User talk:City of Silver: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:56, 11 April 2017

Welcome toCityOfSilver's talk page!

For simplicity's sake, I try to keep conversations in as few places as possible. Any replies I have to anything said to me here will be found here and nowhere else. Conversations from somewhere else should not be continued here.

· You can click here to leave me a new message.

· Please leave messages and comments rather than warning templates.

CityOfSilver's archives
· Archive 1 · Archive 2 · Archive 3 · Archive 4 · Archive 5 · Archive 6 · Archive 7

Boyle's law video

I keep trying to remove this demonstration video. The purpose of the video is to make Boyle's law understandable, but the narration gives wrong information and is therefore not helpful. Specifically, the narrator states that the pressure is higher outside the balloon than inside the balloon, so the balloon expands to equalize the pressure. This is FALSE. The pressure outside the balloon is LOWER than the inside of the balloon, so the baloon expands to equalize the pressure. Vacuum = low pressure.

You will discuss this on the talk page before you remove anything or it'll keep getting restored. Up to you. City Of Silver 15:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. I'm a scientist and educator trying to maintain high standards on a publicly editable site. If you want to be bureaucratic about it, fine, but the page you keep gate-keeping contains factual inaccuracies. I've told you what's wrong with the page; one would hope that counts as "talk". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.216.176.129 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the article's talk page and leave a message accordingly. Over 100 editors are watching that article so they'll see your message and respond.

It's easy to be dismissive of this site, given what happened when you tried to fix something. I hope you don't. I'm sincerely glad that you're willing to put in work to help. If you think of getting past what you characterize as "gate-keeping" as just more of the work that needs to be done to improve things, you'll find that we're a lot more willing to cooperate and collaborate. (And while a lot of people on here would strongly dispute that characterization, I personally think it's 100% accurate.) If you decide to keep at it, let me be the first to suggest you get an account. There's a strong, admittedly unfair bias on here against anonymous editors and getting to where it doesn't affect you is the most effective way of dealing with it. City Of Silver 19:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing legitimate edits

You keep removing legitimate edits. As an example, it's not true that "King Louis XIV ordered that the book (Lettres provinciales) be shredded and burnt in 1660."". I tagged it with ^{[citation needed]} and you removed the tag. That's certainly easier than properly sourcing a false statement, but it's not what an editor is supposed to do. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate editors don't use edit summaries like yours, and they definitely don't respond to good-faith efforts to help with trash like this. If you mean to improve Wikipedia, act like it. Otherwise, go away. City Of Silver 15:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't like my edit summaries? I think they are pretty much to the point. Since when is disagreement on the style of an edit summary (mind, not the edit on the page, the edit summary!) a good reason to remove the whole edit? In the last instance the edit summary "Meek Soviet burocrat" pointed out the dubiousness of the unsourced quote. What's wrong with that? Do you want to uphold the legendary decency of Soviet burocrats? As for my reply, I again suggest that you keep your suspicions to people you know. Whether I have edited here before is irrelevant, as long as my edits are correct. Isn't it? 84.73.134.206 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, you don't like my edit summaries?" Instead of behaving like a human being, you're defending your stupid, dishonest attacks. If you were here to help, you wouldn't be doing this. Ergo, you're not here to help.

"burocrat" [sic]

"As for my reply, I again suggest that you keep your suspicions to people you know. " You have edited this website under a different identity. That's not a "suspicion." It's a clear accusation that you've violated policy. If you're going to report me for hurting your feelings, keep in mind what you said about my nonexistent wife.

"Whether I have edited here before is irrelevant, as long as my edits are correct. Isn't it?" No. That is 100% false. Didn't you ever encounter the relevant policy when you were editing under your previous identity? City Of Silver 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, burocrat:"rare spelling of bureaucrat". Anyways, this is getting funny. You removed ~ GB fan's comments on this page and reverted his reversions of your reversions on the pages I edited! Your edit summary was: "Removed attack. A good-faith editor would never, ever add a "citation needed" tag to a statement they know is false." As a matter of fact, a good scholar should never be too sure of himself. I hate to destroy other people's work and there is always a chance that I may be wrong. So I put a ^{[citation needed]} there, instead of deleting what might be relevant information, however unsourced. Besides:It's a clear accusation that you've violated policy. Which policy? Provide a link, please. As for my feelings, I find this squabble mildly amusing. Cheers. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR. Go away, please. City Of Silver 17:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then....

