User talk:Aoidh/Archives/2014

This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Aoidh/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Why the persistent deleting of news team under the KABC-TV page. This follows the standard of television station pages on Wikipedia. Why delete all of the names except one? Keeping the information adds more value to the article than deleting it. Why not go to every television station listed in wikipedia and delete news team. You are using a different standard to KABC than other station pages. This is not benefiting the users of wikipedia but hindering precious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.237.255 (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"Why" has been explained many, many times now. As for "different standard", that is also inaccurate; it is the same standard applied to any other news article. "Precious information" is determined by reliable sources, and if there are none, then the information is apparently worth very little, especially when it is nothing more than a copy of what is found on the station's website, which is covered by an external link to the website, so absolutely no information is given to the reader by bogging down the article with a pointless list of names. I have started a discussion on the talk page explaining this; if you feel the names belong, you are more than welcome to go through that list and add a third-party source for each name verifying that it belongs in the article per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Anything short of that, however, and those names have no place in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are really doing a disservice to Wikipedia and its readers. I am adding value to the article contrary to your opinion. I, however, do not have the time or energy to keep arguing with you on this and leave the article not as informative as it could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.237.255 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus says otherwise, as does common sense; a listing of random, non-notable names adds no value to any article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sasanian Empire. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh,

Many thanks for previous attention to the Webcomics page. I was able to get into a storage unit that held a sort-of time capsule from the mid-nineties, among the dross was a copy of that A&E article regarding the WackyCrackHEads from so long ago. While some of the information in the article is not accurate (ie: i didn't include my link as revenge in any way for unfair compensation, I just put my contact url in the source code so other developers could find me, which was the common practice at the time, this in turn linked to the WackyCrackHEads site, which is what made Disney's lawyers get all uppity, incidentally i found their cease and desist faxes too). I would be very satisfied if the previous inclusions which were removed for mine not being able to source properly this article could be reverted at this time if that's okay, I'll go ahead and do it myself, but I thought I'd ask you first (as an authority on wiki editing) in case you intend to simply revert them again and accuse me of vandalism.

http://wackycrackheads.com/mn/minnesota-daily-page11.jpg http://wackycrackheads.com/mn/minnesota-daily-cover.jpg

Namaste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansOg (talk • contribs) 01:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your notion of intentionally deleting the news team from a TV station page. This is the standard format on Wikipedia and there's been no discussion of changing it (if there is, point it out, please). Some of the names on those lists represent those who have been at the station a number of years (an indication of the station's history) and have not only won journalism awards, but have also become a fabric of the communities they serve. Before you delete someone else's hard work, go back and look at a bunch of TV station pages and you'll see this list on a vast majority of them. If you take one off then the others have to go with it. Please don't start an edit war and delete any more (and I won't add any more) until we can reach a compromise. Thank you.Mdb1370 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at any television station article where this topic has been discussed, and you'll see that the discussion's result was that the article in question should meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, otherwise it becomes a random listing of names that serve no purpose. When an external link to the station's employee listing serves an identical purpose, nothing is gained by adding such a pointlessly large list of people to the article, which only detracts from the actual, relevant information (as determined by third-party reliable sources). That other articles have these pointless lists of names does not mean the lists belong, only that they haven't been cleaned up yet. - Aoidh (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but that still doesn't address the standard format of TV station pages, and my point remains that if you're going to drop one list, the rest have to go as well. Please provide the standard format for a TV station page. As far as my interpretation of WP:LISTPEOPLE is concerned, that only covers individual pages with lists on them (examples - People from Phoenix, Arizona; or Actors Who Died of Drug Overdoses), and the news team lists are merely sections of the overall TV station page. If you read the KPHO edit (before you reverted it), you'd have seen that there was a link to a reliable source (the station's official website), which meets the requirement. Even if efforts are made to delete the news team lists from every article, someone else is going to add them and continue to add them unless there's a standard format readily available.Mdb1370 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that says these names belong on such articles without appropriate sources backing them up, as WP:LISTPEOPLE applies; that is the "standard format". Your interpretation of WP:LISTPEOPLE is inconsistent with usage on Wikipedia. A link to the TV station's page is not a third-party source, it is primary, and exactly the example I gave as to why the list is redundant and inappropriate on an article; that does not support adding the names, it does the opposite. Saying that "someone else is going to add them" isn't cause to include them, as pages can and have been protected to prevent this very same thing; the persistent addition of inappropriate names on television station articles.[1][2][3][4] - Aoidh (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distros_based_on_ubuntu#Ubuntu-based

Somebody keeps removing my entry under Ubuntu under Third Party Distros.

I am unclear as to why this keeps happening.

This is the text last submitted:

LXLE Linux = """ An eclectic respin based on Ubuntu/Lubuntu LTS releases. This remix features the Paradigm Desktop configuraton: with XP, OSX, Gnome2, and Unity look-and-feel selections. [91] """

Could you please help me sort this out? I'm not sure what is wrong with this last entry.

Much obliged.

Sincerely Nettlepatch (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is because every single entry listed at List of Linux distributions has to have an article to show that it's notable enough to warrant including there; an external link to a distro's website won't cut it. That's why it's being removed from the article. If you believe it does warrant mentioning it there, you are welcome to head to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and work on creating an article for the distro, provided that notability can be established for the subject (see WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT for example). - Aoidh (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)::

AHHHhhhh. Okay. I understand, you want it to link to an article that pre-exists in Wikipedia. Have you looked at the link? I'm wondering what Wikipedia measures are used to determine "notability". This software has 2000 downloads per week, and has been in the top of popularity lists at Distrowatch since last summer. Should I indicate that? It seems that a lot of the other Distros do not "prove" themselves that way, people way less popular than this Distro, in fact. Even obsolete Distros are represented in Wikipedia. Thanks. Just need to know what "notability" entails. (not writing style, just the way "notability" is judged.) Thanks.

