User talk:Wikipelli/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Florida International University

Sorry dude, this is a shared IP address at Florida International University. Not exactly the cream of the crop here. — Precedingunsigned comment added by131.94.186.20 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for help

Hello Wikipelli,

Thanks for your helpful message. As you must have noticed, I'm not a Wikipedian, and have never edited any Wikipedia article. My issue is that the mentioned article (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_women_who_led_a_revolt_or_rebellion) claims that Egypt's 2011 people revolution was led by one person, an activist called Asmaa Mahfouz. The evidence/references are all media-based, and media is not the reliable resource when talking about history. My attitude regarding the continuous deletion of the related section was due to my lack of knowledge about editing. I'll continue in the discussion page of the article.

Thank you, Nesreen — Precedingunsigned comment added by196.205.139.145 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish you can help

Can we have the discussion about the article's issue here? Even the discussion page requires Wikipedia editing skills :) Unfortunately I have no time to learn editing skills. Yet, I can't let wrong history be written about my homeland country; Egypt. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Nesreen291 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I have a problem with discussing the issues here, but I have to say that I really don't have any background knowledge of the issues. I would not be a good person with whom to discuss. :( My edits and comments on your talk page stemmed from my desire to help you see how to discuss with other editors (who DO have knowledge of the subject and issues) about your concerns. You seem passionate about this information and that's good, but Wikipedia needs to present information in an unbiased and dispassionate way.

As I said on your talk page, please communicate your feelings on the article's talk page and discuss the changes with other editors. I reverted your edits only because you removed information that was properly referenced according to Wikipedia standards. That is NOT to say that the information is completely accurate. If you have other information or another view, let's find a way to include that in the article!  :) I will monitor the article and help when I can. Good luck! Please don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. I'll be glad to lend a hand whenever I can. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Thank you. Is that an appropriate place for a reference in a block quote? I put it there because i didnt know where else to put it.

Also, do you know to show the HTML text of a reference ([1]) as text without it showing up as [1]?

Another question: When does a page cease to be a stub? I'm approaching the total available information on Dangerfield Newby. Is it a factor of length?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaffyBridge (talk •contribs) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Licensing

Hi Wikipelli. I have just uploaded a photo to the Wikimedia commons under the CC Share-Alike 3.0 license. I read somewhere something about emailing Wikipedia the consent of the photographer (not me). However, that was on Wikipedia, and I wasn't asked while following the Wikimedia wizard. Do I need to forward an email from the photographer to some Wikimedia permissions account? Thanks,Nullinfinity667 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert.. :) Wanted to say that up front! If you are not the photographer, then you don't own the rights to the picture. The photographer would have to upload the picture as his/her own work and grant permission/license to use the work. If you upload a picture that was taken by someone else, you should have the photographer give permission for use in Wikipedia. I generally use the "Upload File" link on the left in Wikipedia. This uploads to Commons but it appears that the Wizards have different text and choices. When I do that, I find a link to select if the image "is the work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license" Clicking on that link gives me instructions on how to obtain/publish the permission of the owner. Again, I'm not great with image rights and such. This is my best information, though. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 23:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

During the wizard I used, I did choose a radio box specifying that it was the work of someone else who has given me permission. I have also now found the email address to which I have to send the permission email. And one last thing: do you know if the email to permissions has to be directly from the photographer, or if it can be forwarded by me from the photographer?Nullinfinity667 (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. My guess is that you'd be a lot better off having the email come from the photographer directly. Wikipelli ^Talk 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Help desk at Commons can probably answer your questions better than I can! :) Wikipelli ^Talk 10:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked it there. Thanks for your time and advice - it is much appreciated!Nullinfinity667 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm sorry I didn't have more information for you. I have uploaded a few images to use in articles but they've all either been very old (and therefore in the public domain) or my own work. Good luck! Wikipelli ^Talk 13:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

question for washington post story

Dear Wikipelli, I'm a reporter at the Washington Post working on a story on the quick response in the Wiki community to get information up on the earthquake, both in the Mineral, Va., article and the earthquake article. It seems you have been active on the topic. Can you please contact me? Thank you! Best, David Montgomery, 202-334-7224, montgomery@washpost.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by216.164.44.4 (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS

