User talk:Winkelvi

This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This user has
Asperger's.

If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

Thanks for stopping by!

Here in Wikipedia, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.

When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass.

If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry or trolling posts are subject to immediate deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

News and notes: The next big step for Wikidata—forming a hub for researchers

In the media: Study tour controversy; class tackles the gender gap

Traffic report: Surfin' the Yuletide

Op-ed: My issues with the Wiki Education Foundation

Featured content: A bit fruity

Recent research: Wikipedia in higher education; gender-driven talk page conflicts; disease forecasting

Difference between categories, sections, and headings

These edit summaries were initially confusing. A section begins with a heading. A subsection begins with a subheading, but calling it a heading will be fully understood. Categories are used to help organize the vast collection of articles in Wikipedia and are something else entirely, but are hierarchical, so there is such a thing as a subcategory, but it has very little to do with the content of an article. I usually expect edit summaries that mention "categories" to be for edits that add/remove/change one or more [[Category:]] links on the page. This is intended as friendly advice to help with future editing; please don't take it wrongly if I've worded it poorly. I'm trying to keep the overall amount of confusion around the Donna Douglas article to a minimum. (I'll watch this page for a while for a reply.) Pathore (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are never perfect, they often are confusing - that's why we have diffs to look at what actually happened. I never go solely on an edit summary. That's said, I'll try to be more precise in the areas you've pointed out, but honestly, I'm not going to take great pains to get an edit summary perfect. I figure that as long as someone isn't using an edit summary for the wrong reasons and is at least using the edit summary to begoin with, perfection in edit summary nomenclature is at the bottom of the priority list. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Several of my edit summaries have various errors, including one where I fixed a typo in the article and made a new typo in the edit summary. It's not like Wikipedia has a deadline or anything. ☺ Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Pathore: Recognizing that I cleaned up a totally screwed up article would have been a better thing, a nicer thing to come here with before pointing out that you think I made your editing there more difficult. Again, priorities. No matter if I didn't produce edit summaries up to your standards, the article is in much better shape now than it was 24 hours ago because I took the time and effort to get it that way. In my opinion, there's a plethora of negative criticism in Wikipedia when there should be a plethora of thanks given to the volunteer editors who make te 'pedia a better online resource. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't make my editing more difficult and thanks for cleaning up the article. I had thought that thanks for your contributions went without saying. I intended for this to be entirely constructive criticism and advice for the future, on an assumption that you may have been unaware of that distinction. I apologize if I have caused offense. Pathore (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only minimally offensive, and not enough for me to want to you think that I'm unhappy with your commets here, Pathore. I think you hit me at a bad moment when I was contemplating how I've never seen another organzation depending on volunteer workers that is in general less appreciative of those volunteers on a day-to-day, and sometimes moment-to-moment basis. So, all that in mind, please don't take my comments personal or to mean that I'm not interested in working with you cooperatively. Like I said: your message came at a bad moment. Thanks, and Happy New Year. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I've had my bad moments too. Happy New Year to you too. Pathore (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bess Myerson

As I was with your comments on my talk page, which frankly indicated that you hadn't been reading what I wrote in that very discussion (or whats was in the article) very carefully, I'm frankly perplexed by your edits to the captioned article. In a series of unconstructive edits, you removed significant text concerning the significance of Myerson winning the 1945 pageant. You edit-warred to keep those edits. Have you read the source materials that are the basis of those edits? I am asking in good faith as I really don't believe you have. Also you appear to not be familiar with the kind of material that appears in biographies of living persons. Information on siblings, including deceased ones and especially ones claimed in an untimely fashion, is routinely included. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much

You are very kind. --talk→ WPPilot 20:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you, WPPilot. Keep moving forward, keep contributing, and try not to look back at bad editor behavior. It will eat you up if you do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DONE - thanks again! --talk→ WPPilot 20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revert

That was an accidental rollback from my watchlist. I've requested rollback removal so I don't misclick again.Cube lurker (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

In the media: ISIL propaganda video; AirAsia complaints

Interview: Interview with Jakob, one of Wikipedia's more prolific waterway contributors

Featured content: Kock up

Traffic report: Auld Lang Syne

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Lips ^{are movin} 10:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Lips. You've only been here three weeks and you already have a fancy username signature three barnstars and duded-up user page, you're nominating articles for GA status, and now you're going to DRN? That's quite a lot of Wiki-activity for such a newbie. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]