User talk:Operator873/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Contact

Hi Operator973, sorry for the things I have deleted on the Geneva Business School wiki page. I may have did it the wrong way. I would really need your help on this matter, but I can't speak publicly about it. Is there a way to talk to you or any other moderator directly instead of publishing on your page ? Or just any way to discuss without Geneva Business School can know ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muradin ch (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Muradin_ch. Please refer to your Talk Page for further information regarding the change. I've left links to a wealth of information regarding our community and proper editing styles and techniques. To answer your other question, a user's talk page is the best way to communicate with them. I, personally, do not distribute non-Wikipedia contact information. I appreciate your time reaching out to me. Operator873^CONNECT 00:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion processes

Hello! Thanks for asking the question. On the English Wikipedia there are three options to request that an article page be deleted. They are:

• Wikipedia:Speedy deletion - for deleting things that are blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia like graffiti
• Wikipedia:Proposed deletion - for something you think should be deleted (for example an unreferenced article about an obscure topic), and
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

The case you came across just now falls into the first category because it's pure graffiti, so I've deleted it for you using that process instead. You can click on each of the links for more details. Do ask me any more questions you may have! Have a lovely day Deryck C. 17:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tennessee Walking Horse

It is a fallicy to assume the education I have in this field is incorrect. I made the information on the Tennessee Walking Horse Page accurate and truthful to the state of the current industry. The previous edits are not demonstratively neutral to the breed, which is more important than people's feelings. Especially when an entire industry is built on literal torture for show and the 45th President of The United States unequivocally supports it. This "Big Lick" atrocity is called 'sporting' and that is the most incorrect definition of those kinds of shows. It is insulting to my intelligence to see Wikipedia supporting outright and agonizing abuse. By changing my edits to reflect the Big LICK as a performance is Not remaining neutral. ModernThreat101 (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Espionage Agent

Do you think anyone reading this page DOES NOT know what World Wars I and II are? 76.189.141.88 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Reply

I was cleaning up a test edit. Can you undo yours? --Kostanadol (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Answered on your page Kostanadol. Thanks! Operator873 (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

warning

Hi friend! What exactly did you find inadequate about my edit summary? 76.168.109.87 (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is in reference to your unexplained reversion of my perfectly reasonable edits at Pacific_Palisades,_Los_Angeles, by the way. 76.168.109.87 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Instead of deleting everything you find unsourced, perhaps add the tag for References needed so as to preserve the article's content? The general idea is to preserve an article's content and improve on what is there... Not delete 75% of the content because there's not a source tag at the end of every sentence. Please refer to The Five Pillars of Wikipedia for more information. There are very strict requirements for when and how an article is edited. As you're a new user, I would also suggest you visit The Teahouse where you can learn much more about editing from very senior editors. Thanks and Welcome to Wikipedia! Operator873^CONNECT 14:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the revert was explained on your talk page.Operator873^CONNECT

Friend, give me a break. You're over there popping out automated edits without looking at what you're doing that carefully. I understand that this is valuable in some contexts, but you're confused in this particular case. I did not blindly remove stuff just because it was unsourced, but because it was unsourceable, promotional, and untrue. For instance, you tell me that I ought to add a tag so that someone can find references that show that some neighborhood whose existence beyond the imaginations of a bunch of real estate agents is dubious anyway is "nestled in the canyons"? Really? Why don't you read WP:BURDEN and then explain why you replaced such nonsense as a description of the Village as "walkable and vibrant," or that " The Via Mesa is nestled between Temescal Canyon on the west and Potrero Canyon on the east," or "The Highlands could almost be considered its own separate community high up the hill overlooking the ocean." Or this:

The council has rejected city offers to become an official part of the city, preferring its independent, non-aligned status. Among the main reasons that Council members cite is that the Council would not have the power to appeal decisions of City officials, commissions, and boards and the Council could not appear before Federal, State, and County authorities regarding local issues.

Can you explain why you put that material back in? It's your duty to do so: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I hope you will revert yourself. You are edit warring. 76.168.109.87 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nothing I do is automated. You'll notice my tags are typed by my hands; and every article I review changes to I read with my own eyes. Please visit The Teahouse to get help from more experienced editors. They'll be glad to see you there. Operator873^CONNECT 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You're evading the issue. What about your duty to justify your replacement of that material? Also, it's a bit rich that you're referring to "more experienced editors" when you've been editing for about a week and all you've done is revert and warn with Twinkle, an automated tool, by the way. Seriously, please consider reverting your edit, ceasing your edit war, and engaging with the actual issue, instead of directing me to the teahouse.76.168.109.87 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Operator873, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.