User talk:Jsharpminor/Archive 7

Sorry, for reverting that !vote. I thought you were attempting to close again. You sent so many templates I lost what your were doing there.--Maleko Mela (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rollback makes it very clear when rollback may and may not be used. Your reverts here and here, using rollback, are not permitted by the rollback guideline. Is there a reason you should continue to keep the rollback user right given you were both involved in an edit war on the page and used rollback? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not permitted to delete other editors' comments on article talk pages. Doing so is disruptive editing. The extent to which I was involved in an edit war, if you wish to call it that, was to post a comment stating that an admin had declared a discussion closed, to close said discussion, then to restore comments inappropriately deleted from article talk pages. Both of the edits you mention are exactly that: restoring deleted comments in article talk. (Note that I have said absolutely nothing about the issue other than that Mark Miller's reopening of the discussion is in the wrong venue at best, and tendentious at worst. Nor was I involved with the discussion prior to reminding him of the admin's verdict.) Restoring a deleted comment on a talk page seems perfectly consistent with the spirit of rollback to me. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jsharpminor thanks for creating the article. Feel free to override the changes but I basically replaced information that's factually incorrect (eg. ownership and programming) with information that's more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.253.2 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Cheers! Jsharpminor (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my edits which are in line with the consensus at the talk page, so why am I being disruptive? I honestly have no idea why you are warning me. Bandy boy (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because edit warring is disruptive, even if you are correct and your edits are in line with consensus. Warring means reverting back and forth with other editors. Once is understandable, twice should be avoided, but three or more is what is called a 'bright line'. A quick skim of the history of the page seemed to indicate that you have reverted users' edits more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. If this is not so, then I apologize. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Seems that you have reverted this page at 15:50, 18:55, and 19:25, which is three. I'm not an administrator, but seeing as you have multiple warnings about it, I would stop before going further. As far as consensus is concerned, when you're reverting two different editors, that looks at first glance like there is clearly a lack of consensus for the changes you're making. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it may look like that, but the consensus is established on the talk page and I am just reinstating the consensus version, as far as I see it. if the other users want a change, I think they should discuss it. However, I have done no more editing there now. Bandy boy (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the Bit Boy!! Arcade/Bit Boy!! vandalism. I suspect it was a 4chan attack or something like that. I have semi-protected both articles and that should put a stop to it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for that!! Jsharpminor (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I just handed out a block to the autoconfirmed account that was participating in the attack, so that should be the end of it now. Oh, I forgot to mention that the Cloudwalker27 account was helping revert vandalism in this case. It was a little unusual to see a new account trying to revert things, but they were indeed helping. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that. I even looked at his talk page to make sure that I hadn't accidentally warned him... turns out that ClueBot is probably the only reason I didn't issue a 4im warning to Cloudwalker that I would have regretted.

When the tempest started raging and the page got about 5 reverts a minute, I kinda got a little careless in who I classified as a vandal and who I classified as a helper. Especially since he ended up using the same wording as some of the vandals in his edit summaries. Fortunately I only mentioned him on AIV incorrectly, as opposed to actually 4im-ing incorrectly. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything it all good. I left Cloudwalker27 a note regarding their help with the article. I saw your AIV report and I cleared it without action. Like I said, it was very unusual to see a new account jump in to help fend off a 4chan attack that is going fast and furious, so misclassifying them would be very easy to do. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jsharpminor. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies if this is the wrong place to post. The edit to Paul Nuttall's page was entirely relevant, as I myself attended Hugh Baird College, and it is not in Bucharest, Romania as stated, but rather Bootle, Liverpool as I attempted to change it to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.60.152 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	k i did a mistake in the indigo dye editing Shrutikrishnamoorhty (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i agree i will delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrutikrishnamoorhty (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence of the Chickenfoot article is: "Chickenfoot is a supergroup of U.S. origin." So, it makes perfect sense to refer to it as such in the Michael Anthony article. Please put my edit back, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.143.178 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jsharpminor, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

In regards to your notification about Robin Thickle's new album Paula: If a certain album does not reach a higher score than at least half the total percentage you could consider that said album is certainly under a rather negative impression, so I dont understand why you think that it is not necessary to remark it. I now is just a little aspect of the overall understanding of what that album is and what impact has had, but is nonetheless an actual one. Thank you (Itisnotcohen (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This... is this word salad or am I supposed to get some meaning from it? Jsharpminor (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itisnotcohen has made one edit: to my userpage. I'll feel free to ignore it unless any further discussion is wished; in which case please make it here. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(

Thoms 01:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, okay.

I've been seeing quite a few edits by IP editors making factually inaccurate changes of "mixed reviews" to "mixed to negative" (or, in some rare cases, "mixed to positive".) When it's within spitting distance of the 50% mark (which is the definition of mixed), and especially when it's directly contradicted, I tend to assume that it's not good faith. Since the default level-1 template is "I didn't think this edit was constructive, so I reverted it," I don't think that's a BITE that is disproportionate to the unhelpfulness of the edit in question. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I can see that view of the original edit. By BITE, I meant your reply to his/her message on your talk page, which you eloquently described as "word salad" and opted to ignore.—

Thoms 03:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

*giggles* ... Ahem...

Yeah, that probably wasnt the most tactful way to go about it.

By the by, I do realize that everything I type on Wikipedia is public for the whole planet to see, and you have every bit as much right as the next guy to view my userpage, and actually your explanatory note was exceptionally helpful, thank you for it! - but how did you ever find it to respond to in the first place? Did you randomly start monitoring my userpage at some point, or is there some other tool that I don't know about yet? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I...uhh...I actually have absolutely no idea how I ended up here. If I had to guess: I spend a lot of time on

Thoms 04:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at your contribs, it's also possible that I saw you in the history of

Thoms 04:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Jsharpminor. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

Yeah, I think you may have a point... If I can humorously direct you to

WP:DELICIOUS? Jsharpminor (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

On a serious note, I did leave a message on Stella's page linking to

doesn't strike me as noobish behavior. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Attention (Redacted), you have undid some of my edits on the History of Iran. Wikipedia is not a place for biased articles, slanted information, or blatant Antisemitism. I formally request you restore my previous edits before I report you to Interpol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.192.127 (talk)

Thoms 15:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I occasionally use Huggle and have been known to get a little happy with the "Revert & Warn" button. I was expecting to find that I'd both reverted a good editor and had an

oversight issue on the same day. Imagine my relief when I find that the "truth" in question is this, this, and this. Jsharpminor (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]