Hello again,

I was looking at the wiki of a local politician (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)) and I saw something that I considered to be a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS (Emails to Debbie Wasserman Schultz). I've only been doing this wikipedia thing for a short time, but it seems to me like a minor quarrel between two politicians is not something worthy of wikipedia. Am I incorrect?

On the discussion page, several people agreed with me. I deleted it (Emails to Debbie Wasserman Schultz) but it was returned by an admin. I don't understand why.

Thanks again DaffyBridge (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing... and are doing the right thing. Wikipedia is built on consensus and that seems to be favoring deleting that information. It's a toss-up, though, which is why there are discussions. I would absolutely let your opinion be known on the article's talk page (to add to the consensus building), pose respectful questions for the editor that is reverting your deletions (wp:civil) and keep calm. :) I also think it was great that you posted on the editor's talk page. I can't help but wish they would answer your original question rather than get snippy about liberal/conservative. (though, you want to be careful accusing people of having an agenda. I have very pronounced views politically but I like to think they don't come out in my editing. So, just because someone says they're liberal doesn't mean they have an agenda on wikipedia.) just fyi. :) I also think the other editor could have said more about his/her reasoning than, "disagree"

Hang in there! You're doing great. You can delete again if you wish on the basis of the discussion page and, if you feel strongly, you can request a 3rd party to come in and give his/her opinion.  :) Wikipelli^Talk 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your help. DaffyBridge (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Jack Layton

I see you've dealt with a known Canadian politics IP hopper - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL... if you come across another IP of theirs, don't hesitate to contact me and I'll block it. – Connormah (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

mistake

Please review [1] edit. I know you are using Huggle but be more careful. "Pepper"21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

a fair point. Hopefully a revert with a message will help him/her to seek out help. I wouldn't give more than a first warning. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't help but wonder why you wouldn't add some constructive advice on the user's talk page. You're right, the user probably just didn't know how to edit. Perfect opportunity for either of us to help them. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, 'tis all sorted out. They probably will never come back anyway. Cheers! "Pepper"22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 Virginia earthquake

Given your agreement that the mockery comments in the social media subsection of the article are not notable, given that no one else has spoken in support of the comments on the talk page for three days, and given that my deletion of the comments was reverted by the article's owner with a command to "cut it out" and to discuss the matter and seek consensus, would you consider removing the comments yourself? I am not eager for yet another round of edit warring should I dare do so again. Thanks. (PS., if you have comments I will be watching here for them.)Hurriquake (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it the night and check in the morning. Has it been 3 days? Wikipelli ^Talk 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least in the sense that 48 hrs plus two seconds counts as three days, lol. Yes, the morrow is plenty soon. Hurriquake (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi Wikipelli, a while ago I we cooperated nicely on a wiki edit issue, therefore I ask your point of view about something that went wrong today (I think). I brought it up with the person (a rather recent contributor) who did it but I don't think he knows how to fix it (and I don't know either). See my remark here: [2]. Can you help? --VanBurenen(talk) 11:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it today. The page history from the original page is intact here[3]. Gimme a couple of hours to look.. I have to go to work soon. :) Cheers.. Wikipelli ^Talk 11:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now. Has the change been reverted? I can't tell now what the original page was. Let me know if there are still problems, but it appears as though the editor has changed the page move to a redirect. Wikipelli ^Talk 14:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I just got home and also noticed that the earlier title change has been reverted to the old one. Just have to wait for formal announcement, I guess. Cheers.--VanBurenen (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, Wikipelli, for all you do on Wikipedia—especially keeping my user page free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No charge.. Probably would have been mine, too, if it wasn't protected. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 15:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I care

