User talk:FlightTime/Archive 23

← Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24 →

Pink Floyd

Archived discussions

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

---

Why could not Pink Floyd use these genres? Art rock progressive rock psychedelic rock Avant-rock Proto-prog Psychedelic pop Space rock Acid rock The sources explain the genres well, I want to make a consensus with you about that, please stop undoing my editions— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintboxing (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Andyprod1

Too much detail? Just checking ... appreciate your looking after this. Andyprod1 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please leave me alone

I do not know what I have been doing to articles that is upsetting you, but I suggest you stop trying to attack me. There is really no need for this bombardment. Thanks to you, the articles in question are now useless to me, which I find too discouraging to not talk about. I was not trying to do anything wrong, and the fact you think I was only makes me feel more sorry for you. If this continues, we are going to have a problem. Please leave my editing alone. Jake "JJR" Rivera (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jake "JJR" Rivera: Stop making the type of edits that require reverting, simple, I'm not here to attack you, I'm here to monitor changes. Just look at your talk page full of warnings. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, I was only trying to add page protection so only registered/confirmed users can edit the page.

Regards

L1amw90 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@L1amw90: Only Administrators can protect pages. You can request page protection here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I didn't know. L1amw90 (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"we do not do "or perhaps because of"."

Um....why not? Says who? There's no Wikipedia guideline on the use of that phrase, as far as I know. If it's OK to say "despite...", why is it not OK to say "or perhaps because of"?

In the instant case, the sentence reads "Despite its controversy, the head-biting act has been parodied and alluded to several times throughout his career and is part of what made Osbourne famous." I think it's fair (if not actually more accurate) to say that the parodies and allusions to these head-biting incidents, and Ozzy's resulting fame, are BECAUSE of the controversy surrounding the incidents, not in spite of it.

Respectfully,

Captain Quirk (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Captain Quirk: Really ? It's speculation and there's no room for that in a Encyclopedia. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 05:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's no more speculative than saying "Despite". Perhaps we should remove the phrase "Despite its controversy" and just leave the sentence as "The head-biting act has been parodied and alluded to several times throughout his career and is part of what made Osbourne famous." Captain Quirk (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Eye of the Tiger views

I really like to put how many views a song has. Can you please tell me what's problem to put how many views does Eye of the Tiger have on YouTube? I didn't mean any bad intentions Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate warnings

Hey, it looks like you warned User talk:207.109.54.130 multiple times for the same edit, which I had already warned them for. Ahh, the trials of smartphone editing. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one warning for vandalism and one for introducing deliberate errors. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 01:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Eye of the Tiger views

I am saying this again, I really like to put how many views a song has. Can you please tell me what's problem to put how many views does Eye of the Tiger have on YouTube? I didn't mean any bad intentions. Ple

Lita Ford article

I found Lita Ford's real birth name and posted it. Unfortunately, I posted the correction to the wrong line. I was about to correct my error when you sent me this message. Her birth name is Carmelita Rosanna Ford, that is established fact. If you don't want me to correct my mistake, let me know. I hope I'm doing this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.143.159 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from UTWuTangClan

Syd Barrett retired in 1974 UTWuTangClan (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@UTWuTangClan: OK, and your source that supports your claim is ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It's on YouTube look at his Documents and his Biography Shine On You Crazy Diamond. UTWuTangClan (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@UTWuTangClan: YouTube is not a reliable source, either find a good source or leave it out, simple. Also, please review Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation and Wikipedia:Signatures#How to sign your posts. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Electric guitar edits

Your wholesale reversion of edits I made to this page were ill made. An actual review of those edits will show that essentially all of them were phrasing (which does not require a reference) or supplemental material, such as the addition of Leo Kottke to the 12-string section. I would ask that you unrevert, and instead object to particular edits rather than wholesale, meat ax, reversion. For your information, I have been an admin in former times, and at one time was in the top few hundred contributors and so am more than experienced at WP editing. I am not current with the present editorial politics, and, indeed, it was changes in those politics which caused me to go on an extended Wiki-vacation. If those changes have continued the trend I noticed then, I suspect I am likely to vacation myself again. Best wishes. 69.118.209.149 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@69.118.209.149: No, you need to cite (Help:Referencing for beginners) your claims, personal knowledge is not acceptable or verifiable, this is your WP:BURDEN. As a former Admin, you know "intimidation" does not work on Wikipedia - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: George Michael

I am not warring as you put it,i am trying to make it easier for people to read where the bbc..one has to read a few words b4 the bbc is mentioned,i have always been taught to write with this in mind,,,it is better to put the bbcs obituary descibed G M as...... instead of in its obituary the bbc......the same people are following me palecloud for one is up for harrassement and being petty..its makes sense as i wrote it Im fed up with being victimised on wiki when all i want to do is help!!/they too keep on re editing what i put on,they have changed it 4 times or so,why do they not get warned also? drew270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew270 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drew270: My best advise is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and get other editors ideas on how to include your information. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Andyprod1

Well, I THOUGHT I was helping out that section ... I understand your note about Discogs not being "reliable," however, I've found it's very thorough in the past myself, AND further it's going to be difficult if not impossible to find a repository of that information that is any better delineated or otherwise "reliable" to document these types of listings. If you'd like to point me to another place to look, I'll be happy to start there. I haven't found or figured out a better source to validate anything along those lines. Suggestions? Andyprod1 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Andyprod1: Rolling Stone is the best reference I have found. Also there's Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: understand. Read through the Sources Section as well. Problem with these types of listings is that Rolling Stone isn't going to necessarily be current with all the release formats mentioned, and those types of listings are probably too numerous to count, appearing in who knows how many pages on who knows how many artists. Acknowledging that Discogs is an independent or otherwise not directly related to the subject(s) in question, have you looked into their site? I'm wondering what the process is for critically evaluating a site for use in this type of situation. Release formats are after all proprietary to the record company/companies releasing them, and in many cases there are multiple companies involved in various issues of a title by an artist. I don't know any other existing site as complete as Discogs. Thoughts? Suggestions?