Nettlepatch (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT will give you an idea of how notability is determined on Wikipedia. Downloads per week and DistroWatch rankings don't mean anything at all in terms of notability on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I missed that. I didn't realize what those links were, mistood them for part of your signature. I am really really new to wikipedia, and have only barely figured out how to talk to people here. So much to learn. I appreciate your assistance. Thanks again.

Nettlepatch (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=lxle+software&oq=lxle+software&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.90097.92823.0.93151.13.2.0.11.11.0.186.352.0j2.2.0...0.0...1ac.1.mTmXYVXN8Hk#authuser=0&gl=ca&hl=en&q=lxle+software

Hello,

The above link goes to where I've been directed, per the instructions you gave me earlier tonight. I entered "LXLE Software", as shown in the link above, and came across pages of third party references.

Could you please comment on the suitability of what I discovered there?

I"m wondering if people do not get notability results because they forget to include the word software, as LXLE itself does not invoke all these articles.

(I"m going to go back and try with LXLE Operating System, and LXLE Respins, to see if I get different results.)

Much Obliged, Nettlepatch (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly don't disagree with your views. Best of luck, thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen Talk:Aesop? And WPEditor2011's talk page history. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have that on my watchlist and I haven't been to that talk page yet, no. Just noticed the back and forth on Aesop's Fables and thought I'd try to help resolve it one way or the other. Again, I don't care which one is used, so long as nobody get's blocked over something as minor as arguing over whether to use BC or BCE. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually now I see the discussion at Talk:Aesop. I didn't see one anywhere at Talk:Aesop's Fables so I started the discussion there, briefly looked at the bottom of Talk:Aesop, assumed that since this is a new disagreement it would be a new talk page discussion, and assumed there wasn't one. Didn't realize this wasn't a new back and forth. - Aoidh (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What I'd forgotten is that WP Editor has 2 blocks for WP:ERA violations. I don't think we really need that new talk page discussion - particularly not if it's the result of an editor with WP:ERA blocks provoking it. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Johnbod#WPEditor.27s_cyberbullying, but I'm happy to agree with Doug. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but the first of those blocks wasn't exactly legit, not does it excuse edit-warring instead of discussion, especially with the justification that discussion isn't necessary just because he's been blocked before. - Aoidh (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting that. I'm saying he's edit warred over this issue before. I agree that there wasn't a proper discussion at 'Fables', just no response to the suggestion that that article follow the Aesop article's era decision. WP Editor 2011 is claiming in his edit summary there was no discussion at Talk:Aesop, which is obviously wrong as he responded to the discussion there. But never mind, we'll see how this goes. The SPI he raised as a result of this is interesting. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That the block bothered me at the time because of how inappropriate it was, so using that block as further justification for something just rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry I got a little riled up about that, I didn't realize how I was coming across in my responses until I read them. - Aoidh (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. As I've said at the Talk AF page (working across these 2 articles is confusing), I would have reverted myself except I think the editor is misrepresenting what happened. Thanks for reverting yourself. Others including me have tried before to get WPERA clarified where it talks about 'established usage'. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Superpower. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take that as a warning/notice removal (I know perfectly well that users are 100% allowed to remove warnings from their talk page); I took that as modifying someone else's comment, which is discouraged. I have reverted user talk pages before for users changing the warning's content, such as "Hello, and welcome to Wickedpedia. This is not a message letting you not know that your not edit was not reverted by a dumbass motherf$%@#er named DickBot NG." The user didn't remove the entire warning, but shaved off the top portion and placed his own remarks there (and didn't sign his posts). When viewed, it looked like ClueBot NG made those notes, so I restored it.

Seeing that the user hasn't edited the talk page in over two hours I don't know whether he'll respond or not. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that they had only partially removed the comment. Guess I need to pay closer attention to the actual diff... - Aoidh (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The circumstances here were just too odd to not check out, but I'm glad that the investigation cleared you. I'll look forward to seeing you around the wiki. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The existence of these decks based on Asterix, Mickey Mouse, and Droopy characters is verifiable. The "Tarock" section in Stuart Kaplan's "Encyclopedia of Tarot vol II" has them illustrated. A simple Google images search will also yield plenty of sources documenting their existenceSmiloid (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't dispute what you're saying, that something exists doesn't make it worth mentioning on an article. The article doesn't need to list every tarot card face style that's ever been printed, that's not what Wikipedia articles are for. If third party reliable sources noted the significance of these cards that would be one thing, but a bunch of personal websites and vendors selling these cards are not reliable sources, nor do they warrant including this trivia in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Disney and the Asterix Tarot decks are historically important because they are among the first "pop culture" decks so if we have a pop culture tarot section, it would be a gravely serious omission to leave them out. I've also cited the Encyclopedia of Tarot as a source.Smiloid (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the Tarot talk page. You have not made a case as to why reference to those cartoon tarot decks are any more trivial than the Marvel comics are any of the other ones. My case is that they are historically important because they are the FIRST of their kind.Smiloid (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded on the talk page. Please discuss it there, and get a consensus for your preferred change. - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This is my source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aip0Rq2dGk1BdDN1N28zdklUUXpkNlZ0bzlabkJpdlE#gid=1 please don't delete all the hard work I have put into improving the newspaper wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk • contribs)