I care. I don't know how to use warning templates. I will only report level 4's to the aiv noticeboard. (learned my lesson there) I will give some explanation to vandals about their vandalism. Please put the link to the warning template page on my userpage.--1966batfan(talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to show you, Batfan, and I've said that before. Given you links and everything.  :) Start right here: WP:R Van and read till you get to templates. It's just an easy copy/paste. I use Twinkle and Huggle, both make it very easy to warn vandals. Take a look at that page and let me know how I can help! Wikipelli ^Talk 01:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Not Constructive ?

What is not constructive about asking Who Butler is ?

The page is for a John Talbot

The Rest points out that John is not likely to have been his 1st name as the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury had a John by his 1st marriage to Maud Neville, so was unlikely to call a son by by that name when the 1st survived to inherit the titles.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by86.151.183.144 (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Wikipelli ^Talk 14:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Vandal help

Thanks very much for your assistance in dealing with the editor that was vandalising my user page. Much appreciated, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:) No charge. Happy I was there to catch it. Wikipelli ^Talk 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

SRC Computers

My gravest apologies for the "disruptive editing." I didn't realize moving the deletion box wasn't allowed. This is my first foray in the wikipedia world.

I am finished editing my company's page and have removed the marketing-speak. Hopefully you'll now find it in the wikipedia style and will be able to remove the deletion box.