References

Yes, my suggestion is to bring this up on the article's talk page and see if any other editors have a solution. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mlpearc, edit warring and communication style. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. That Admin/stalkers subpage was inappropriate, so I deleted it. Beyond that, I don't see why you and Ritchie can't get along. Be patient and aim at a softer approach. El_C 11:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you, I didn't much like it either, but I felt I need to archive interactions as it seemed some Admins have been showing up on pages I watch where I've never seen them before and just after an altercation with them. @Ritchie333: Thanx for the ANI notification. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What was the altercation over? Please don't say genres, please don't say genres! El_C 15:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember. Probably genres. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, El_C they're on the page that was deleted - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Noo, subgenres!!1#777 El_C 16:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

He fixed it, no altercation, so off we go to ANI ?, maybe Ritchie just wants to vent, IDK. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes that I made to Andy Gibb

Hi, if that is the British way of presenting an article of that type of subject, then I am O.K. with that then. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 86.174.240.68

86.174.240.68 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC) MY edits are correct though. And if I don't do it no one else is going to bother to edit it. Riddler's appeared in DC Rebirth for a while now yet no one has bothered to add anything regarding him to his wikipedia page. I apologize for not knowing how to reference properly but if the actually editors and creators of this site kept the page up to do I wouldn't have to edit it myself.

A message from Delta9pharma

Hi, how can I add this information? Delta9pharma (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Delta9pharma: Please see the discussion I started for you on the article's talk page. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits rsooch

Hi there... regarding your revisions from earlier today: I don't understand your opinion that these Bass Player Top 100 edits are trivial or not notable. For example, your revision in the article for John Paul Jones (musician); the article already references Paste Magazine's list of underrated bassists, which you did not delete. Why is Bass Player's list trivial and Paste is not? Regarding music magazine lists in general, take Rolling Stone's Greatest 500 Albums as another example; each individual article for every album on its list references the original Rolling Stone Top 500 article. Why not the same for Bass Player's 100 Greatest Bass Players? Regarding notability, Bass Player magazine is the leading source on its subject based on its nearly 30 year print history and presence in its field. Alternatively, should we be deleting all references to Guitar Player magazine in wiki articles (they are numerous!)? I would like to undo your revisions based on this premise; please explain otherwise if you still disagree. Thanks... sorry if I responded to your comments in the wrong talk page area, I just followed your "click here" instruction and wound up here.

rsooch Rsooch (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rsooch: If this is notable information from this magazine, it would've already been in these articles, sound more like trivia to me. If you want to add this information please seek consensus on each talk page. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: The magazine was just issued last month, and posted on web this month. Please clarify your opinion regarding when the information should have been added to these articles. Thanks. Rsooch (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rsooch: All the more reason to get consensus first. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: OK, will attempt to seek consensus on each talk page, although I lack experience in that. Will give it a shot... feel free to delete this section, thanks. Rsooch (talk)

@Rsooch: Very good, happy editing. (May I also suggest reviewing a quick video) - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Drew270

I dont intend to haras you,you are harassing me,,your just stalking me all the time!. Are you a volunteer like me or do you own wiki or an official editor?

@Drew270: A volunteer just like you, everyday editors on Wikipedia do not stalk other editors, we use a function called a watchlist, at the moment I have 7,434 pages on my watch list. When other editors feel they are being stalked they're just editing pages on someone else's watchlist. George Michael is on my watchlist, looking at that pages' edit history, seems you made a few edits that were reverted, and not only by me. Wikipedia has standards, rules, guidelines and some SOP's, when edits are made to a page on someone's watchlist which is outside of those rules, guidelines etc. they get reverted, some editors (like me) when reverting a problem edit might check that editors contributions and fix any other issues, which often seems to that editor that they're being stalked, when in fact we're (everyday editors) just doing what we do here, building and maintaining the best Encyclopedia on the planet. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

Hi Mlpearc,

I'm respectfully curious as to why you removed the External Link to the archival video about potatoes. The video is from the archival collection at the Archives of Ontario and documents the potato industry in Ontario during the 1950s. In this sense, it links to sections in the entry like "history" and "growth and cultivation".

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing, so I appreciate your time explaining why such a link wouldn't be appropriate.

Many thanks, Historchivist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historchivist (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Historchivist: External link sections have a potential of becoming link farms, as this one is well on it's way. I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page and seek consensus to include the link. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Not to touch the earth

Hello, So, to make sure I'm getting this clear. When someone deletes a genre from the Rolling Stones page which is changing genres based upon their own belief it is fine but when I had reinstated what was before it is now changing it, with all due respect but something does not add up.