That's not a reliable source. Please discuss it on the article talk page before reinserting it, as it will be removed without a reliable source verifying the information. - Aoidh (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor is on a rampage. I've reverted the edits, but s/he's reverting the reverts. I don't want to get into an edit war ... 71.139.142.213 (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hopefully since I pointed out why it's being reverted, they'll stop and discuss and it won't be an issue. - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am on a "rampage" I found out that almost all the newspaper circulation numbers (besides the top 100 papers) are over 5 years old. I am trying to update it but you guys keep reverting my valid factual edits. I am try to add to the community with knowledge that I found out. Tell me if ONE of my edits is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Aoidh, I am upset about this because I am not a skilled wiki editor. And I am trying to contribute to the site with factual data that I have. But when I keep getting shut down for technical reasons it is very frustrating. The newspaper circulation have obviously changed over the last 5 years. And I am just trying to do my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "technical reason". When you add content to Wikipedia, you have to verify that with a reliable source. A spreadsheet on Google Docs is not a reliable source, as we cannot trust what's there to be accurate. Since Wikipedia readers cannot verify that the information you're adding is accurate, it's being removed. Please stop reinserting the information without a reliable source, because persistently adding it isn't suddenly going to make it valid. Continuing to add it will just cause your frustration to continue and you may be blocked from editing per WP:EW. - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I found where he googe doc came from: http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/here-are-paper-by-paper-circulation.html

Now redo all my edits and stop threatening to block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A blogspot blog isn't a reliable source either. If you continue to edit-war to insert this material without a reliable source, it will be reverted, and you may be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please stop trying to insert this material, as you've noticed it's being removed, and find out if you have a reliable source before you continue to insert the material. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable source you stick in the mud. It is an Excel spread sheet of the 2012 Audit Bureau of Circulations figures. So what you are saying is that you would rather have NOTHING /data over FIVE YEARS OLD then the data I put on all those wikis?!? What is wrong with you? You are the reason that people that are knowledgeable about a topic (such as myself with newspaper circulation) don't contribute to wikipedia. Because you delete their accurate information. You would rather have no information then something that does not fit into your tech parameters. You find better numbers if you think mine are bad... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A Google Docs spreadsheet copied from a blog is not a reliable source. Anyone can create a blog, host a Google Docs spreadsheet and say it's an audit of whatever they want, that doesn't make it a reliable source. You need reliable sources to verify the information, Wikipedia readers cannot take your word at it. I can say I'm knowledgeable about any given topic the same way you say you're knowledgeable about Gannett newspapers, that doesn't make it true, nor does it negate the need to show what you're saying is true. The information needs reliable sources, and I would indeed rather have no information than wrong information. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."

https://www.blogger.com/profile/16712746705871119746 Jim Hopkins worked at USA Today. His work has been published in USA Today that is how we know he worked in the paper because of his work in the paper (yes it is meta but it fits). The information that he put up is not wrong. And if you think it is prove it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C498:8200:2C32:6A8C:D371:41B9 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem, I can also start a blog and say I'm Jim Hopkins, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source. Jim Hopkins also doesn't appear to be an established expert in newspaper circulation. It's not my job to prove something is wrong, if you want the information to be used you have to show that it's right, that is your burden, not mine. - Aoidh (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is your twisted argument that that blog is not really written by Jim Hopkins or that Jim Hopkins is not an expert? It is your job to help reach a consensus as to the real circulation numbers for all the newspapers that I added to. "All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleBwiki (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a piece of advice, civility goes a long way. I explained to you why your edits were being reverted, you respond by calling it a "twisted argument", referring to others as "you stick in the mud" and saying "what is wrong with you?"; that behavior isn't constructive, and editors don't respond to that well. Since you seem keen on ignoring other editors and inserting the material despite knowing full-well why it isn't staying, let me put it this way: if you insert that material into another article one more time, or undo any editor removing this unsourced content, you will be reported to WP:AN3 and likely blocked from editing to prevent further disruption, and the content will be removed as it isn't supported by a reliable source. If you continue this disruptive behavior and "discuss" by attacking other editors, the content will not be in any Wikipedia article, as it will be removed as soon as you insert it. On the other hand, if you cease edit warring and work with editors in a civil manner to find an actual reliable source and then insert the material once there's some form of consensus, the material would stay. That's completely up to you, but if you continue reverting and adding this material, that is what's going to ensure that it doesn't get into an article, and that onus will be on you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

OK fair enough Aoidh, I read the page you linked to. You were justified in deleting the link to my project according to the above mentioned rules.

Would it be possible to set up a wikipedia page containing information on my project? It could be considered both a live Linux DVD to use, and a GUI installer for Arch Linux.

Thanks, Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.113.47 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Val. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I noticed that you reverted my edits on T-Mobile MyTouch 3G Slide and T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide. While I appreciate that we differ on our interpretations of MOS:TM, and that that difference is currently being addresed in discussion posted at WP:RM, I made numerous edits to conform with WP:MOS, including capitalization per MOS:TM, all of which were negated by your reversion. Please note that reverting drives away editors. WP has experienced a loss in editors, and drop in new editors, over last few years, substantially attributed to a hostile editing environment, measured by such things and reversion. I appreciate your good faith interpretation of capitalization per MOS:TM, and we could debate that on the Talk pages of the articles, but the logical path at this point would seem be to let the RM discussion play out, which I do think will reflect my interpretation. In the mean time, I am reverting to the changes I made per WP:MOS. If you want to go through and change the capitalization now, rather than waiting for the capitalization discussion to play out, I guess that's your choice, but please don't revert wholesale when not necessary. ENeville (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, do you think Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary only applies to other editors? It's a bit ironic that you'd come to my talk page telling me that reverting should be avoided, and that you're going to then revert, especially since, as you pointed out, reverting drives away editors. You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. The correct response would not be for you to edit war as you have done, but to discuss and get a consensus once it is known that there is a disagreement with your edit. If you make an edit and it is reverted, do not simply restore your edit. I'm restoring the previous version per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, awaiting the result of the discussion. If you're going to ask others not to revert, it would be a good idea to avoid doing so yourself, as asking others to do something you are unwilling to do comes across as disingenuous. - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point that you reverted multiple types of edits that were made per WP:MOS. My edits were hardly bold, but rather orthodox. You're actually the one deviating from the status quo by insisting on an article existing in multiple deviations from guidelines. I invited you to change those edits that you indicated you disputed, rather than all of the ones I made. I was trying to be generous in offering that you change capitalization on the trademarks, even though it's a clear violation of established MOS:TM guidelines, your confusion on that point not withstanding, and I would not have reverted such an edit if you had made it initially, as you did this time on T-Mobile MyTouch 3G Slide. By contrast, even your current reversion of T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide violates MOS:BOLDTITLE in two ways, MOS:TM per use of "™", standard formatting of WP:ELOFFICIAL, and broadly WP:NPOV in use of promotional presentation. I appreciate that we are both working towards a better WP. I hope that mutual effort works out better the next time around. ENeville (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I understand just fine. WP:MOS is not some set in stone law that must be followed to the letter, and your edits were based on your interpretation of a suggested practice. Saying "my edits were hardly bold, but rather orthodox" is a misunderstanding of what bold editing is on Wikipedia. You think your edit was right? Most editors do; you are not unique in this regard nor does that mean things like WP:BRD, WP:EW, and WP:STATUSQUO do not apply to your edits simply because you think you are right in your reading of a suggested practice. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't very well say in one breath that the rules don't matter categorically and in the next cite their universal applicability. In any case, the outstanding issue – and this is where I'm concerned about the health of WP editorship and consequently WP articles in general – is that your reversion was inappropriate. The guideline on When to revert (WP:STATUSQUO) says:

Reverting is mostly appropriate for vandalism. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting, but you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time.

Detailed advice on when reverting is and is not appropriate is in Revert only when necessary.

If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor. If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.

I made edits with multiple parts and, even though you identified only one part that you objected to, you reverted all of them, a clear violation of the guideline you yourself cite. So I reverted and invited you to change that part to which you objected, a response consistent with WP:STATUSQUO. And then you reverted yet again, a clear violation of WP:EW, apparently because you're insisting that all those parts of the edit that I made on T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide were erroneous, even though every one is consistent with WP:MOS, your novel interpretation of MOS:TM and broad dismissal of WP:MOS notwithstanding. Your position strains comprehension. But then, so too does your equation of "MyTouch" and "iPhone" in the requested move discussion, so I guess that's just the nature of how you see things.

However, the essay WP:BRD is not license for you to declare all manner of edits "bold" and revert them at will. That would effect a violation of WP:OWN , which is not just a WP guideline but WP policy. My edit of T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide had multiple parts re WP:MOS, previously identified; I request that you explain your reversion of each part, per WP:REVEXP, or else unrevert those parts. ENeville (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you're going in circles, and ironically copy-pasted the exact wording that you violated when you chose to engage in edit-warring. You can't tell others not to revert, and then revert others in the same breath. Please read things like WP:OWN before you cite them, because like WP:BRD, the way you cite it suggests a serious misunderstanding of what it says. Did you discuss your edits beforehand and get a consensus before making them? If not they were bold edits, period. Just because you believe they are in line with your interpretation of a suggestion does not mean others are not permitted to revert them. You made a bold edit, and it was reverted and a discussion started per WP:BRD, you then chose to edit-war instead of discuss, moving it away from the WP:STATUSQUO (and no, your new edit is not somehow paradoxically a "status quo", that would be the state before your new edit). When editing, do not apply a double-standard to other editors. Your edits are "clear" and everyone else's is "novel", and others should not revert, while you are free to revert at the same time you chastise others for revert. That is not how Wikipedia works, and if you have any further questions about this beyond what is found at the cited policies and guidelines you are free to ask any administrator, and I think you should because you seem to be under serious misconceptions about the nature of editing on Wikipedia (e.g. your edits are not bold per WP:BRD as long as you think you're right). However, this discussion isn't exactly productive, so unless you have an administrator tell you that it's permitted for you (and only you) to edit-war and that your edits (and again, only yours) somehow break all established definition of editing, please don't bother replying here as it's not doing any good at this point. - Aoidh (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Angelo_Rules, you removed large sways of content citing copyright infringement. How so? Ging287 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If content is copied from another website, such as this or this, it is a copyright violation. All of that content was copied verbatim from other sources, none of which appeared to be given any attribution or released their content under an appropriate license. That's why it was removed. - Aoidh (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I just wasn't sure. Glad I asked. Ging287 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

[[5]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I didn't realize how often I had actually reverted until I actually looked at the edit history. I think it's probably best if I stepped away from that article for awhile, which I think I'll do. - Aoidh (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, I'd make that clear on the 3rr page too just so that the admin can see that too. Best. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussing bitcoin on the talk page is "edit warring"? Who am I at "war" with - according to you? Various editors are discussing bitcoin´s status as a currency or not on the talk page. Is that not what is suppose to happen. If I am not allowed to discuss the question on the talk page, then what must I do - according to you? TwoEscarf (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really truly have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure I'm the editor whose talk page you intended to place this comment on? - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What specifically are you objecting ? If there is something specific please consider editing the content rather than removing it.

• Anyone who has considered using it or read the existing wiki knows that it runs android.
• Android is licensed under Apache license.
• Android runs the Linux kernel(GPL).
• it uses an open-source zip and unzip utility just to start amongst other things which can be found by simply looking at the files.
• Virtual Box is Licensed under GPL.

If such a simple inference cannot be stated, then I'm not sure how any page on Wiki would operate. Please clarify.