Thanks.

````Vjacksonsrc

I have to apologize to you, actually. Your editing was done in 'good faith' and shouldn't have been reverted. I have since removed my warning on your talk page. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of buses

Why did you remove the section Shiny and safe in Talk:List of buses?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Several reasons: 1) not neutral. There are those who might believe that shiny is a positive quality; 2) not cited. How do we know that the busses are either shiny or safe? Information added to a Wikipedia article must be supported by 3rd party references; 3) your edit included personal commentary in the form of the question, "what more could you want?". This is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I hope this answers your questions.Wikipelli<sup>Talk</sup> 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arman Cagle

Thanks for watching my back. I just thank that the IP user:User talk:96.235.210.85 was saying sorry to me because of my good warning against him.
Thanks!
Arman Cagle <sup>(Contact me EMail MeContribs)</sup> Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 22:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah, even after I deleted it I was going over it in my mind... I was pretty quick to revert - could easily have left it. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 23:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth did you revert that? What about that apology deserved the rollback button?Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, it was questionable. It was barely discernible as an apology ("so sory"), unsigned, and no edit summary. In the context now, I can see that it's an apology and I've removed my warning from the IPs talk page. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Craven troll

Probably easiest just to go straight to AIV the next time this guy pops up - he's ablatant long-term sockpuppeteer making the exact same misremembered joke every time, so there's no way to assume good faith. I'd also recommendslow reverts - if a vandal has reverted you immediately once, he'll obviously just do it again.--McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Ned_Scott

This is hilarious. I've never had someone so persistant about such a fruitless issue.Calabe1992 (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice the IP in the signature was not the IP he was editing from? And if you check the contribs of the IP in the signature...hmmmm 2008, same series of edits on Ned_Scott's page. Talk about holding a grudge! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is quite the grudge. Check out the IP's talk page now; I've notified the blocking admin to revoke access. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wikipelli. You have new messages at Ned Scott's talk page.
Message added 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hey stop undoing my edits you jackass, I'm trying to warn everybody about World War 3!

CrazyWilly1 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

responded here User_talk:CrazyWilly1 Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Eli Roth

The quote I gave was an actual quote, I could provide citation.97.124.24.202 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, any potentially controversial or damaging information posted about a living person MUST have a citation. Unless there is a reliable source for the information, it will be deleted. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Has been re-posted with citation 97.124.24.202 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The IP editor at the Oxi article is the same IP editor who was blocked last week for vandalism at the same article as well as others. Did you look at the edits he made and that the vandalistic content therein? Just sayin'....... Lhb1239 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So it would seem. Thanks. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 17:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Though I am curious what it all meant (Google translate was only helpful with some of it). Update: Of course there's a Wikipedia article just for this purpose. SQGibbon (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I recognized some of it. I had a friend from Portugal in college. :) Someone just upset over reverts. Cheers! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 16:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Mexico

In this edit[4]you revert additions obviously made in good faith in an attempt to improve the article with an automated tool and no editsummary as if they were vandalism. You then go on to post a warning template for vandalism on the users talkpage[5] - as if he were a new user, which he obviously isn't. This is not in order - editors who are working to improve the article have a right to know why you disagree with their additions - and nobody should be accused of vandalism unless they are actively and wilfully trying to sabotage the wikipedia. Read WP:VANDALto know more about what is an isn't vandalism. Also you should be very careful with using the appropriate warning templates and with not using automated tools to revert edits that are constructive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that the user is not a new editor, and it is apparent now that the editor is generally working to improve the article. My revert was based on the fact that the editor replaced this image[[6]] with this image [[7]]. Clearly, the replacement image is not a Volkswagen Jetta. My reaction to such a replacement was that it was vandalism. On the basis of your message, I've returned to the article and can now see that the editor was perhaps experimenting with images. I make mistakes now and then, and I'll go to the users page and apologize and remove my warning. When the image replacement came up on Huggle, it looked clearly like vandalism. My apologies. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite alright, you handled that well. That being said I know that this editor is sometimes... shall we say "overzealous", especially about images, so keeping an eye on what he does and challenging him to discuss any changes that appear counterproductive will of course be fully justified when done in a collaborative manner.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken. I, too, can get going a little quick with huggle, sometimes. Thanks for alerting me. Cheers! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 14:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for handling this well! Yes, I placed the picture of the UAV on accident as I had several windows with wiki images open including both a picture of a Jetta and one of the UAV which I got too following a link in the text and I then copy/pasted the wrong image so I can understand why it appeard as vandalism. Thank you very much for apologizing. :)Pvt.Billinghurst (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