 Fixed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 174.126.88.6

You reverted an edit I made on the Stephanie Beacham page. I have a user ID on Wikipedia but do not always use it. I added the information to the page because, if you must know, my wife is currently (as I type) binge-watching the series Doc Martin (!) and I recognised Stephanie (I am from the UK and know her from the other things she has appeared in). 174.126.88.6 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@174.126.88.6: As my edit summary staes "Unsourced, unexplained", not incorrect. Please review, edit summaries and verifiability. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Just as well I went back and did a bit more digging ... I was confusing her with another actress, so you did the right thing, as it turns out! Thanks!174.126.88.6 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 100.4.157.176

So I reverted the edit, and then you give me a warning. Logic. Please remember, I did it because I know I screwed up. Looking for errors and I inadvertently deleted something and repaired it. Good job! Logic. Also, laughable right after another. 100.4.157.176 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@100.4.157.176: I have no idea what you're talking about. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from TheAnonymousNerd

I see you removed my edit from the Minecraft page. We should leave of the Nintendo Switch version for Story Mode until release. I have a question though: did you mean to also remove the 3 citations I added in the Awards section? They are now back to citation needed. Perhaps I should have mentioned it in the edit summary. TheAnonymousNerd (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheAnonymousNerd: This is an Encyclopedia, which documents "the past", we don't document what might be, sourced or not. - Mlpearc (open channel)

Should I add back the citations in the Awards section that I added earlier? I added them in the same revision. TheAnonymousNerd (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I see you placed back the citations, thanks. Also for teaching me that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I appreciate the feedback, as I am a new contributor on Wikipedia. TheAnonymousNerd (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Krazybruh87

I have a question. If I changed something to be funny (In which I haven't) would that be vandalism? Krazybruh87 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

is messing around with something and actually messing it up vandalism? Krazybruh87 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krazybruh87: I could be. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Matze74 wikipedia

Hi! :) Quick question: why did you delete the information about the new Skyclad video? Cheers!

Matze74 wikipedia (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matze74 wikipedia: Quick answer, no source. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, name change requested. Skyclad video has a source now, hope it's OK like that. Matze74 wikipedia (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Prv 54

Prv 54 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Hello this is regarding the page i was editing named Pravega Racing. I don't understand how i am advertising the company. I am mentioning the true details about a team which is similar to what another page called Formula Manipal. Tell me how the Formula Manipal page is different from Pravega Racing. A Question of inquisitivity.

@Prv 54: Seems Formula Manipal have proven their nobility. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Prv 54: On a second note, if you can not follow my talk page instructions, please stay off it. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Reactivate my ACC account please

Hi, I'm back to Wikipedia after a few months off for personal issues, could you please reactivate my ACC account?

Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 21:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Kharkiv07: Welcome back, please review the guide before working requests. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much, can you add the flag back too, please? Kharkiv07 (T) 21:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh, you're not an admin. Oops. Kharkiv07 (T) 21:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

AC/DC

Resolved

I think you're treading awfully close to the edge of WP:3RR on AC/DC. As the editor who first removed content that was subsequently restored, you should have followed WP:BRD and attempted to discuss the matter before removing again. Whether or not your edit was correct, or in line with the style of other articles, your actions showed a disrespect for the normal process. As the more experienced editor, you should have been the one to take the matter to a discussion venue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of my edits, thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Attention!

Resolved

 – See Mlpearc

- Mlpearc (open channel) 02:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the Administrators'noticeboard for incidents, regarding an issue where you may be involved. SportsLair (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I admit it's my fault. I'll let you go for now, but be sure not to make your watchlist loom too large. SportsLair (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Forgetting the mop

You might want to remove the category (Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls) too. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanx. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Tampering with milestone timestamps

Hello

I'd like to remind you that we editors are expected to take full responsibility for what we do with automated scripts. So, I'd like to know whether the script nature is your sole objection, or do you also dispute my claim that changing the milestone dates indiscriminately is bad?

Of course, we have precedent: ArbCom has previously blocked some editors that made seemingly insignificant edits in bulk. I can dig the case for you.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, look! I have new message from you... Codename Lisa (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Codename Lisa: Easy, calm down there's nothing wrong with that edit. All that edit did is to show the article was checked this month, this year for malformed dates. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am pretty calm. Evidence: I haven't countered your second round of reverts. So, I am pretty much here to talk.

That's not the function of |date=. That parameter is a milestone for when the unified style was first established. We don't need a date for when it was last checked because this information dates rapidly.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, I've made thousand of edits just like those, I've used the scripts for years. That is NOT a milestone edit it merely documents the last time the article date formats were checked by User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js. Now either point to some guideline or leave the edits alone. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've been make thousands of mistakes for years! Nobody needs the last check date because there is always an edit after that check date and there is no guarantee that said edit didn't deviate from the established style. A milestone date, however, is required for WP:DATESRET purposes.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Ohconfucius: - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Codename Lisa and milestone dates