...try this for starters :). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectonar: That's what I was hoping to find. Thanks for understanding that my nomination was a passive-aggressive way of asking someone else to do the legwork. City Of Silver 19:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To loosen the mood...see Wikipedia:LIGHTBULB; not necessarily on topic, but funny nonetheless. Lectonar (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Neistat advertisement issue

hello,

I am RayanCharles101, and have recently edited the "YouTube" source, as part of the Casey Neistat biography. Please understand that the information that I have added is in use to link to current events and to future events that will happen between these sources of media. It is to ensure that information from recent events have been included as of purpose to the reader.

I ask of you to not remove the information I have added; which is off information about the affairs between the YouTube channel of Casey Neistat and others.

Yours Sincerely,

RayanCharles101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayanCharles101 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RayanCharles101: Whether or not you mean to, you're adding promotional material. If you can rewrite that so it reads a little more neutral, it might stick, but right now, Neistat's agency could tweet that word-for-word and it would make perfect sense as an advertisement. You're also adding incorrectly formatted "[Citation needed]" links, which reads to me like you're adding stuff that, for all you know, might not even be accurate. City Of Silver 20:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oh im so scared about being reported.

all im saying is, that you don't have to take everything literally.

you need to calm yourself down about little edits like that.

m8 take the stick out of your ass, and don't be such as patronising misogynistic prick.

you're such a delinquent

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RayanCharles101 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RayanCharles101: Were you under the impression I was trying to scare you? The report was to get you blocked. I showed you how to get your edit added to that article and you thanked me by calling me a "faggot" and a "bent cunt." And a "prick." And, because the insults weren't enough, you lied by calling me "misogynistic," a word whose definition you don't seem to know. City Of Silver 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Swan Theory.....

Dear City of Silver,

If Wikipedia is only promoting the Black Swan theory there's something wrong. There's also an alternative universe where the Blue Swan Theory exist with Serendipity as one of the 3 pillars. It is used for managing projects now in the Netherlands. Which way can I walk to let the people know that each of them can influence his/her own future? see www.bsi.one

Alfred J.Bollebakker alias The Business Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBusinessman (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBusinessman: Please see WP:NOR, WP:PROMO, and most importantly, WP:RS. If you don't have a reliable, unbiased, third-party source, your edits will not be considered appropriate. City Of Silver 21:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But City of Silver, The Blue Swan Theory is a Black Swan for all things we know ( just like the real black swan in 1697 ) . Where can I find a reliable third party source? You can only test it with the Blue Swan Navigator which is now made in Amsterdam. Before december 2014 nobody can influence his/her future. But with the Blue Swan Navigator you can. It is tested from 2006 until now on projectsTheBusinessman (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Can I make my own page about the Blue Swan Theory? Its important for the world to know what I know! And they can test it themselves. I will provide a prelimenary excel-sheet for that purpose. The Blue Swan Navigator ( an App ) is scheduled in june-junly 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBusinessman (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBusinessman: "Where can I find a reliable third party source?" I don't know. Obviously, I'd defer to you on this since I know next to nothing about either of these concepts. If no third-party sourcing exists, you can't leave it here.

"Can I make my own page about the Blue Swan Theory?" You must have looked at WP:RS. That's good. But I can tell you didn't bother to read the other two links. So I'll ask again: please read WP:NOR and WP:PROMO. City Of Silver 13:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To City of Silver: All 3 is not applicable to me.Before 1697 there were no Black Swans ( they thought ). Before 2014 there were no Blue Swans. I've tested it sereval times on projects from 2006 until now....and it is still ongoing. The world ( or universe )is a V-model. The Blue Swan ( as steered serendipity ) exists and everbody can test it with the app coming this year ( The Blue Swan Navigator ). You can never predict a Black Swan...but you can "WANT / aim for" a Blue Swan ( and always within a project ) using efficiency. This knowledge is very important for individuals and people who works on projects. So can I make my own page so I can challenge the world? You need not to pray anymore because you have your future in your own hands from 27th of December 2014 onwards. TheBusinessman (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC). OK GB -> Then the world must pray for a little while more. Meanwhile I will launch the Blue Swan Navigator, which is in fact a controller in a multi-world game to guide you to the your best future ( see Everett III ) medio 2017. But Wikipedia should think about such a place where real innovators can put their theories. As I said ...it is tested on large project ( 500 million and more ) on companies and also tested in personal areas with people who are very ill and need Steered Luck or serendipity( and both is ongoing ). But with the Blue Swan Navigator app there will only be more data available. It is just like the black Swan in 1697..either you see it ( then your universe has changed )or not....It's digital....not quantum mechanic. If you lived in 1701 and a Dutchman said to you that he saw a black swan...would you believe him? I am a Dutchman too. I see the Blue Swan that will be a Black Swan for all things we think we know. I know it is not easy to believe...but you can test it yourselve....and / or see it on www.bsi.one . Make your own Blue Swan Index.TheBusinessman (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scorsese filmography