thx

BTW, thanks for this :-) -DVdm (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

no charge. :) Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Huggle

Why have you changed your huggle configuration to (in many cases) not use edit summaries? -Kingpin<sup>13</sup> (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If I have, I wasn't aware of it.  ? Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Checking the configuration now... Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 18:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm confused now. ... First, I never consciously changed Huggle so as not to use edit summaries... now I'm looking for an instance where it hasn't given a summary when I've reverted. I'd be appreciative if you could point me to the setting that needs to be changed (or directions on how to install a 'clean' .css). It's not out of the question that I had gone into the 'Options' and inadvertently turned something off or on without realizing it. Thanks for any help! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 18:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I cleared the huggle.css page and reinstalled huggle on my laptop. Hopefully the settings are all standard now. I honestly wasn't aware that I was using the program inappropriately. The only thing I've changed now is the font size for the diffs - old eyes. :) Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I see now what the problem was. Huggle was leaving edit summaries on the reverted pages but not on the warned editor's pages. Frankly, I had noticed that huggle wasn't displaying the summaries in the window at the bottom of the screen but thought, through the many updates of the program, it was just not shown any more. It appears to be doing it correctly now. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 20:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Owuya/ Mark in Da Park edit

Greetings, I happen to have a personal relationship with Mr. Owuya, and it is obvious that he is a mensch. A failure to agree with this is blatant racism. The term mensch is not strictly related towards Jews, black people can also be mensches. Not only am I extremely disappointed with your revert but appalled with your racism. Just because you aren't a mensch, doesn't mean Mark isn't. Shame of you, ---Juan — Precedingunsigned comment added by129.100.143.22 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion whatsoever about the subject of the article. Your edit constitutes the addition of your personal opinion to the article, thus, unconstructive. In the future, please only includeverifiable information to articles supported by reliablereferences. Thank you. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(moved here)

Thanks!  :) Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem :). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ <sup>TalkEmail</sup>12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Palace Rally

Hi, you undid a correction I made. The Crystal Palace Rally was the first UK Scout Rally held - but it wasn't the first rally, that was held near Glasgow (in Scotstoun Stadium) earlier in 1909. Hence, we can call the Crystal Palace Rally the first UK Scout Rally, and perhaps the best-known early Scout Rally, but not merely the first Scout Rally. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Fenrissmith (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes.... the reason that I reverted it, though, was because you included your signature in the article. I went to your talk page to put that message there but found that another editor had already notified you. I have no problem with your information about the rally, but you should not include your signature in the article itself. Thanks for your edits! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thornburg

Hi, I added the "shout out" as part of my lesson I'm teaching on using Wikipedia. We will be evaluating web sites and I wanted to demonstrate that you can find a lot of information, some of which should be questioned. I didn't want to add anything that was incorrect, but for them to see something that should not perhaps be there. Do you have another suggestion on how can do this? I am impressed how quickly it was caught.Ljsb1958 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

:) I have most of SCPS Schools and other pages on my 'watchlist' in Wikipedia so, when I check it, I can quickly see things that have been changed.

I understand the goal of your lesson, and I think it's worthwhile. I think that students really SHOULD be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, adding inappropriate things -even with a good goal - puts you at risk of sanctions from other editors for vandalism. You could even be blocked from editing if you do it too much.

One thing that you can do is to create pages in your 'userspace'. These pages are not part of the encyclopedia and could at least serve as a visual example of what you want to illustrate. You can create a page by going to your user page (just click on your username at the top of any page) and then adding a slash / and then the name of the page you want to create. Then, you could copy all of the code for Spotsylvania County Schools page into that new page and edit there. This has the added advantage of giving the students a place to 'experiment' with editing without actually modifying 'live' articles. I think the lesson is great and I wish that more classes spent time looking closely at Wikipedia. Let me know if the directions above don't make sense or if you need any more assistance! :) Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

deletion of page