If it's true and relevant to the article it shouldn't have to be "inferred", that's a synthesis of sources. There's also no source that I could find saying that "most of it is actually open source software". - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you believe that there is something lacking in the text that's written, the best course of action would be to edit and correct what you think is not correct. Reverting an entire edit is not a acceptable course of action to be adapted by a seasoned editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.196.11 (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The entire edit was the problem; the sum of the text was written in a way that accused the article's subject of something that reliable sources do not verify. That's why the entire edit was reverted, because the entire edit was the problem. - Aoidh (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

actually I cited proper sources for that, they are also presented at the begining of this talk. But since you object I'll put the edit back in minus the inference.Philosopher kat (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You did indeed cite proper sources, but the way it was worded was pure WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted. Merely having sources isn't enough, it has to reflect what the sources are actually saying, not combined to present a viewpoint not given by any of the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 01:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Before stating an assumption as fact, be sure you know what you are talking about. You stated that I was "adding inappropriate external links" intended to "advertise" or "promote" and implied that I was somehow doing this to "alter search engine rankings". In the article in question, Massage, I simply linked to a webpage with information on the "Benefits of Massage Therapy". It is true there were products for sale on the site, but then again, you can also buy things at Encyclopedia Britannica, The Wall Street Journal, and National Geographic. The information was completely relevant to the article and not intended to be promotional in any way.

As for trying to influence "search engine rankings", that is the least of my concerns, as I am in no way affiliated with that website. I simply saw some good information I thought would improve the article. You can believe whatever you want; this is a free country. But before you start making accusations and pointing fingers, you may want to be sure that what you're saying is accurate.

To be completely honest, I can't help but laugh when I see self-proclaimed "super mods", like yourself massively overhauling the content other people add here. You probably have no real life and sit at your desk all day looking for things to attack in Wikipedia. Your self-inflated ego makes you a jerk and you do it all under the guise of "protecting" the integrity of Wikipedia. I'll probably get a ban for this, but I really don't care. I actually have a life and being unable to edit content on Wikipedia doesn't bother me a bit...

74.100.109.136 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You were adding inappropriate links to various articles, all from the same website. A message was therefore placed on your talk page asking you to stop, and explaining why, if you did it for certain reasons, it wouldn't be effective. I'm sorry that you feel the need to attack others to make your point, but you persistently added an inappropriate external link for a specific business to multiple articles on Wikipedia (even reverting others who removed it), and this business just happens to be in the same exact location that you're editing from; that does raise a few red flags concerning spam. However, if this is your reaction after being asked to stop, that speaks more to your behavior than anything else. Please stop adding that link to Wikipedia articles, that's all I was asking and all I continue to ask. If you feel that it does belong, you're more than welcome to start a discussion at the external links noticeboard. - Aoidh (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe we are already having a discussion. You speak of my behavior and insinuate I am "attacking others", but I am simply calling it like I see it. Take a moment to review the other complaints you've received, some of which seem pretty credible to me. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you have gone a little overboard with your editing at times? Stating to another complaint that "the entire article" was your problem after deleting it seems pretty overkill to me. As someone who both creates and edits content for a living, I have come across very little that cannot be fixed or improved. To simply delete the article because you don't like it seems lazy to me, especially with the term "editor" in your professed Wikipedia designation.

As for the links I added, despite the fact that the pages were on a business website, the content being linked to was informative and totally relevant to the articles I added them to. And they were added to the "Further Reading" section, located after the actual article. On the Massage article, I linked to a page that discussed the benefits of massage in detail.

Let's take a moment to switch places. I am the "editor" and make it my job to weed out everything I find inappropriate or irrelevant. Now, let's take your [WikiProject Buddhism] for instance. By all rights, I should completely delete that "Buddhism articles by quality and importance" section because not one of the links you've added work. In fact, I'd wager that were I to sift through everything you've contributed to Wikipedia, I'd find quite a few things to "edit".

The funny thing about people is that they love addressing the faults and problems of others while completely overlooking their own...

74.100.109.136 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem too interested in discussing the merits of the link, but rather attacking others ("calling it like I see it" doesn't suddenly make it otherwise). I do not have the technical capacity to delete an article, so it's pretty obvious that you're jumping to (inaccurate) conclusions based on assumptions; when you said "before stating an assumption as fact, be sure you know what you are talking about," that's advice you should probably follow. You added spam to multiple articles, that you think it's relevant to those articles doesn't make it so, nor does it make it a reliable source of information. Phone books are "informative and totally relevant" to articles, that doesn't make them appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If I were to start spamming a business that's in the same exact city as I am, I'd quickly get called out on it, and if I resorted to attacking others in response, it would be very difficult for others to take me seriously.

I'm rather confused by your reference to WikiProject Buddhism; if you think content there doesn't belong, please start a discussion on that talk page and explain you're reasoning so that others can explain to you why your "by all rights" reasoning is inaccurate. Otherwise, I can only assume that you're just on my talk page lashing out because the links to your business were removed after you added them, and now you're grasping at straws as a result. Again, I'm going to point you towards Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, as that would be the place where you can ask other editors whether that link belongs or not. Since you've made it clear now that you're not interested in productive discussion here, I'm going to ask you to please refrain from commenting on my talk page. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive my final intrusion here. Just wanting to clarify my comment about the [WikiProject Buddhism] Page. On that page, there is a section entitled "Buddhism articles by quality and importance", in table format, with a bunch of links. As someone who is fascinated by religion and having studied Buddhism pretty extensively, I was curious about those articles. At the time, none of those links worked. Every one of them lead to a blank page, which is why I referred to the page. I just checked the page again and the links now work; not sure why they didn't work before, unless someone fixed them. In any event, I apologize for being a jerk and taking up so much of your time. take care... 74.100.109.136 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that "leopard" was definitely me. (Insert sheepish grin.) I too am an xkcd fan, and occasionally use a browser plugin to find and replace words. Including "keyboard/leopard." I don't know how long ago it was, but in the future I will remember to turn that off before I edit Wikipedia!

I'm sure you've noticed by now but most of my Wikipedia editing has been focused on Flipnote Studio 3D, and I'd like to improve it in any way possible. If you could look over the article and let me know if there are any problems (anything that would stop it from becoming a Good Article) that I can fix, I would appreciate that a lot!