Why was that conversation removed? The dispute remain unresolved, no? Also, I suggest you stop your script in the meantime. El_C 01:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Because CL refused to use normal discussion format on my talk page. I told them the discussion can continue on their talk, I have yet to be pinged. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. It's not my script. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How so? It seemed normal enough to me. Why not restore it and just be flexible with the conversation? (The script, then.) El_C 02:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please make any further comments and queries on this subject here: [4] as I'm done with this thread and probably the script. Edit on! - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. But I'm leaving here confused. El_C 02:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Leighahealy

Hello, please stop reverting my edits, the information on this page is outdated, and has not been updated since 2012. The logo is wrong, and all edits have been cited properly, please refrain from making unwarranted reversions. Leighahealy (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Leighahealy: Please supply references for all changes you make. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Nearly everything is cited, but I'm making sure everything has a reference. Leighahealy (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Leighahealy: This is an Encyclopedia, we don't do "Nearly". I'm not going to revert your changes anymore, but be sure it will be put back because it's not done right. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! By nearly, I meant I was still in the process of adding them which was interrupted by the constant reversions. What is "done wrong" here? All info is correct and cited accordingly. I would appreciate your feedback. Leighahealy (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted changes on Elon Musk

Hi Mlpearc,

I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. The information I removed was irrelevant to Elon Musk's biography. He makes dozens of announcements a year on Twitter (https://twitter.com/elonmusk), the fact that he said Tesla will be selling cars in India sometime this year isn't something that belongs on his page. Tesla sells cars in many countries, and the date Musk announced expansion to other countries is not on the page. I also fail to see how Tesla buying the domain Tesla.com should belong on Musk's page.

@68.181.88.185: Because you removed sourced content without good reason. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Arthistory edit

Arthistory edit (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Mlpearc- I am in the middle of adding references because there are so many and so much new info that is not part of the current article - please wait to revert until i add all the links - there are about 20 of them. thank you !

@Arthistory edit: No, you need to supply references for everything you change on the page per WP:V and WP:BLP. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, that's an unnecessarily harsh requirement. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. If a user is actively editing a page, they should be allowed a bit of latitude to finish their work before we go reverting everything. @Arthistory edit: I recommend that in the future, if you have a series of edits that you need to do, you place the {{inuse}} template on the page so others will recognize that you are actively working on the page and allow you to finish before assessing the work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: It's a BLP, no grace period, you post-you prove it. Please stay off my talk. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry if I hurt anyone.Especially sorry for Arayay.The only thing I want to bring to your notice is why are putting two different ranks for the same city in Visakhapatnam and economy of Visakhapatnam article.Tell me the reason for this.Then you can give a warning Sai krishna 98 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sai krishna 98: You're hell bent on adding your information even though many established editors are telling you it's not going to happen with the sources you have. This apology should be on Arjayay's page, not on mine. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Visakhapatnam article is saying "Visakhapatnam is the tenth largest economy with 26billion$.Economy of Visakhapatnam article is saying"Visakhapatnam is the 8th largest economy with 26 billion$.why two different ranks for the same city .Say the reason first Sai krishna 98 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sai krishna 98: Best to ask Arjay, my main concern was with your disruptive badgering, but the "calmer you" is much better. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from 120.57.5.172

Regarding my edit to the Shaolin Monastery page which you left a note for me about and reverted, if you note my edit summary I clearly stated I was fixing the grammar. NO facts were changed or added or removed by me, so why are you asking me for a reference unnecessarily?

Old sentence: "Scholars generally accept the historicity of Da Mo (Bodhidharma) who arrived in China around from his country India 480."

New fixed version: "Scholars generally accept the historicity of Da Mo (Bodhidharma) who arrived in China from his country India around 480."

Please be careful when reverting edits, even if you believe them to have been made in good faith. Thanks.

120.57.5.172 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@120.57.5.172: Sorry, my error, I thought it was a new addition. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A message from Xatian11968

Point of view pushing?

And what was the previous text? Dogma? From whose point of view? American imperialists? I hate to inform you but the Apache people have their own constitutions that comes with their own legislative history. If there is any point of view that should be conveyed on a wiki page concerning their path to modernity it should be the Apache. And presumption that all land was American land, and it was the Indians fault for being there before Americans got there, is as absurd as the text that was replaced. Xatian11968 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xatian11968: My revert had nothing to do with if the change is correct or not, your change was unsourced. I'm just asking you, if it's wrong and needs changing then provide a source that supports the change. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Apache racism

You know, I usually don't respond to POV statements, but I happen to be a white American that has had, since my youth, the greatest respect for all native Americans and their culture. Please be more careful with your accusations. Happy editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Victorville, California

Moved to Talk:Victorville, California, please continue there

The following discussion/section is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion/section.

