User talk:Tornado chaser/Archive July 2017

Vaccination articles

Stop watering down the wording. For instance, the source states "voluntary vaccination" not "Individuals choosing not to get vaccinated". Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: The change to Herd immunity you refer to above I don't really care about, but please explain this revert [1]. As for Sharyl Atkisson, I have left a message on the article talk page addressing your revert there. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It changes the meaning making it sound more controversial than it is. Where accessible, the vast majority get vaccinated. Personally, if people not getting themselves nor their children, would not cause injury to others such as Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman, and did not result in a load on the healthcare system or the economy, I'd say go ahead. Sharyl Atkisson is not an expert by any means and is only contributing to cases such as Cleverley-Bisman. I wouldn't call it "controversial"; I'd call it "panic" Jim1138 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intent to make vaccines sound more controversial, this is why I added "despite scientific consensus", would it be better to say "controversies exist regarding" rather than "controversies surround"?

Charlott's injuries were devastating and I sincerely hope this never happens to anyone else, but weather or not anti-vaxxers endanger others or put a load on the healthcare system has nothing to do with whether my edit was good, Wikipedia should describe vaccines as however controversial they are, not how (un)controversial we wish they were. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how one defines "controversial". Would you call spider eggs in Bubble Yum a controversy or a panic? If one is responding to misinformation from the likes of Andrew Wakefield is that controversial or what? Jim1138 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: After reading through the sources, I think you have a point, I have reworded parts of the lead, describing safety concerns as "scares" not "controversies". Tornado chaser (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Principle Revert

I noticed you reverted my recent edit on The Principle, removing source material. I was wondering why. The page reads "The Principle is a 2014 American indie documentary film produced by Rick Delano and Robert Sungenis that rejects the Copernican principle and supports the pseudoscientific[2] concept of modern geocentrism in accordance with their religious beliefs." The phrase "religious beliefs" links to modern geocentric beliefs in general. I replaced this with a link that shows specifically Sungenis's religious beliefs as stated in the book that he himself wrote on the matter. This, to me, seems like a better source than just a general link to a Wikipedia article.Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yaltabaoth83:It looks like that revert was made by Jytdog.

(talk) this (diff [2]) is the only edit I have made at The Principle, reverting unexplained deletion of sourced material by an IP address.

Tornado chaser (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss article content, is the article talk page. if you post there, i'll reply there. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ok sorry about that. I'm a new user and I'm having some trouble navigating all this. Yaltabaoth83 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Yaltabaoth83:I understand, if you have any questions you can ask me. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New section

User:David Foster at DFMYou have just deleted 2 days of work from our client's page. We are his agents and were updating his page as a matter of urgency and I was just about to do the citations/references. This is the first time I've ever done this and have been diligently working through each section and trying to do it correctly. I was trying to get the references edited and have saved them all as it had become a mess. I was just about to sort that section and you deleted my work. I'm distraught! This page was urgently needed for tomorrow. I can't believe all that work is lost. Can you undo the deletion? I hope I've posted to the right place because this is so complex. If not, apologies.}}

@David Foster at DFM: click on "View history" on the top bar, you can see all past versions of the page, there is also an undo button, when you have the references done you can click undo and then add the references, it's actually quite easy, not at all complex, if you have any questions feel free to post them here. My only concern is the fact that you are his agent, this raises serious conflict of interest concerns, see WP:COI. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Foster at DFM:I see you refer to me as an administrator in an edit summary, I am not an admin, anyone can delete content as long as they adhere to wikipedia policy.Tornado chaser (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding protection tags pre-emptively

Hi,

Whilst you're doing a great job regarding vandalism removal, please don't mark a page with the pp-vandalism if the page isn't actually protected, as this could put off genuine contributors also. Thank you! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@OcarinaOfTime:I thought adding pp-vandalism protected the page? Tornado chaser (talk)

No, only administrators - chaos would ensue if any autoconfirmed user could protect pages! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@OcarinaOfTime:I was confused about that, thanks for clearing it up! Tornado chaser (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Biased Removal of Edits on Political Pages

Hi there Tornado chaser,

I am a frequent wikipedia editor on political pages. I have noticed that you have marked some of my edits as "promotional". I do not work for any of the pages that I edit. I am just a concerned citizen who tries to focus on positives on the candidate or figure's page I am editing. Your removal of edits that I have worked on, often for long periods of time, I feel is a bit inappropriate. I feel as if my edits are neutral and positive. I would hope you would consider not removing my edits because my intentions are not promotional, but are to bring out the good to the public in the people that I write/edit about.

Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.28.15 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, my concern is that you were making the article TOO positive, an article on Wikipedia should state facts without trying to make the subject sound good or bad, trying to focus on the positives is still not neutral, your edits read like a mailing a politician would send you before an election, with phrases like this: "Fran Millar has served the constituents of GA House District 79 and GA Senate District 40 for the past 18 years. Senator Millar has often reached across the aisle, in order to benefit all citizens in the state of Georgia." I suggest you read WP:NPOV for info on how to write a good, neutral article, if you have any questions feel free to post them here, I have wachlisted this page and WILL see your comments here.