-Sforzando (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aoidh,

You've removed some sections of the article Angelo Rules. I don't understand what's the issue about the information I put on this page. They are neutral informations such as the list of episodes or description of characters and it's not a promotional content at all. My source is indeed the official website of the series but as I sent recently an email to '[email protected]' to allow the uses of this copyrighted content without rewriting it with other words, I would like to ask you to delete your removal. Thank you, Constance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constance Lassort (talk • contribs) 09:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:TOC hidden. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove the link to Vistumbler (an open source project) on the Netstumbler wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheZone (talk • contribs) 08:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because an encyclopedia article for a given software isn't meant to be a repository of links for any similar software just because it's sort of the same. The link added fails to meet the criteria given at WP:ELNO; if the software you added is notable, you are more than welcome to write the article if it's notable software. It being an open source project doesn't matter, the external link doesn't belong on that article, that's why it was removed. - Aoidh (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. When I checked all I found was the town and the use of the word in articles but no titles. It may be the new search function but I'm not sure. Cheers. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:KDE. Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the page-move vandalism there. It is really appreciated. Epicgenius (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:WPBannerMeta. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to add an Atlanta event for the Great American Wiknic. This year we're aiming to coalesce nationally around July 6, but any date that is convenient to your local community works as well. And don't be shy about putting something preliminary on the national Wiknic page, it all helps!--Pharos (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aoidh! The Atlanta area Wiknic page has been started for this year, and you are invited to sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 8.--Pharos (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN/EW#User:ScotXW reported by User:Czarkoff (Result: ). Thanks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw that (via WP:ECHO) and have commented there. Thanks for the notification. - Aoidh (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The Free Software Foundation is a notable organization, and the opposition to DRM is a notable movement, as is its recasting of the acronym. At the very least it belongs on the disambiguation page spelling out what DRM may mean. It's certainly more notable than "Reichsmark's ISO 4027 code". It keeps coming up on the talk page, and when controversies exist it is usually a sign that the movement itself deserves documentation. Which it has. I've redirected Digital Restrictions Management to the Defective by Design page, if it is not deemed appropriate to have a separate page for the lone term. Metaeducation (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Media Viewer/June 2014 RfC. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm contesting the PROD of Kinnara Taiko, they seem to me to meet notability guidelines. Agree that refs are needed. See the talk page. Andrewa (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in signing up for this: Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 8.--Pharos (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Operation Defensive Shield. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GNOME Disks states Developer(s) is David Zeuthen. Will you remove his name there ?Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You already said this on the article talk page, effectively ignoring the discussion directly above the section you created. Please discuss this on the article talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I saw your tag here. I had already installed inline citations to specific page numbers, so I removed the tag. I also removed the tag at Śūraṃgamasamādhisūtra, The Concentration of Heroic Progress.

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The reference within the article Massage that states "BC 700 Bian Que, the earliest known Chinese physician uses massage in medical practice" is inaccurate as is." "Believed to be" or "reputed to be" is the only possible truth, as no verifiable evidence exists that he was, in fact "the earliest known Chinese physician". I disagree that the statement should be removed entirely, as it is quite clearly relevant to the article and that he was believed to be the first Chinese physician is verifiable. Ormr2014 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

What you're saying makes no sense. Known is the key word there. It doesn't say he is the earliest Chinese physician, but the earliest known one. Do you have a source that disputes that he is the earliest known one? If not, then it's not a "believed to be" situation, it is a fact. Of all the known Chinese physicians, he is the earliest known. "Believed to be the earliest known" makes no sense and isn't supported by the source. The article is saying "of all the ones we know of, he is the earliest one" not "he was the first". Given that your edit summary stated that "No verifiable evidence exists to support that he was the first Chinese physician" you seem to be misunderstanding that; the article isn't suggesting that. - Aoidh (talk)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

The edit war tag that was recently sent regarding the WZTV is unwarranted. The edit on the article regarding the station's recent news expansion was valid under Wikipedia rules and does not represent a "schedule" distinction as it is written as a prose explanation, reverting the edit also outdates the article as a result. If relevant information regarding the station article can be included, there has to be a fine line. The user must consider that the edit is helpful, and must have full knowledge of WP rules (and in the case of the article in question, Wikiproject:Television Stations rules and suggestions), the most common being the misinterpretation of the definition of WP:NOTDIR. If the editor does not have consideration that the edit was intended to be helpful, and reverts it without full understanding over what is relevant and acceptable on the site, the original reverter can be considered at fault in starting any wars. Some of the users of the articles tied to the television stations Wikiprojects have caused problems with other editors by misinterpreting rules or taking them too seriously. It is best to use rationality in the editing process, and only focus attention on edit reversions that are truly necessary (such as actual violations such as vandalism). TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said multiple times, see WP:NOTDIR and use the article's talk page. The edit is not "helpful", and editors have been blocked by multiple administrators for precisely this type of edit, so it's not "without full understanding" that I am reverting this inappropriate content. At this point, you need to stop inserting it, discuss it on the relevant talk page, and only reinsert it if you have a consensus to do so. Based on your comment about "at fault", you also need to read WP:EW, as that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the relevant policy. - Aoidh (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming illustrates the validity of a described mention of a station's programming.

A television or radio station's article should not contain a comprehensive listing of the station's entire broadcast schedule. A network's article may contain basic schedule information for major programming blocks (such as the core prime time schedule of a national television network), but as Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, this schedule should not be updated every week with specials or temporary programming changes. Only major changes, such as a program's cancellation or a permanent time slot change, should be reflected in the network's article. Content that describes a station's programming in greater depth is permitted, as long as it is properly sourced and consists of more than just a list of the hosts' names. Under the rules stated above, the reference regarding the morning and 5:30 p.m. news expansions is not in violation of the notablilty rules for broadcast media articles, since it was described and not a schedule list. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