---

The IP edits to the climate section are mostly spam. I checked some of the sources and they barely cover what has been entered. I think the climate section should be rolled back to your last edit in December. I don't think we should pick though a spammers huge edit to find the small bits that are actually sourced. What do you think? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Spooky :P I was just looking at that change and was going to revert, but decided to wait and see if another watcher felt the same as me. I visited the source, didn't read much but it seems unrelated to the context so I have to agree with you on the version restore. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How is it unrelated? The info is supported by my sources and in the table. Users here seem to have a bias against IP editors. Not all of us are vandals or cause nothing but trouble, you know. BTW: you will be surprised to hear this, but I am former StevenD99. I once retired, but still could not get enough of wiki editing, and secretly edited under an IP address until now. I just thought I would not be active enough or would no longer have enough interest to maintain my account here. But, this situation is probably going to make me leave for good. Seriously, what is unrelated? 66.214.121.92 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Blocked for 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think I would ever see you get blocked for something so trivial as a 3RR vio.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Yeah, there goes my clean slate, but I totally got out of hand, it's a good block, live and learn :). @Magnolia677: Thanx for your support, but it was all me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on that statement it would seem you learned your lesson. Maybe an unblock now would be appropriate.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: any objections to that? ^—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I'm actually working on my "honey do list", (I certainly wouldn't go to ARBCOM with a complaint of an early unblock :P ) but it's only a couple more hours, I might actually get something done :), Thanx for your support. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've unblocked you. You better behave now! *wags finger* — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Coffee: Thank you, I will be practicing a new approach to persistent changes (which is not vandalism) Thanx @Cyberpower678:- Mlpearc (open channel) 21:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 194.28.127.55

Nope, wrong business. 194.28.127.55 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed name. The template is meant for other users of that IP, please do not remove it. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 03:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 87.142.122.193

87.142.122.193 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Bon Scott, Angus Young and Malcolm Young were all born in Scotland by Scottish parents and lived there in their nascent days. It even says that in your article on Wikipedia. What more evidence do you need? They were Scottish. I polled people on the internet and they voted: 59 said Scots, 7 said Australian and 3 said Scots Australian. That was from International people across the globe. It is you that is vandalizing the page.

Nope. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I have an article ? Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 19:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If internet polls are now reliable sources editing is gonna be difficult from now on :-) On another note - an speaking as one who recently received a similar block - I am glad that you are back to editing M. Things can get crazy but that, in no way shape or form, changes the fact that you are a valuable editor whose importance to WikiP is not easily measurable. Best regards and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thank you for the kind words, this is a labor of love. Reply with regards and cheers, Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 20:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

There's the source about Don Rickles death.

The other editor added the source regarding his death: [5]. You can readd the content about his death with this source. --Stylez995 (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see the now added references. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Yourgirl

Hi Mlpearc, Thank you so very much, I really appreciate it Yourgirl (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yourgirl: No problem, good luck on your submission. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hoping for the best, Thank you once again. Yourgirl (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from TitoTritiny

Look I don't get it he left an unreliable source so I removed it. Malcolm didn't appear on the Blow Up Your Video Tour and it's not down as Malcolm Young 1973-1988, 1988-2014), so why should it be like that for Brian? It's been made clear from the start that Axl was temoprary until Brian's hearing got better, which it now has. What I'm trying to say is that Brian never left AC/DC he left the Rock Or Bust World Tour and Axl filled in. TitoTritiny (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@TitoTritiny: Simple, provide a reliable source, something like Rolling Stone, supporting why the information you're changing is incorrect, no experienced editor is going to remove a properly sourced edit on purpose. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

please help

hi, i honestly don't know what to do. since i'm new to all this editing stuff, you need to explain me what exactly was wrong about my added information. you told me to provide a trustworthy source, so i did. but wikipedia keeps telling me to stop adding information without citing a reliable source. but as i have already told you, i did.

greetings, nat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggerismydarling (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jaggerismydarling: If I may explain on behalf of Mlpearc who appears to be away right now, your edit used a blog as a source which is not a reliable source. Further, the entry for "birth place" in the infobox is for geographic location (city, country, etc.), not the exact location (hospital, farmhouse, etc.) so your edit didn't really belong there anyway. I hope that helps. Justeditingtoday (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi: Your I-vote at WP:VT says "nobility"? Typo, perhaps? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: No typo, but I clarified it a bit. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes Members

Is there a reason why Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, and Rick Wakeman are neither listed as current or past members? They should be included in some capacity.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dobbyelf62: Have you asked on the article's talk page? - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have not! I'll get on it!Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Dfrankow

Commuting to gigs via helicopter is not notable? You run in higher-class circles than I do! dfrankow (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dfrankow: I do run in circles, however how someone commutes to and from "work" is hardly Encyclopedic. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Yourgirl

Thank you so very much once again for the help. Yourgirl (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yourgirl: You're welcome, that's what it's all about, building and maintaining an Encyclopedia, I usually work off my watchlist fixing vandal edits, if you ever have questions or such you can post here and I'll help if I can. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dear Mlpearc, It's really nice when you feel out of place and someone helps you out, Thank you once again. I have a question, I added 2 books under further reading on the page "Emergency Medicine" and someone removed it. Can I not add? Sorry for the trouble.

Yourgirl (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yourgirl: I have a busy RL day today, but I can check that out this evening if you do not get it resolved beforehand, to help can you please post diff either the one where you added the "further reading" books, or the one where they were removed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Dear Mlpearc, Hope your day goes well. This is not urgent. I was just concerned whether I shouldn't have done it or I am not supposed to do it. I had left a message for the editor, he did not revert back. I then left a message on the article talk page.

The editor replied to my message on the article talk page - Asking why, If i had any personal or professional association with the author etc and why are my edits about the author. I replied saying the edits are because i am creating a page on the author. And that i do not have any personal association but I am in the same field of EM which is developing in India. And is this what you had asked below? Thanks once again

Revision as of 17:27, 11 April 2017 (edit) Yourgirl (talk | contribs) (→‎Further reading) ← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:28, 11 April 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) MrOllie (talk | contribs) (Reverted to revision 771988278 by OttRider (talk). (TW))

Line 204: Line 204:

• Tintinalli, Judith E. (2010). Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide (Emergency Medicine (Tintinalli)). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 0-07-148480-9.