delete the page User:Preetam040/Sandbox, i have one in name of User:preetam040 i'm going to blank this page please put this page in speedy deletion.thanks Preetam040 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I put a deletion tag on the page indicating that the author requests that the page be deleted. That's no problem. I would suggest, though, that you should do that yourself in the future. All you have to do is put the {{db-g7}} tag at the top of the page. The reason why I suggest that you do it is that you are the author/owner of the page. An administrator who goes to delete the page will wonder why another editor is asking that it be deleted at the author's request.  :) I don't mind doing it at all, but it's easy for you to request it as well. Cheers! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting

It will be interesting to see you prove that the suicides are still alive and that my facts are wrong generally. — Precedingunsigned comment added by81.148.109.16 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable 3rd party sources for the facts that you add to articles. It's not so much that I think your facts are wrong - generally or specifically - but the reader has no way to verify them. Thanks! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 14:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems in Math

Hello Wikipelli, Thanks for your welcome message. I wanted to ask if I have a difficulty in a math problem, where could I get help on Wikipedia? Additionally, do I need to learn the wiki math markup tag to input mathematical symbols? Thank you in advance --LijoJames (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, judging from what I see in your sandbox, you're way ahead of me as far as math symbols go!  :) If you have questions on practically any topic, a good place to start is the reference desk. I hope this helps! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 16:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) --LijoJames (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You may already have found this, but there is information on Math symbols and style atMOS:MATH. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:FelyseS

Noticed you reverted a blanking here; I believe these two users are connected. See the page history.Calabe1992 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So they are. Good catch... Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with moderation

Hello Sir,

I am looking for your help please. I would like you to please take a look athttp://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Judson_University page. A user has recently edited out material that I believe was legitimate. I am also am concerned because she has also added new content under a "notes" section which she has basically described herself as the main monitor of the page and then has given her personal contact to keep it monitored to her standards. I am asking for your help in this because I know you have monitored this page before, admittedly that for my own poor content that did not fit with wiki standards. But since then I believe that the most recent content I put was acceptable, non slanderous, and helped to add to the pages content by making it less written like an advertisement and show more just overall interesting facts about something that actually happened. I am admittedly still rather new to wiki, so if I am doing something incorrect please let me know what you think and if there is anything I should do to make my content more appropriate in efforts to help find a middle ground.

Thank you for your help - FoxDie85 — Precedingunsigned comment added by Foxdie85 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good now, I'll put it on my watchlist for changes. thanks for bringing it to my attention rather than get into an edit war. :) Cheers. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 09:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the contentious part of the additions is about the student exhibition which was vandalized. The wording suggests that there really needs to be 3rd party references to the event before it can be included. Wikipedia relies on verification to establish notablefor people, events, etc. If you have any references to the event - newspaper articles, etc - that you can cite, that would be very helpful. I'll leave it in, but I can't really argue with someone if they want it taken out. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 09:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wikipelli. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 15:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Forgot to do this sooner Calabe1992 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Huggle issues

(I'm overwriting the last section here as it was vandalism that was not properly removed.) Huggle is frequently giving me an error when trying to load an edit, saying that the page or edit cannot be loaded. Are you seeing this as well? Calabe1992 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just gave me one: "The relevant page of the wiki was "Haslett High School" and the requested data (for error checking purposes) was: (Diff: 454265168, 454265376)." Calabe1992(talk) 17:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... all morning I was seeing "The site is experiencing problems" on the web and huggle's been a little quirky, too. I went to the village pump but didn't see anything about issues. I dunno. Wikipelli<sup>Talk</sup> 18:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alrightty... good enough I guess. Glad it's not just on my end. Calabe1992(talk) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tai Chi Chuan -> T'ai Chi Ch'uan move

Hello Wikipelli,
We've been waiting for you to move the page for a while now. Please refer to my talk page for further details.
Thanks (You can go ahead and delete this message and speak to me in my talk if you wish.) -InferKNOX (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really sorry.... I dropped the ball on that one. I'm on it now, seeing what I can do to facilitate the move. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 01:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

93.43.238.27 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Onus probandi fallacy