An essay does not supersede a policy, "to which editors should defer in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." That's also not an issue of notability, but of relevance for what is appropriate. It doesn't matter if it was described rather than in a list format. - Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this becomes an "apples and oranges" argument, as the recent edits to that I made to the WZTV article and apparently now the KMSP-TV article have been removed, but no other edits on the news operation sections of those articles regarding newscast additions that under your view violate the WP:NOTDIR rules have been removed. The major problem here is I've run into a few editors that have taken these rules to seriously to where it makes editing not fun or palatable because their view makes the contributions of another editor seem unimportant, because they are not willing to take into consideration what is or isn't necessary to remove and their unwillingness to negotiate. I hope this isn't the case here, but if it is, this just isn't worth it. Everyone's contributions on Wikipedia, when constructive as my edits generally have been, should be considered at least in good faith. When they are deconstructive (such as those that are vandalistic in nature or edits that are more serious violations of WP rules), that's when action should be taken. I don't know how we can negotiate on this, but if we can't, so be it. I don't want to keep fighting with other users, it just wastes time. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, he's been doing this to alot of pages. They have been cited properly and he is vandalizing. 65.27.165.218 (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they haven't been cited properly. Removing those names is also not vandalism, bent tool that I apparently may be. - Aoidh (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I only just noticed this dispute, but I support the argument that factually acknowledging increased news output is okay. It's when we list a full schedule of local programming in a dedicated section that we have a problem. I do not consider "blah blah expanded its news output by adding a primetime newscast to compete against soandso [3]" to be a program guide, but a cited fact. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, stating a block because it's relevant to some explanation is one thing, but that's quite different than listing the time just to have it listed. There's no context or significance there, it's just showing trying (and failing) to skirt around policy by adding it in prose instead of a list format, and using a press release to support the content doesn't help the lack of significance. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll just stay off of the Wikipedia editing platform. Thanks anyway. Have a great day. 24.176.147.120 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's the end of the day where I live, so I'm going to sleep over this disagreement before studying it a bit more deeply.

However, I have a quick question: with ten or so other articles I moved with the same rationale, why have you singled out Cold Days for revert, without also reverting the other ones? Could quote "Karrin Murphy", "Thomas Raith", "Summer Knight", and a few others. you can see them in my contributions. In my opinion, these 30 or so pages should be dealt with as a unit, whenever possible.

I'm not discussing at the moment your rationale, not until I've analyzed it properly, but there is not enough context for me to decide if you didn't see the other pages (via the link to my contributions), or something I fail to see.

Now that I come to think of it, Cold Days has been proposed for deletion recently - but not any of the other Dresden Files pages. This almost feels a repetition of that story.

Feel free to answer me on my talk page, on yours or on Cold Days' - since, however, I'm going to catch some sleep, I wish you good night. Ngebendi (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. You may not have noticed it, but I had already moved those others as well, I just noticed Cold Days first because it was on my watchlist as a result of that AfD. I won't hold you up, however. Get some sleep, and then check out my response at Talk:Cold Days. If you feel that it needs a parenthetical disambiguation, please feel free to open an WP:RM on the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed, but I had already mentally turned in, so I postponed my answer. Sorry for this.

I still don't completely agree with your move revertions (in my opinion the Dresden Files should be both treated and marked as a unit), but after checking the policy pages you indicsted I've found them a) sensible; b) long since implemented. Useless for me to turn Don Quixote.

So, best regards, Ngebendi (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned a revert edit that you made to the Battle of Marengo at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Unexplained edits -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'm a pretty reasonable guy, but I will not tolerate my last name on the internet for everyone to see easily. Please do a man a favor and honor that request. To be honest, I don't even know how the editors found my last name, but I don't want it up for display online. I want to keep myself private and I won't put up with this. I'm asking you man to man here to respect my privacy morales this once.Leoesb1032 (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You put your own name there. Nobody else, you did that. Then you got caught with your sockpuppetry in an effort to manipulate the discussion, and now suddenly it's "private" information? I will remove it with a note explaining why it was removed, but don't try to lie and manipulate, and then come back later complaining about honour and "being a man." If you want to "keep yourself private" that is your responsibility. Don't try to manipulate talk page discussions, and don't put your name out there if you don't want your name out there. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but User:Matthewb103 is a blocked sockpuppet account of User:Leoesb1032, so it's the same person. Removing one's own Talk page comments is allowed per WP:Prune, especially private information like a user's real name. I believe that, at the time, Leoesb1032 was trying to justify his argument by introducing a fake source. It was misguided, sure, but we shouldn't punish him by requiring that his real name remain when he obviously doesn't want it there. Woodroar (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw the topic above. Please consider reverting your edits. Woodroar (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

He was the editor that made that information public, but I've removed it with a note explaining why. - Aoidh (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "KRBK". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 September 2014.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I know I didn't agree with removing news stations staff members, but I have recently decided to agree, and that it makes much more since now. So with that being said, I've started to remove non-notable staff members (per WP:LISTPEOPLE) from the articles as well as unsourced titles/slogans. Right now, I have a user (User:Jamesbondfan) that keeps reverting my edits without a valid reason. I had left a message on his talk page today explaining why and a quote from you from the WIBW-TV talk page. I don't want to get in an edit war with this user, so I'm reaching out to you who knows much more about these things than I do. I hope you can help. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Recently I have removed the staff from KRBK and this user (Ciller) keeps reverting them, saying that I didn't say the same thing in my reverts (no reliable source and not notable). I explained to him that I said that I removed it the first time because the staff were non-notable (I even linked it to WP:LISTPEOPLE) and the second time explaining the same thing with a quote from you and the list of discussions saying that there have been discussions and there is a valid reason as to why I am removing them. He claims I'm taking ownership of the article, which I'm not. He said that he works at the station. He goes on and on and threatened to report me (here) and the list can go on. I'm not going to revert his edit because I don't want to get into an edit war. I was hoping you could explain it more to him, although I don't think he'll get the point.