• Tintinalli, Judith E. (2010). Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide (Emergency Medicine (Tintinalli)). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. ISBN 0-07-148480-9.

• "WikEM: The Global Emergency Medicine Wiki". Los Angeles, CA: OpenEM Foundation.

• "WikEM: The Global Emergency Medicine Wiki". Los Angeles, CA: OpenEM Foundation.

−

• Suresh S David (May 2016). Clinical pathways in Emergency Medicine (1st ed.). Springer link international publications. ISBN 978-8132227113.

−

• Suresh S David (November 2011). Textbook Of Emergency Medicine (1st ed.). Lipincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-8184732023.

Yourgirl (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about my edit

Honest question- What was wrong with my edit to The Kill? Really, I haven't been an avid Wikipedian for long, and I was just wondering if I did something wrong in my edit. Brodyargo (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Gestrid says, You've got mail!

— Gestrid (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, got a response from someone else regarding the topic via IRC. — Gestrid (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I see you've been accepted, welcome to the team don't be afraid to ask questions. Cheers, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Yourgirl

Hi Sir, my article submission has been declined again. Should i still edit it ? Thank you so much for the support and help. Have a great weekend. Yourgirl (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yourgirl: The decline notice states:

• This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This is what I would be concentrating on, be it researching, editing or both. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 17:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi sir, Guess you have see the previous one March 20.

The recent one April 14 says "Remove the autobiographical/C.V. tone from the article.Not everything is encyclopedically notable, just because it can be sourced." Sorry if i am wrong. Please do let me know. Thank you once again. Yourgirl (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ronnie James Dio genres

Hi. I added Rockabilly to the list of Ronnie James Dio's genres, with a citation from his New York Times obituary supporting it. At the time I made that edit, I requested that it not be undone without discussing on the Talk page. On April 4, you removed that edit from your phone account. I assume that this was in error, but if it was not, why did you remove it? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Holzman-tweed: Consensus is needed first, I see you have already started a discussion, great. All other comments should be made there, I reverted your edit as consensus is needed first. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

From Consensus: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."

I made the edit and started the discussion 3 months ago, there has been neither dispute nor reversion until now. Why is this not a demonstration of consensus? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

Mlpearc, as an active contributor to this article, your input on this would be appreciated. 193.232.184.141 (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That article is very misleading. Here's why:

1) Bert Jansch did not write "The Waggoner's Lad". "The Waggoner's Lad" is a traditional folk song. Nowhere in the article does it mention this fact. Anyone reading that section would think otherwise.

2) "Down by Blackwaterside", "The Maid Freed from the Gallows", "In My Time of Dying", "It's Nobody's Fault but Mine" are all traditional songs or songs of unknown provenance. This has been either downplayed or twisted to make readers believe Jansch, Gerlach, etc. etc. have implied ownership of these songs, which is incorrect. 193.232.184.141 (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi sir

Hi sir, thank you for the help sir, will be submitting my article again sir. Please do have a look if you find time sir. Thank you sir. Yourgirl (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Joe Elliott

This page shows the creation date of South Yorkshire. It came into effect from 1 April 1974. Elliot was born in 1959, when the West Riding was in existence. Samuel J Walker (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Samuel J Walker: You've been around long enough to know that a change needs verification, does very little to explain it here. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The map on this page will verify it. Also, the West Riding of Yorkshire Wikipedia page details when it was in existence from. Samuel J Walker (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a whole enyclopedia out there - Local Government Act 1972. Yorkshiremen are particularly proud of their county and take exception to it being called nonsense like "Humberside". Next time I see you get in a petty content dispute Mlpearc, you will be blocked. Last warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jul Big Green Instruments

Hello,

I noticed you removed all but vocals for the Infobox portion of the page I have been working on for the music artist Jul Big Green. I now understand that section is not for any instrument the artist is able to play but for what the artist is known for so thank you for informing me of that, however, Jul does regularly perform with the guitar and piano so those should be added back to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkkent19 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Clarkkent19:  Done - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help, I do not understand this here

You saw this edit, but then did not see the logic chain of that sentence as self contained and "ironclad". I did that; and now see you are asking for these: and

Humanity currently has no means/technology of testing for "outside of space" by any means whatsoever. And so I request, to understand, by what it may be objectively proven that there is no way to conduct any test to prove or disprove anything of that question unless there exists some (even) hypothetical (though within currently known extensions of known or near future technological capability) means to, directly or indirectly, gather any such direct or indirect data

That we cannot (possibly yet) observe beyond the observable universe because of the fact of light cones is factual seed of this scientific truth. Please advise.Sinsearach (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

References

@Sinsearach: I am merely saying your edit was not sourced and appeared to be personal knowledge/opinion which is not verifiable. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

ah yes no problem, see the observable universe to verify we cannot by any means see beyond what we can see...... so to speak

yes, indeed? also, see the 2 references Sinsearach (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach: You need to include a reference with your additions/changes, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

hmmm so then the article on observable universe is not enough or linking it is not enough? i.e. "(this absolute limitation evidenced in: observable universe)" so then..... need to link to something on the external web where someone proves a negative(???)... uhhh... yes... or where an htm is shown someone stating that we cannot see beyond the observable universe? would that be it? Sinsearach (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not arguing your point, just your edit. - Mlpearc (open channel) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh good grief