Thanks for that revert. And, in answer to your question, yes, that is the same person. Four IPs have been blocked this week, and there will certainly be more, so please keep your eyes out for suspicious edits on Scorsese-related articles. Thanks again! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: I mean, I knew it was but I'm trying to give the appearance of AGF and all that. I'm about to watchlist a few likely targets. You're welcome and thank you as well. City Of Silver 15:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I'm out of good faith. You're welcome. Cheers! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Clemente

The information I added is purely biographical. Which part of it seemed to you promotional? The first two paragraphs I have tried to adjust speak about artist's process and his style in detail. I believe it gives accurate insight into Clemente's work. The quote by Jeffrey Deitch is supported by the link to the video published on Bloomberg news. The current version seems very general and not related in detail to Clemente's work: "He has worked in various artistic media including drawing, fresco, graphics, mosaic, oils and sculpture.[1] He was among the principal figures in the Italian Transavanguardia movement of the 1980s, which was characterised by a rejection of formalism and conceptual art and a return to figurative art and Symbolism.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annazorina (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Annazorina: First, you were edit warring. It does not matter who's right and who's wrong, it is not appropriate to go back-and-forth with people like that. You've been reverted twice. At this point, you must go to Clemente's talk page and discuss if you'd like your edits to stay.

Second, you were first undone by User:Justlettersandnumbers, whose edit summary said "Restore referenced material and references, [remove] the same pseudo-intellectual art-speak poppycock as before, largely unreferenced and wholly unsuitable to an encyclopaedia." I really don't like that summary's tone. If I'd come across your edit first, I would have reverted you for the same reasons but I would not have been that harsh. That said, it's still a substantial, clear effort to get you to understand the issues with your edit. I've seen nothing from you that reacts to that. City Of Silver 15:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You well may be right about the tone of that edit summary, CityOfSilver – I'll admit I was a little frustrated when I wrote it, after three different editors had added closely similar content to the page in the space of less than 24 hours. It followed on from a previous summary which read "Restore referenced material (and references), rm a mass of pseudo-intellectual art-speak, largely unreferenced and wholly unsuitable to an encyclopaedia". Since that was ignored, I expressed the same thought in slightly stronger terms; I may have been wrong to do so. I was certainly wrong to forget to post a note on Annazorina's talk-page to explain why the content was not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and that making the same edit again and again is called edit-warring. Sorry about that, Anna! I had also intended to ask if – since you are editing here under the name of a person who has an art gallery in New York – you may have some personal or professional connection to Clemente, and thus have a conflict of interest in relation to the article about him? If so, you must declare it. If, on the other hand, you are not that person, then you will need to change your username. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: For what it's worth, I noticed that too but since the word "Clemente" doesn't appear anywhere on her gallery's website, I didn't know if it was worth further inquiry. City Of Silver 01:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microscope#Request_for_comment_on_ultramicroscope RFC on ultramicroscope in lead of microscope article.] --2601:648:8503:4467:F4B3:6D6C:9DCC:DC06 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictitious infobox editor a continuing problem

The editor we discussed at User talk:CityOfSilver/Archive 6 continues to be a nuisance. If you catch any more of his IPs feel free to add them to User:Lizard the Wizard/LeBaron vandal. I plan on requesting a long-term range block soon. Lizard (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: I'll add a few more likely targets to my watchlist. I was thinking a few days ago that it seems like he's been quiet for a bit but it's because I haven't been monitoring a wide enough range of articles. City Of Silver 01:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

signature

hi. I was going to revert this pending change https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Xi_Jinping&diff=773666820&oldid=773665974 but you accepted it at the same time. I looked at the signature upload and there was no way to comfirm that it was actually his signature.. how did you comfirm it? thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: It's my understanding that the bar for accepting a pending change isn't that high. But I'll try a reverse image search. City Of Silver 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No high no, but do you speak Chinese ? I had a look at the upload and there is nothing to support or validate the signature there? It could say, ..uck off ...tard for all I can verify? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: I'm still looking around but I can't find much outside of a site called "SignatureDB," which doesn't seem very reliable.

