User talk:Baxter4173

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome to the world of vandal fighting!

Hello EditorRob! I've noticed your recent efforts at fighting vandalism. First off, I'd like to thank you for your contributions, which are always appreciated. Secondly, I would like to recommend a tool for you that will greatly simplify your work in this field. This tool is called Twinkle, and one of its many functions are easy revert links that can allow you to undo edits very quickly. It is used by thousands of Wikipedians, and the only requirement to use it is to be an autoconfirmed user. I recommend you give it a try! Be sure to read the documentation before using the tool, and if you have questions after that, you can always ask me here.

Also, please be sure to warn users on their talk page after you revert their edit. You can use a hand-written warning, or use one of the many template warnings here. This lets vandals know that people do monitor Wikipedia and their unhelpful edits are not welcome. Twinkle, as mentioned above, also has an option to warn users easily.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I have over a year and a half experience in this field, so I will hopefully be able to answer your questions. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is most assuredly NOT vandalism. It was okay to remove it, as using staff names is out of guidelines for school articles (see WP:SCH/AG), but not okay at all to label it vandalism. Vandalism is when an edit is unequivocally intended to damage the encyclopedia. Such as:

addition of profanity like poopy head, etc.
addition of random characters like ;!%%/:=
addition of obvious factual errors, especially if the intent appears to be to mislead or defame.
blanking that appears to have no relation to normal editing.

Labeling an edit as vandalism when it isn't is a form of personal attack and can be considered a serious breech. Please be certain of intent when labeling an edit vandalism. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, obviously adding teacher names is not vandalism. Perhaps you missed the "#Schrelovsky" after the addition of the names, which is a hashtag combining both teachers' last names. I believe this would qualify as addition of random characters and also is intended to damage the encyclopedia by adding nonsense to the end of a section.

Regardless of whether this was or was not "by the book" vandalism, I think you can agree that any rational person would agree it is very close to vandalism, if not fully vandalism. The edit that I rolled back was clearly not appropriate to add, so you are really picking hairs when you make such an aggressive call out purely because I labeled it as vandalism. End result needed to be the same regardless. Thanks.

EditorRob 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great thanks!

-EditorRob (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EditorRob. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Align

I redirected the company to the product article. This is almostly completely sourced to the company's website, its press releases, and its 10-K. Wikipedia articles need to be based on independent sources per the WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have continued the discussion on your talk page. Baxter4173 (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pasted comment left on my talk page in this diff here, to keep the discussion in one place. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I saw your redirect for Align Technology and your comment on my talk page re: sources tied too closely to company releases and filings. Since it is an $11 billion public company, I think it passes the notability test if more diverse sources are used. I am thinking that it would be more appropriate to migrate a good portion of the information from the Align Technology section of clear aligners to the Align Technology page and find a more diverse set of sources for the rest of the Align page. Please let me know if you think this would qualify for a standalone article if done well. Baxter4173 (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware, but there is a history of paid editing around this company and its products, so it is watched closely. If you have anything to declare per WP:COI, please do so and please put any conflicted edits through peer review via WP:AFC or by posting them on the relevant Talk page.

If you have no COI and want to restore, feel free but please do not base the content on such poor sources. WP articles really need to be based on independent sources from the ground up, and reflect both the good and bad about their subjects -- whatever it is that independent sources give WEIGHT to. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I was not aware there was a history of paid editing around this company and will try to find more independent sources and include more complete coverage regarding possible negative events. I have no COI to declare and will use AFC for the next try. --Baxter4173 (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking so graciously. If you like, have a look at this: User:Jytdog/How#New_articles -- Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Baxter4173. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Baxter4173. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]