Hello M. I saw your RFPP for The Joy of Painting. The silliness of the IPs edits justify your request. I have added the article to my watchlist so even of it doesn't get protection there will be other eyes on the situation. Cheers (said in the quiet, melodious tones that Bob favored) MarnetteD|Talk 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

IP blocked 3 months if you didn't notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanx :) - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

My thanks as well @NeilN:. I'm glad to help M. In my Dad's later years he took a class with Ross (who was on one of his teaching tours) and he enjoyed painting a couple pictures. My sister has one of the paintings and I have the other. This brought back those pleasant memories. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from 24.215.168.44

Eddie Albert and I were born on the same day - today - and adding this information to this page was sort of a birthday gift to the both of us. The information came from the Wikipedia article itself about that particular Twilight Zone episode. When I get a chance I will review the referencing information and re-post the information. thank you 24.215.168.44 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 24.215.168.44 (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ! - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Morgan johndavid

What was unverified on "Dazed and Confused" edit? Is someone blocking edits to that page? It appears to be quite substandard and has not changed in years. ALL edits this week have been wiped out. Morgan johndavid (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, I'm disputing the reversion on the Dazed and Confused edits. I can think of one error I might have made, but that is readily correctable. The page as it stands does not do the original or the subsequent versions of the song justice, and in reading the page talk, there's been quite a bit of vandalism there over the years. What specifically was unverifiable in your view?

And what do we have to do to get the final "reverted" edit back? Morgan johndavid (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Morgan johndavid: There're too many issues to list, but first, a major re-write is usually discussed first. Also (just picking one), "guitarist Jimmy Page's "The New Yardbirds" for the group's debut album Led Zeppelin", The "New Yardbird's" debut album is called Led Zeppelin ? I've undone my edit, happy editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The example mentioned can be cleared up with a word or two, I didn't want to get off track on the question of when when The New Yardbirds changed the name to Led Zeppelin, which was officially Oct. 19 after the Yardbirds final farewell concert in Liverpool. Jimmy Page's band was called The New Yardbirds when they recorded Dazed and Confused -- an interesting detail from the recording sessions, and a great trivia question -- so they're not yet technically talking about Led Zeppelin at that point, though, yes, they would be in a matter of several days or so. Will adjust accordingly without getting too involved in the minutia. I can look for other improvements, and I have a few in mind. The core bass line on the verses of the song is the same on the three versions in question - Holmes', the Yardbirds and Led Zeppelin. This is an important song, one of the 500 that shaped rock & roll according to the Rock and Roll Hall of fame, so I thought the page would be greatly improved talking about the key, in a manner similar to the wikipedia pages for Beatles songs, which include lavish musical analyses of very simple songs. I am wary of "original research" rules, so I will look make sure all is verifiable with quality sources. Some thought went into this, rest assured. I will also address my intent here on the talk page, to open discussion on any issues.Please advise other issues/changes, and thanks again.Morgan johndavid (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A message from Tejasomina

Hello, the picture resolution was too high to fit in the info box. So, I was putting a thumb there instead. Should I instead provide the resolution when I put the image? I am new to editing wikipedia, so apologies for the frequent reverts. Appreciate your response and guidance on this. Thanks. Tejasomina (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tejasomina: No it's not, the infobox template will automatically adjust the resolution, the thumbnail markup is not used in infoboxes, Display size can be adjusted in user preferences. Please change it back how I adjusted it. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc: Ok, I will change the image part to how you did it which is (| image = Babu Gogineni 1.jpg).

So, I guess as long as image is modified to the way you adjusted it, I can keep adding extra information to the article without getting into the 3-edit rule, right?

@Tejasomina: See WP:3RR - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Echoes (Pink Floyd song)

Hi there, I'm new to wiki editing and noticed you reverted a couple of the edits I made to the "cover" section on the wikipedia page "Echoes (Pink Floyd Song). I added in a popular cover with relevant references. Can you tell me why this was not accepted? I think it's a valid cover which has been spread around social media a lot recently. WisemanOnceSaid (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@WisemanOnceSaid: The information you're adding is not Encyclopedic, it is not notable. Just because someone plays a song on youtube doesn't make it notable. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IP attacks

I don't know if I'm your sock or if you're mine (probably the former since your account is older) but it's nice to make your acquaintance. :)

Both of our talk pages have been temporarily semi-protected and a range block was laid down to try and stop (or at least slow) the IP. Thanks for helping keep my talk page clean but I'm sorry it got you targeted, too. Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justeditingtoday: Please do not apologize, it's what we do - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad it didn't disrupt you too terribly much. Happy editing. :) Justeditingtoday (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Block by Ritchie333