I don't speak or read Chinese but I can vouch that, for the most part, English speakers' signatures tend to resemble the actual words they're supposed to be writing very little. In this case, compare the image to the simplified Chinese version of Jinping's name (the second row of Chinese characters) just underneath it. They're obviously not the exact same thing but they're similar enough that I think the signature is the same sort of quick, semi-legible scribble that constitutes most English signatures. City Of Silver 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I reverted your pending change acceptance with the edit summary of - no evidence of copyright status for claim on commons. Please if you do verify anything feel free to replace the image, thanks - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: I'd have eventually reverted myself so I have no issue with this. I messaged the user who added it, asking for more confirmation, and I went through the list of members at WikiProject China and found two who might be able to translate from Chinese to English. So @Joseph Solis in Australia and White whirlwind: can either of you chime in on this? We could use some expertise. City Of Silver 18:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot mate. I found some similar signitures but my consern in the end was the copyright claim without any verification. Best regards Govindaharihari (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The characters in the signature are certainly correct, but as to whether or not that is Xi's actual signature I do not know. White Whirlwind 咨 18:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari and White whirlwind: So until we get a lot more information from the person who uploaded it, it should stay gone. Thank you! City Of Silver 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , here it is, it is not ok - in China - it is or can be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of - considered an artwork - in the usa is is mostly ok, best - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: That looks like a handwritten signature so it would be protected but I'm noticing an exception at your link. If the signature is on a "legislative, administrative, or judicial" document, it's public domain. The user extracted it from a congratulatory telegram sent by Xi to Hung Hsiu-chu when she was elected leader of Taiwan's Kuomintang. I feel like that would be an administrative document since Xi obviously would have sent that strictly for reasons of international diplomacy. (And if I'm wrong, or if there's any thoughts that this isn't correct or isn't good enough, I'm happy to just keep the page as it is without the image.) City Of Silver 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

I know we disagreed about an action, you read the policies one way I read them a different, but I don't understand your hostility towards me. Can you explain what I did that was so bad that you feel the need to be so hostile towards anything I say? ~ GB fan 18:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: I don't know if we interacted years ago but since I came back, this entire message and this were your first substantial messages to me. For a minute, I thought you were having a seizure. I'm not talking shit there, either. I sincerely thought you'd either accidentally posted to me when you meant it to go to someone who actually deserved that or that you were not fully in control of yourself. And I thought that per WP:AGF because there's no way someone entrusted with adminship thought it was a good idea to appear out of the blue and address a good-faith, never-blocked editor like that, right?

So I dug through your edit history a bit and I remembered. You're the same frantic, furious ball of anger you were years ago. You can't get through a day without violating WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, or any of the other policies and guidelines that you constantly violate because you'll never actually get blocked like you badly deserve. And in this regard, you're not special. There are tons of admins who are under no obligation to do a goddamn thing but still act like put-upon, stressed-out day care workers or prison guards forced against their will to go around yelling at people, picking fights, and whatever else.

I could be wrong. I'm sitting here asking myself, "Am I going too hard? Am I overreacting to someone who actually seems to regret treating me like that now that they know how upset it made me?" But no. No way. I have the right to ask anybody, from an IP vandal to Jimbo Wales, to stay off my page per WP:NOBAN. And it makes sense that my belief that there's nothing you can contribute here proves itself right. You're under no obligation to comply but how many times can I revert you without reading what you said before you stop? How many messages of yours do I have to pitch into the circular file before you agree with me that interacting with me and/or editing here are not constructive ways to pass your time? Why the fuck do you keep poking me?