P.S You did the right thing by posting on my talk page, for the sake of keeping the conversation in one place, I have moved it here now that I have wachlisted this page. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said but I do believe that how long he has served and for which districts is relevant and important. It would be like removing the ranking and the list of wars a soldier fought in on his/her page. I would still like to keep something along the lines of "Fran Millar has served the constituents of GA House District 79 and GA Senate District 40 for the past 18 years.

That info is currently in the article and I have no plans to remove it, I do wonder why, after having been told about WP:NPOV, you made the edit referred to below, calling someone a "power hungry monster" is so obviously not neutral. Edits which violate wikipedia policy are reverted and the editors are blocked, indefinitely in obvious cases. I do a lot of vandalism removal and it's not hard to track everything an editor does, undo the bias edits, and report them to an admin who blocks them, I don't know why anyone thinks they can get away with this. If you want to edit constructively great! I will answer any questions you have if you are confused about policy or anything else, but if you continue to express your opinions in wikipedia articles I will see it, undo it and report you to an admin who will block you. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Check out how the IP "focus[eed] on positives" on the page of Fran Millar's 2018 opponent.[3] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:That was his opponent!? Thanks for pointing this out. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sock at UAR at Little Rock

Hey Tornado Chaser! Thanks for removing the BLP violation on University_of_Arkansas_at_Little_Rock. It was inserted by a recurring sockpuppet which has been plaguing us since September. If he comes back, you can report him at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jerryzrli/Archive. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@L3X1:Thanks foe the heads up, how do you know he is a sock? Tornado chaser (talk)

The edit summaries and reverting behavior are consistent with a single user using multiple IP addresses, and at the sockpuppet investigation the checkuser confirmed it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 15:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello Tornado chaser. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81:Thanks for letting me know, although I think the article in question could also be considered pure vandalism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey TornadoChaser. Relatively new to this and nowhere near full time. I wish you hadn't just deleted all the Chris Wray stuff I was posting on his page the first day of the confirmation hearings. You literally deleted a ton of stuff as I posted it. You could have sent me a message if you had a question about the content or the sources, all of which are solid. By doing it the way you did, you simply wasted several hours of my time and took a lot of good factual content off of a very relevant Wikipedia page. Next time, may I ask you to just please message me while I am in the process of editing? I am guessing you are probably a really great guy. But sometimes really great guys accidentally totally disrespect other really great guys lol! BUMMER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D001:EBB0:2594:EE31:E3FF:9F56 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the links in your response. I'll probably repost that stuff with cites sometime. 2601:240:D001:EBB0:2594:EE31:E3FF:9F56 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

Hello and thank you very much for your work reverting vandalism. When you do one like this you might want to check (a) what content you are removing or restoring and (b) what the edit history looks like. If, like in this article, it is a mess because there is a bunch of silly people - probably friends "working" together - making a whole run of stupid edits, it gets confusing pretty quickly and you can miss stuff. The "compare selected revisions" feature is pretty useful here - you can use the buttons to see the difference between the last known probably good version and where you are now, or where the vandals or suspect addresses have been. Here is an example. Hope this helps, and Happy Editing! Best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice reply, and you're welcome. Cheers 82.34.71.202 (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for letting me know when to stop. I'm new to wikipedia for three-revert rule. User is deleting the cited matter from page and doing so continuously and there was no way to talk as he/she is a ip. I see you blocked me from editing. I request you to reconsider it as I just tried to maintain the integrity of page as user was not adding or improving it in anyway. Thanks.

@BeLucky:I am not an admin and have no power to block anyone even if I wanted to, I can report users to an admin but I didn't report you, so I'm not sure whey you think you'r blocked. I also gave the same notice to the IP (who didn't heed it). Also, IPs can post on article talk pages, so you can discuss stuff with them.

P.S. why do you think you'r blocked? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I just thought you are blocking me from editing. One question can you request for a semi-protect on this page as the page I'm writing is about ongoing political conflict so it's better if mature and properly registered users edit there. Thanks again. Regards.

@BeLucky:Only an administrator (admin/sysop) can block people, I was warning you about the edit warring policy, but I am not an admin. I am going to report the IP for edit warring, an admin may then protect the page or block the IP. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Regards.

@BeLucky:Your welcome, glad I can help, unfortunately you have made a revert so now I will have to report an edit war between you and the IP, I am not sure wether the IPs actions are clear vandalism or not, unexplained removal of sourced material is vandalism, but the material in question looks like it may have WP:NPOV violations and unacceptable sources, (youtube can't be used as a source) so I don't know what the admin will think Tornado chaser (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't we use official youtube channels of newspapers as cite??!!

@BeLucky:I am not entirely sure, youtube is generally not a valid source, but if it is the official channel of a newspaper I am not sure I would look at WP:RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be the same thing just not in written but in audio and video. Isn't it?!