on "list of informal fallacies" onus probandi is erroneously in blue, because it is linked to "philosophical burden of proof" which is not a fallacy, but the epistemic equivalence of the legal principle. I tried to add the fallacy there but Denisarona reverted it. NOw, either you make a new entry "onus probandi (fallacy)" possibly redirecting to the english equivalent "(shifting the) burden of proof" or you add a section to previous article adding "burden of proof" fallacy. the word philosophical is anyway inappropriate and should be changed.OK? btw I couldn't find a "leave a message" button on user talk:Denisarona, can you let her know?93.43.238.27 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Precedingunsigned comment added by93.43.238.27 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi.. I reviewed my revert of your changes. I reverted on the basis of the phrase "I am wrong" because I (incorrectly) viewed it as personal commentary that you included in the article. I apologize for this. I should have reviewed the context more before clicking on the revert button. I've restored your edits as good faith and removed my warning from your talk page. Denisarona's contention, and it is correct, is that you should provide a source for the information that you have added or changed. Thank you for your contributions! Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, to leave a message on Denisarona's talk page, all you have to do is to go to the page and click the edit tab at the top. You can then add a new section at the end of the talk page. :) Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipelli, it is useless to write to her, I explained to you what is the problem. I might add a section to the article "philosophical..." but I cannot correct the mistake in the title, or make a new entry or a new redirect, only you can do that. [btw :Her contention is wrong, I am surprised you say so, because my source, if you understood the problem, is wikipedia itself. I added the original Latin text and its transaltion because I happen to know Latin, there is no source for that]. So,let's recap: you must copy definition/explanation from "list of fallacies" to [philosofical:delete] burden of proof or make a new article "burden of proof(fallacy)" copy there the explanation and make a new redirect from "onus probandi", later on I can improve the article. If it is not yet clear tell me what is the problem.OK?93.43.238.27 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok.. I'm trying to sort this out. But a couple of things while I do that: 1) I'd feel better about helping if you didn't tell me that I 'must' do this, rather than ask me to do it. :) and, 2) what is keeping you from making the changes yourself? Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 14:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on, wikipelli,1) I am a not a native speaker, mother-tongue is Latin, "you must...later I can" means "only you can...after that I am able to", if you do not like it change it to "you ought to....if you desire that I..." OK?

2) [Denisarona and wikipelli] ...I am new here, I do not know what I am allowed to do, and how to do it.[you are forgetting a trivial detail: I got two "warnings" in 5 minutes] The bottom line is "I am helping you to make a more decent article, you are just helping me to help you!. Is that correct? I am joking, I imagine you must deal with trolls and vandals all day. Let me know when you are ready. btw: if I want to give not a source but a real "example" from web, can I put the link at the explanation or I must put it in a note? the latter would be above my possibilities.Ta.

Ok... I'll look into it. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You wish to add this:

Fallacy: onus probandi

"burden of proof" is an informal fallacy. The person asserting a claim, instead of proving his claim asks his critic to prove the claim is wrong

to the Philosophic burden of proof article. Is that correct? Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 17:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NO SIR, it is not: the word "Philosophic" is wrong, should be deleted: burden of proofis a Latin LAW principle that has been adopted in modern democracies and in epistemology. if you want to leave that article you 'ought to' delete *philosophic* and add (fallacy)and/or [shifting the]; copy the stub, then I will improve it. This article should be linked to the heading "[shifting the] burden of proof" which is now in red in the "list of fallacies" article. It is necessary also to correct same mistake in ihe disambiguation article: "burden of proof" leaving "legal" and correcting *philosphical* . I hope it is clear now. Do what you can , then I'll check if it is right and correct it.

But , most important, it is necessary to make a new article "onus probandi" to provide a right link to that heading in "list of fallacies" article. you may copy there the current explanation and then , again, I will expand on the stub, relating it to the article "[shifting the]burden of proof" and to the "legal burden of proof"

There is another trivial problem: I have downloded "expat shield" to watch "BBC Home" gratis and I have been assigned 85.237.211.66 IP, when I have the shield on I cannot edit because they say that 'another' 85.237.208.0/21 IP has been banned [by MuZemike] until the end of the year. Isn't that crazy? can you fix that? 93.43.231.129 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I think we ought to do:

• First, as every article in Wikipedia has a discussion page. This page is for discussions about changes to how articles are written. Editors like yourself can discuss the changes and come to consensus.I'm going to copy your wishes (above) to thePhilosophic burden of proof talk page. There, editors more familiar with the topic can discuss your proposed changes. Technically, I'm able to do what you request, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to assess whether or not the changes should be made. I'll leave that to you and others to work out! :)
• Second, because you are having troubles editing with various IP addresses, I encourage you tocreate an account. This will allow you to edit from anywhere no matter what your IP address is. It will also give you the opportunity to accomplish more tasks if you are a registered user.
• Finally, I would encourage you to take advantage of the manyhelp pages that are available to guide you in editing. I feel that you would be a great asset to the community and you should become a regular editor. If you have problems along the way, please feel free to contact me here on my talk page.Wikipelli<sup>Talk</sup> 11:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, sir, but I have no spare time to become an editor of wiki. I gave you my opinion, if your experts will acknowledge it is right, they can do watever they deem right. If, in future, I hit the articles, I might improve them hoping I will not be banned. Bye

As you wish. Wikipelli <sup>Talk</sup> 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)