P.S. – Looking at his contributions, it looks as though he hasn't been on Wikipedia long enough to know about the situation (He's been a member since 2006). (Although I hadn't heard of it either until you and Spshu told me about it.) He took a two year break, and and a two month break this year. He also makes about three–four edits a month. Just a heads up! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:France. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please advise why you have reverted my addition to the List of PDF Software ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software ). JimScott (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PDF_software&diff=630447082&oldid=630403415 edit summary] I gave explained the reason for the reversion. There is a longstanding consensus on that page that if a piece of software does not have a standalone article that establishes notability, that it does not belong at List of PDF software. If you think the software in question is notable enough to warrant inclusion, please write the article first. - Aoidh (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please advise why you have reverted my addition to the List of PDF Software ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software ). JimScott (talk) 3:59 am, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (16 days ago) (UTC−4)

The {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_PDF_software&diff=630447082&oldid=630403415 edit summary] I gave explained the reason for the reversion. There is a longstanding consensus on that page that if a piece of software does not have a standalone article that establishes notability, that it does not belong at List of PDF software. If you think the software in question is notable enough to warrant inclusion, please write the article first. - Aoidh (talk) 8:27 am, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (16 days ago) (UTC−4)

Reviewed the link you provided. Doesn't actually say any of that but no matter. One might note that eCopy has no article either; it merely points to a list of products (in a different article) sold by Nuance Communications. gDocCreator at least got a list of features; but, again, not in it's own article! PDF Creator is rather notable -- or should we say, notorious -- for installing malware while it's installing itself. HelpNDoc, Microsoft Office, and Xara are general use products that just happen to include PDF as one of the output formats. Do we intend to open this list up to all programs that just happen to include PDF creation as one of their features? It could get to be a very long list indeed. I am more than happy to write an article on WIn2PDF (since I tried most of the others on this list and found them wanting in comparison) but I didn't like being deleted out of hand with no discussion. I'm in the middle a large project but one Win2PDF article is now on the todo list. JimScott (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing Command Sergeant Major John Osborne off the recipient list for the Sagamore of the Wabash. He was my grandpa and he earned the award. Over 500 people showed up to his funeral he was a great guy. And had the award displayed by his casket. I'm trying to honor him by putting him on this list. He served for 42 years in Indianas national guard and the department of natural resources. He is a notable recipient. So leave him there. I've gone great lengths to get the proper references so you could stop deleting him but you still continue to do so. Just leave him there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregorya (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your grandfather passed, but Wikipedia is not the place for a memorial. The name is being removed because a notable recipient would have reliable sources showing such, and the name you've added doesn't show that. If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to participate in the discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus that the name belongs or find third-party reliable sources that show that the name belongs there. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a picture of the award and it is in his obituary that I referenced. This was my 5th time adding him. The first time I referenced the picture so you could see it. And then I referenced the obituary and it's still not good enough for you. I don't know what you want.

Hundreds of people have that award, the purpose of that article is not to serve as a directory of all recipients. You say he is a notable recipient, but such notability would be shown through third-party reliable sources. A picture of an award and an obituary does not show this. - Aoidh (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't think that 42 years with the National Guard and the Department of Natural Resources is Notable? How about becoming a Command Sergeant Major the highest Enlisted Rank Possible. Or commanding an Artillery Battalion for the state. Anyone who gets this award is notable enough to be on it. It's the states level of the "Presidential Medal of Freedom". Most funerals only have 100 people show up. He had over 500 clearly he was doing something right. Being a Command Sergeant Major is notable. Being in the Armed forces for 42 years is notable. Most Generals aren't even in for that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregorya (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Have third-party reliable sources noted his award? The State of Indiana doesn't even know how many people have received this award, because it has been given out to a very large number of people. As for this particular individual's notability, that's not up to me. Have there been third-party reliable sources that show these things to be notable? - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The entire United States Military says it's notable to be a CSM. And the entire world says its notable to be an Engineer especially for the Department of Natural Resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregorya (talk • contribs) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you're not getting what I'm saying. Notability is determined on Wikipedia by third-party reliable sources, not our opinion of a person's employment. Do you have third-party reliable sources that show that this individual received this award? That is what is needed. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It says so in his obituary. And I have a picture of the citation from the state stating he earned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregorya (talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

No, neither of those are third-party sources; they are not independent of the subject. Everyone that has the award can verify that they have it, that doesn't mean that the hundreds of people who have that award need to be listed. That's why third-party sources are needed. - Aoidh (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of third party source. Like a generalization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agregorya (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Agregorya, I feel your pain but arguing here is like arguing with a cop or a secretary; you will not win. Now. The essential idea of third-party reliable sources is to ensure articles don't become engorged with anecdotal stories from every citizen on the planet. I get that. It would be like -- God forbid -- someone writing an article about me in Wikipedia. It would be short (he was a grouchy old man LOL) and serve no real purpose. What Aoidh, et al, is looking for would include INDEPENDENT newspaper ARTICLES (_not_ obits, death notices, articles written by Aunt Harriet, etc.), or state information brochure, or military citations or publications describing Osborne's accomplishments, years of service, the award, etc.. Frankly, I would think that 42 years has got to be close to a record. I find it hard to believe this didn't get written up in Stars and Stripes, or elsewhere in military publishing. Did the local VFW post have any ceremony or such that was written up for the occasion? I'm not familiar with all the various publications the military has but I know they have a fair number of them from my genealogical research. Reach out to his fellow reservists, friends, former commander or commandment and ask around. It's worth a try at least. You might read through these these links to see what Aoidh, et al, is looking for: John Robert Osborn's DHH article and his Wikipedia article, or Walt Stirm's 2003 presentation of the Sagamore of the Wabash award (though one might note that Walt has not made the list either!). Good luck. JimScott (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You should really give WP:ROWN a read. Reverting someone for adding a source of fiction like every other fiction on every other fiction list only discourages editing. I guess that page will have to stay the same forever so you don't mess it up. Thanks for going against the goal of Wikipedia. Bye. 96.235.147.209 (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.

The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Aoidh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)