@BeLucky:I am not shure, I have only been on wikipedia for 2 months, and have not deld whith this issue before. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@BeLucky: don't forget to sighn your posts. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

How?

July 2017

Hi Tornado chaser. Please stop patrolling articles now – your patrolling does not appear to be in accordance with the instructions at New Page Patrol. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC) You've been warned previously about your hasty tagging, I kindly request you to take a break from NPP until you've actually understand how it works. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: Oops, I somehow didn't see that the hasty tagging warning applied to contentless articles, I won't do it again. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent warning

Thanks taking the time to warn that recent account, but it really doesn't have to be done for me, especially if the account is clearly WP:VOA and is already reported to AIV —72 _talk 01:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@72: Your welcome, I didn't know you reported them, I was on the fence about weather to report them as VOA, I was going to wait for a 3rd edit but what you did makes sense. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be on the fence about this. A great deal of accounts/school IPs I report (that is obvious vandalism) haven't been conventionally warned. In this case the account was part of a string of IP/ account hopping vandalism to Morpeth School and Oaklands School, and reminding them wasn't really necessary, especially as it wasn't you who made the reverts. Anyways, I'm probably being too trivial, keep up the good work :) —72 _talk 01:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP

Hi Tornado chaser. Please stop patrolling articles now - your patrolling is disruptive. This is the final request - if you continue to patrol pages you may be blocked without further warning. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Tagging pages one minute after creation for deletion is almost always inappropriate [4], [5], [6], and while this article would have better been A3, since its just a link with a chat-like comment. I would encourage you to spend more time editing in different areas of Wikipedia and gain experience with our deletion policy before continuing to patrol new pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The diffs you provide are all BLP PRODs, not CSD, does don't tag immediately apply to BLP PRODs? I thought BLP PRODs meant that the article could be deleted if no refs are added for 7 days, so immediate tagging dosen't mean immediate delation.

Also, you give me a final warning as if I've been warned before, my first warning was only about CSD A1 and A3, I misread this as A1 and A7, and tagged an article A3 soon after being created, other than this error I have stopped tagging anything A7 A1 or A3 after my first warning, I will stop adding PRODs now, but will I be blocked if I only tag CSD G1, G3, G10 and G12? I have not caused any disruption with these tags, and they can be applied immediately as stated in the first warning I got. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hasty taggings one minute after an article is created (or the minute of) is generally not ideal for anything other than the most explicit copyvio, attack pages, promotion or vandalism or an article that has been recreated multiple times within the same day (it happens). BLPPRODs there is consensus to allow tagging a bit early, ~10 minutes would be ideal because the creator is still likely on-wiki. We do want to give them a chance to add the sourcing themselves: how would you feel if one minute after you created an article you got a template on your page saying someone had requested it be deleted?

Re: the warning, KGirlTrucker81 had given you a level two warning on this scale. I escalated to the third template. I don't have the authority to block you, and if you don't make mistakes there won't be a problem. The issue is that you seem to have been picking the newest pages and tagging them almost instantly after they were created, which we don't like to do. If you want to be involved with work on new pages, something that you could do is just spend some time lurking at WP:AFD to learn our deletion policy. Do that and some work in countervandalism and working in articles and you'll get a feel for how our policies apply to new content. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the explanation, I actually am not involved with NPP, I am patrolling the edit filter log for counter-vandalism purposes, sometimes a new article showes up in the filter log and I tag it, I will be much more carful going forward. The warning template says "This is the final request - if you continue to patrol pages you may be blocked without further warning" as if I am topic-banned from NPP, Is it okay if I still tag obvious stuff? like CSD G1, G3, G10, G12 ect? Tornado chaser (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Its certainly not a topic ban, but you are right that the template doesn't mince words. Its goal is to point out that you've been working with new pages in a way that causes more work for others, even after others have asked you to slow down. I promise you the last thing I want is an ANI case over hasty tagging, but you do need to understand that it is something that shouldn't happen. If you slow down and take more time when dealing with new content, it shouldn't be an issue. Re: the ones you mentioned, I've never come across a legitimate G1 article, and I've reviewed 1,700 pages in the last 12 months. G3, G10, and G12 are major concerns and should be tagged without delay. Just make sure that they actually fit the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:Thanks for the explanation, I have seen G1, the article was about 20 random letters in a row, (are G1s not also covered under G3? I don't see the point of a separate category). Tornado chaser (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Rollbacker and reviewer

Hello Tornado chaser. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "pending changes reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  02:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Thanks for the upgrade. P.S. what is the difference between this rollback and the rollback button in twinkel? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, not much other than the user-right created link reverts with a standard edit summary (see for example here) that cannot be customized, so Twinkle or undoing are better to use when the reason for your revert is not blatantly obvious. Also, having the rollback user right gives you the ability to use Huggle, which is pretty much vandalism fighting on steroids (and as such, be very careful with it if you decide to use it). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  03:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vaccine into Vaccination. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)