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Echoes (Pink Floyd song), and for false accusations of vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave you fair warning about this. (FWIW I have heard Ewan Cunningham's version as it went viral round Facebook - I've also done my own version). You should have stopped after two reverts at most. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, I'm dazed and confused. Mlpearc made exactly two reverts of the contended bit about the cover version. His previous revert was about a completely unrelated matter. Favonian (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why the block is for edit-warring, not specifically 3RR. Mlpearc has a long-standing history of petty edit warring over trivial matters and it's time he stopped doing it, as it drives people away from the project. That's why it is a general block rather than a protection or a note on the talk page. If he gives me a convincing unblock request, I'll unblock. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would probably take Pink Floyd stuff off your watchlist as reverts could lead to unexpected and unwarranted blocks. Dealing with future cruft can be someone else's problem. And it's small consolation but your edits on Afzal Kahn caused me to do a major cleanup of the article. Thank you for that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OMG - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you want to do? Request an unblock here? Request a review at WP:AN? Sit it out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does seem slightly- belated? The block was placed about ten and a half hours after their last edit to the page? — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 15:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Favonian: Thanx for the support, @NeilN: Afzal Kahn looks better, good work, @Ritchie333: I never was any good at groveling, so I guess it's time out. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: I have a few alternate accounts and would never even dream of editing with them over a block. I am offended. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I trust that you would never do that. My post to Ritchie's talk page was about whether or not he should block your other accounts based on policy, not based on behaviour. I am sorry that I offended you. I never thought you would evade the block. I will attempt to work on being clearer in the future. It's something that's gotten me into trouble here in the past, and it's about time I fix that. — Gestrid (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: LOL, duh, I'm a rookie at being blocked, didn't think I couldn't edit my archive pages. Thanks for the cleanup. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks are disabled while blocked also :P - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec x a lot) Your basic problem is communication. Reverting edits is fine - heck, I revert vandalism and good-faith but incorrect edits all the time so complaining about that would be the pot calling the kettle black. The problem is that you spend a lot of time arguing with newbies, and the argument usually ends up being the same as WP:CHEESE. The other party doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policy, but knows about the subject. You know lots about Wikipedia policy but don't know much about the subject, or rather it doesn't come across like that. I think you really need to meet the other party halfway, either talk about the subject, or admit you don't much about it at all, and avoid the temptation to drop policy BBQ if you possibly can.

Let's take the recent example with Georgina Downs. Now I don't want to sound like an apologist for her, but a quick Google over what else she's done reveals a pretty smart, and determined campaigner, who understands her subject material very well. (If she ever pops back, I feel like asking her if she's ever thought about standing as a candidate for the Green Party in the upcoming elections). I realise everyone else wanted shot of her, but I thought if we applied a bit of common sense, she'd go away happily. So to plant this message on her talk page after I'd spent the best part of 40 minutes trying to calm her down shows all the tact and diplomacy of a typical Trump tweet.

I'm honestly not stalking you or following you around, but I do clean out AIV on a semi-regular basis and you have made too many reports that are just not vandalism! Of course we have plenty of articles that might as well have been written by a bunch of monkeys, but until we get WP:COMPETENCE upgraded to policy, you can't take any of the stock anti-vandalism techniques on editors who really believe they're improving the encyclopedia.

I don't want you to sit the block out, I want you to discuss what I've written above and ideally you'll figure out where I am coming from and then we can unblock early. If you just wait the 48 hours out, I think we'll be straight back to square one and in two weeks time I'll find myself declining another report from you at AIV because it's over good-faith edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have always had a low aptitude in communication, I also have a wiki farm that needs upgrading and now seems like a good time to address that. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more it seems like another poor block. Are you sure you don't want to request a review at WP:AN? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have that "can of worms" syndrome coming over me, but I guess..... - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess I have to officially request one here, Yes NeilN I am requesting a block review. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to work it out with Ritchie on their talk page first, okay? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's just fine. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems my syndrome is valid. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

See User_talk:Ritchie333#Your_block_of_Mlpearc --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I have, thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_of_Mlpearc --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: This edit was an error I failed to notice that was a talk page, I thought the editor was talking in the article, I sent you a thank you for reverting me. - Mlpearc (open channel) 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess it'll get dealt with this way, but why exactly did this go straight to a review at AN? What was wrong with posting an unblock request here to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator, like everybody else? GoldenRing (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I think this had a lot to do with it, not to mention the discussion above. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I asked Ritchie333 to lift the block. They didn't, so blocking policy says, "If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Plus what was Mlpearc supposed to put in their appeal? Not to revert more than once? Not feasible. Not to report editors to AIV who are repeating the same behavior that got them blocked a couple days ago? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Unblocked

There was a pretty clear consensus to lift this block t that discussion, so I have done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have probably unblocked this morning anyway as I was happy you understood the problem per the other comments at AN, and per this message you have noticed the effect personalised messages have over Twinkle boilerplate. So I think we're getting somewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The jury is still out on this one in regards to the "personal message" it's hard to believe that Jjbrown5 hit the brakes because you got personal, I think they just ran out of steam at the same moment. As far as the block, it was wrong and you know it, however that's in the past, lets move forward, I harbor no ill feelings regarding yesterday. Cheers Ritchie333, - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Any blocks of mine are never personal and once the block ends, it is in the past and should be spoken of no more (although I've got one RfA candidate at the moment who's got kittens over a questionable block in 2015). At some point, I will continue with my "Plain and Simple Guides" (having already done vandalism and A7) and do one on creating content. I know at least one admin (or admin to be? I forget) wants me to do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.