I'm trying to cooperate and collaborate with people who I feel can work with me to improve this website. I'm trying to avoid dealing with people I believe I can't work with. I don't respect how you do things and since you've had the same approach for years, I won't waste anybody's time by trying to change how you automatically treat people you strongly disagree with. (And if I wasn't clear, you treat people you strongly disagree with like fucking garbage. I'm not the only person who's been subjected to your firebreathing dragon approach.) So once again: Please stop messaging me here. Please stop responding to others who post here. If this page is on your watchlist, please remove it. If you feel something I've done requires anything but a boilerplate reaction ("page protected," "request denied, not enough recent vandalism," etc.), please let another admin handle it. I know you don't have to comply with any of this. If I still haven't convinced you that I'm worth avoiding, well, I'll just keep reverting you here while I ensure that at least one us stays trying to accomplish good things. City Of Silver 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CityOfSilver, I'm reading the above with some disbelief. First, I treat you extremely leniently, which GB pointed out gently enough (13 reverts on someone's talk page). Then, you refuse to drop the stick, going so far as to redact one of my comments. Now I find that you developed this animosity toward GB—for what?—for simply pointing that out when, trust me, any-other-admin-would-have-said-the-same? You really should reconsider your attitude toward GB. You can do whatever you wish with your talk page, including redacting this message and my message directly below (the reason I am noticing any of this in the first place), but note that it does not come across as collegial or professional when you do that. And making all these accusations against GB without a shred of evidence ("same frantic, furious ball of anger you were years ago. You can't get through a day without violating WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT"), I hope you can see how that might look rather questionable from my and others' vantage point. El_C 12:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If you feel that posting on my talk page would accomplish positive things, you're probably right. Please make sure anything else you leave here has nothing to do with this discussion because I'm done with it. City Of Silver 17:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg

What are you doing? The information is totally correct. Jaws is actually considered one of the greatest movies of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.250.26.232 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please sign up for an account and stop hopping around identities like this? City Of Silver 17:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting Daring blocked users

Hi. You wrote in response to MySuperBelt85's: I WILL MAKE A NEW ACCOUNT VERY SOON, AND I WILL KEEP DOING THAT. ;-) see you soon :), an edit summary that read: Removed threat, even though this person won't be able to follow through on it. That was the wrong move. First of all, they made good on their threat—secondly, we don't do that per WP:DENY. For future reference, please don't do that again. Thanks. El_C 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I was never going to convince them to do (or not) do anything. Neither was anybody else, which is why I recommended that page get semi-protected. I tried, and shortly after that, they went right back to warring. I'm not sure what you saw in their behavior that indicated things could have gone any differently had I not "taunted" them. City Of Silver 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, and perhaps taunt is the wrong word. Let's say daring them. Telling them they "won't be able to follow through on it" may have had the opposite effect (or no effect, it's difficult to tell), but per DENY, it's better to be laconic with such threats. Again, for future reference. El_C 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canton High School (Massachusetts)

Hi there! I noticed you are involved with this article and have expressed some concerns about the "chs" suffix attached to some usernames. See my most recent comment on the article talk page about this— it may interest you. KDS4444 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: I added my two cents. Thank you for notifying me about this. City Of Silver 17:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and my thanks for the 2¢! KDS4444 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC+02:30 pagemove vandalism

FYI, User:Sethdecastro1 is once again moving UTC+02:30 to meaningless offsets. I've reverted the edits and the move - since you've dealt with this vandal before, can you make sure this user's other edits have been cleaned up and that the appropriate warnings/AIV reports are made? Thanks! – Train2104 (t • c) 06:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ES on Christina Grimmie Comment

You wrote "Anybody want to guess why this person removed that hidden note?" Are you intimating the deleter is attached to Loiblor a hater of Christina's? I don't understand what your intimating, L3X1 (distant write) 03:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L2X1: To me, it was clear that the clueless editor felt that in order to violate the rule laid out by the hidden note, they could only get away with it by simultaneously removing that note. The answer to my riddle was nothing more than "because the IP user is an idiot." This article is not the only place where new people try out that dopey tactic so no, it had nothing to do with the subject specifically. City Of Silver 02:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you?

