User talk:Winkelvi

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)

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

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Thank you so much

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

albert jacob page

regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.89.168.229&redirect=no

what was it I wrote that constituted vandalism? I know this person personally and I did not mean any harm or ill-intent. I wouldnt even dream of writing negativity I only wish this person well. 202.89.168.229 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

IP 202.89.168.229, if you note the comments from me on your talk page, the wording states your edits looked like vandalism, not that they were definitely being classified as vandalism. Taking a look at what you did way back in May, your edits did look suspicious because there were some obvious errors made and not corrected. After making the errors you blanked a section without putting back in what you removed. As well, you did not use the edit summary indicating why you were making the edits you did. Further, when you blanked the section, a warning tag appeared noting "Section blanking". All of that together combined with these edits being done by someone who hasn't created a user account says "possible vandalism" to editors who have been here a while. I hope your edits were truly made in good faith and that you truly didn't mean harm. Coming here and asking what the deal was is a good faith effort on your part and it's appreciated. If you'd like to edit articles in Wikipedia in a productive manner, you're welcome to do that. I'd advise creating an account first. If you choose not to do that, please be sure to use edit summaries to explain your edits, that will help other editors to know better your intentions. I will put a welcome message on your talk page that has helpful information and advice about editing Wikipedia - please read it for better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Good luck! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Andraé Crouch edit

Winkelvi, I see that you reverted part of my edit with the summary: "can't imagine why this was removed", then Walter Görlitz changed it back. The reason (and I don't know why you wouldn't already know) is it was a repeated link of the one in the previous sentence. But, when a veteran editor makes an edit and you don't know why, instead of just reverting it, try finding out -- ask the editor (WP:ROWN). Not only does it help avoid edit warring, etc., but it's a little thing called "courtesy". Thank you. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Musdan77, coming to anyone's talk page (whether it be a veteran editor or a newbie) and adding a condescending comment such as "it's a little thing called "courtesy"." is quite discourteous and unnecessary. Your comments here were fine and appropriate up until that moment. The fact is you removed the content without explanation. The only thing you indicated in the edit summary was that you were fixing content in the infobox ("Infobox clean up"). Your edit aside from what you did with the infobox seemed unproductive, possibly an error. Sure, I could have come to you and asked what was up, and maybe I should have, but my action of putting the content back in was totally in good faith. That said, your discourteous condescending parting shot above definitely was not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Problems with your behavior

I want to summarize my experience attempting to communicate with you so that the diff is on record:

1. After seeing you attempting to create a case against Coretheapple in other forums, I visited your talk page and left you a comment regarding my own experience with Coretheapple. I did this in an attempt to get you to view and understand a different perspective other than your own, and to get you to consider that your view might be biased. In response, you reverted me with the edit summary, "inappropriate comment".
2. I responded to your revert of my comment, asking you why it was inappropriate, and told you it was very rude for you to do so. I also said that if you persisted, I would pursue a one-way interaction ban. In response, you reverted me again, this time saying I was acting like a troll, and telling me I was stirring up drama.
3. Note, in both of the above attempts to contact you, you were rude, aggressive, and made personal attacks. This is exactly the kind of bad behavior you are accusing others of doing.

Perhaps now, when you see your own bad behavior reflected back at you, you will think twice of projecting your own bad behavior on to others and attempting to harass them. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)