw was simply the removal of information. The easiest way to keep this from happening in the future is to use Edit Summaries to help patrollers, like me, understand why a change was made. Again, I apologize for the hasty roll back. -Achowat (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

Hello. I looked and saw that Turkmenstan was vandilized and was redirected to Iran. I am wondering why this country's page is not semi-protected as most other countries pages on here are? I was wondering if you could make it semiprotected. I would do it, but I don't have the ability to do this. Thank you. Nhajivandi (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why it's not. You can request protection at WP:RFPP and a roving admin might be able to work on it. -Achowat (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK thank you. I will do that. Nhajivandi (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. If there's anything else I can do to help, just ask. -Achowat (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for revert

The user page changes were indeed from an anonymous IP who was apparently unhappy with my deletions of his/her vandalism. Thanks much for monitoring and making the reversions on my page. JimVC3 (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey trolls are gonna troll. We just need to show them our way works. Happy editing! -Achowat (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Taipei 101

Hi, sorry I issued a warning about vandalism on the above article. I though I had made the revert, but you were quicker off the mark. Again, apologies. Denisarona (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)