I haven't "attacked" anyone, much less "blatantly"... You're the one being difficult here. I see you've moved on from plagiarism to stealing. If you want to do something worthwhile instead of being a PITA, fix the snippet then. Show us how it can be done. No? I thought so. --2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:1:8CFA (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See your most recent edit summary at that article for the answer to your question. See also your accusation that I'm "being a PITA," which I didn't even have to Google to figure out that you're aiming more vulgar language at another editor. Address others like that and it's a pretty strong indicate you're not here to help. City Of Silver 18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, but I was content to have the WP:BOOMERANG work its magic at AE. I'm also fine with it being reverted. Anyway, thanks for your watchfullness. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it appears to have worked its magic anyway [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Can you believe those do-gooder admins who block people right when I'm in the middle of writing a brilliant, devastating report at AIV? City Of Silver 20:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ivanvector really one-upped you there. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you guys, next time I'll let them crap all over the project for a while longer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long term abuse report

I want to say "thank you!" and "well done!" for the LtA report. It's long past due – I should've done it myself, and have no excuse other than laziness. Anyway, thank you. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOldJacobite: Thank you as well. I mean, laziness was my excuse too but you two have been battling that person a lot longer than me so I didn't have as much ground to stand on. City Of Silver 02:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton County Public Schools Wikipedia Page

Good Morning CityofSilver,

I am writing you in relation to a series of reverted edits on the Clayton County Public Schools Wikipedia Page. I have seen your notes as to why the edits were removed, however, I would like to point out to you the facts of the matter related to the edits. The CCPS Wikipedia page has obviously not been edited for accuracy in a number of years, with the majority of the information being uploaded in 2008 -- nearly 10 years ago. There are numerous errors in a multitude of places such as schools, the number of students enrolled in the district, district leadership etc.

The attempts of editing the information was not to promote, advertise or mislead anyone who views the Wikipedia page. It was only to update information that is readily available in many other places throughout the internet. It is my understanding that Wikipedia does thrive to provide accurate and unbiased information. Is that an inaccurate assumption? It would only make sense that, Wikipedia allowed individuals familiar with the happenings of specific topics to accurately update and edit pages related to the topic.

Please allow me to edit and update information that is false, or no longer an accurate representation of the Clayton County Public School District.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

192.43.223.156 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) CCPSCommSpecialist 192.43.223.156 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Ron Shields from Clayton County[reply]

@Alexf and Oshwah: this user is obviously the same user as User:CCPSCommSpecialist and User:Ron Shields from Clayton County. The first is softblocked for the username violation, but I don't see what violates the username policy that led to the second account block. {{uw-softerblock}} specifically advises editors that they "may simply create a new account", and WP:ISU clearly advises that a username may include an organization name if they clearly denote an individual. Will you consider unblocking the second account?

To the user: Wikipedia generally frowns upon editors with a conflict of interest directly editing subjects with which they're professionally affiliated, although it's not expressly forbidden. We require that you disclose any relationship in which you are paid to edit Wikipedia, then we usually expect that you would suggest improvements to the page through a dedicated process, and your suggestions would be vetted by other members of the community with an eye for maintaining a neutral point of view and the reliability of your sources. Please have a look at our plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector - Yeah this isn't a UPOL violation. The user is now unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. Not sure why or how I managed to do that... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector - I think I see what may have happened. CCPSCommSpecialist is no longer a registered account. I believe that this was the username I blocked, and that CCPSCommSpecialist was later renamed to Ron Shields from Clayton County and was not unblocked after the change. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Efc1878

Hi there. This user needs to be reported for edit warring after being blocked a few days ago for breaking the three-revert rule. You had reported this user and he was blocked but has now just carried on with the edit warring if you look at his recent contributions. I'm afk for 5 or 6 hours so would you mind reporting him again please?

Cheers. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 226: / Line 226: @@
 ::[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] - Yeah this isn't a UPOL violation. The user is now unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. Not sure why or how I managed to do that... :-( [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup>  21:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 :::[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] - I think I see what may have happened. CCPSCommSpecialist is no longer a registered account. I believe that ''this'' was the username I blocked, and that CCPSCommSpecialist was later ''renamed'' to [[User:Ron Shields from Clayton County|Ron Shields from Clayton County]] and was not unblocked after the change. [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup>  00:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
+== [[User:Efc1878]] ==
+Hi there. This user needs to be reported for edit warring after being blocked a few days ago for breaking the three-revert rule. You had reported this user and he was blocked but has now just carried on with the edit warring if you look at his recent contributions. I'm afk for 5 or 6 hours so would you mind reporting him again please?
+Cheers. [[User:Mórtas is Dóchas|Mórtas is Dóchas]] ([[User talk:Mórtas is Dóchas|talk]]) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)