User talk:Winkelvi

All the best for 2017!

Hello Winkelvi,
Enjoy the Winter Solstice and the Christmas and holiday season.
Thank you for all your good work during 2016 in maintaining, improving and expanding Wikipedia.
All the best for 2017! Cheers, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  16:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Winkelvi!!
	Hi Winkelvi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi Winkelvi, just noticed that you reverted an edit with the comment "(telegraph not a reliable source", the edit is here, are you able to direct me to a wiki discussion that confirms this as i thought it is useable as an independent source , thanks.

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Winkelvi!

Happy New Year!

Winkelvi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

).

Happy New Year, Winkelvi!

Happy New Year!

Winkelvi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Kubrick

Please be sure to sign any comments left. Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow - can't believe I didn't. Thanks for the notification. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

missing a part of your happy-new-year messages

Winkelvi, when I left a comment on MelanieN talkpage, directly underneath your previous message to MelanieN, after saving my comment was "eaten" by your comment!

There is a missing table-close-tag, at the end of your happy-new-year-messages. Can you please add them, like this: [1] That way future comments by others won't get confusingly-included into the unclosed wikitable. And also, happy new year to you  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

carrie fisher fanmade star tribute

Hey there, happy new year!!!!!!! I see you just did some editing on carrie fishers page. I just wanted tonreach out because there were 4 fans who not only made the star but stood by it for 6 days straight and then collected all the things left behind for her and donated it to the chinese theater where it is all now on display. The fans names are jason thomas, vanessa velez, ryan wiltberger and lavonne dominguez. They felt that not only did she deserve a star but fans needed a place to go to mourn and celebrate the incredible carrie fisher. Thank you for all you do. We are greatly humbled and so proud of the star. It started out as just an impromptu thing for us and our group to go and became a media sensation. Just so you know the star is currently still there!!!!!! 8 days later!!!!!!!!! Thank you for your hard work and all your volunteer editing you do. Im sure it is a pretty thankless job Museisgod (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Reynolds

I am not interested in getting involved in an edit war. I am simply trying to prove the credibility of my source. It has a page on Wikipedia, even if it is speculation. Please come to the talk page, where we can discuss it in detail. It is neither tabloid or fake news. The website is a reliable sources used as a reference for multiple films and actor's biographies all over Wiki. I shall remove your message from my talk page as I consider it slanderous.Radiohist (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The warning was placed there appropriately, you were edit warring. And over crap that is not encyclopedic, is skirting very close to being a BLP policy vio, and is not going to increase a reader's understanding of the article subject. I'm relatively certain no one with sense and Wikipedia experience is going to be okay with that content in the article. It's garbage. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in offering your two cents on

Since Talk:Stanley Kubrick is such a mess with arguments over infoboxes, and has been that way for quite some time, I figured the issue should be taken to a sort of higher court. See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?. Hopefully less insults will occur over there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy Lunar New Year!

	Happy Lunar New Year!
	Hello Winkelvi, May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year. Kind regards, Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What a nice thing to see today! Thanks and same to you, Lemongirl1942! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please...

...take a deep breath and use your powers of persuasion on the article talk page. Your contributions here are valued, and it would be Wikipedia's loss if you received another lengthy block. It's not worth it.- MrX 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ThoughtAudio Review Request

I am seeking independent and neutral viewpoints on the article ThoughtAudio, which is being considered for deletion. If you have a few minutes to review it, I would appreciate your article contributions and opinion on the decision as to whether it merits being retained and improved, or deleted. ThoughtAudio was targeted by the same editor that made a failed attempt to delete the wikiquote article Michael Scott Gallegos. There are only 3 reviews/votes so far. I am hoping that a minority viewpoint as to the worthiness of the article will not prevail. My work is mainly in the creation of new wikiquote articles @ELApro and time is rarely spent in unproductive controversy. I am a long time editor for Wikipedia, but have not created many articles here. I would much appreciate your advice and/or contributions with regard to the process. ELApro (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and vote in the process. ELApro (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller article, number of countries in travel ban

Hi, earlier today you edited Stephen Miller (aide) to say Executive Order 13769 is a temporary ban on travel from six countries. Were you not counting Syria in the total because the sentence later addressed Syrian refugees specifically? I'd understand wanting to avoid duplication, but six could be inaccurate, because travelers and refugees aren't the same thing. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Matt, thanks for the note. Syria has an indefinite ban on travellers and refugees, and that is why I removed it from the original seven. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Timeline work

Hi, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents/Active participants. The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Seewald has been born

Hi! Is there any way you could please update Jessa Duggar Seewald's page to reflect this? Thw news has been out for a week now. Ben and Jessa Seewald named their second son Henry. Just Google if you don't know what I'm talking about. I tried but apparently the page is off limits to editing unless you have a certain number of edits. RoseMilkTea (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller (aide)

FYI. [2]. I didn't ping you on the page, so as to keep the votes cleaner. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Paxton

I mean no disrespect to Paxton, but they aren't gonna delay the film's release due to his passing. Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't know that. Until the film is released, it's best to not guess or assume. Precisely why WP:CRYSTAL was created as policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of when they release the film, it'll still be after Paxton passed away. It's always going to be a posthumous release so I don't believe CRYSTAL applies. The film itself is not gonna be cancelled two months to release. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If they release it. Films are, on occasion, not released. We don't know anything at this point. There's no harm to the article if "Posthumous" isn't included at this time. What's your rush? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in a rush, im simply adding factual information to the film. Them cancelling it is your own speculation. Two trailers released all establishing its firm April release, which is now a month away. Why would they cancel it? Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverted your re-addition of the disputed content and started a discussion on the article talk page per WP:BRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

TMZ

They're the ones who broke the story. Everyone is reporting off what TMZ reported. Rusted AutoParts 18:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page, please. TMZ is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and cannot be used. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is that stated? Rusted AutoParts 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Us Magazine isn't a reliable source?UConnHusky7 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

US is questionable. And definitely not reliable when they are using TMZ (a wholly unreliable source) as their source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You still have not shown where TMZ is "a wholly unreliable source". What's next? Are you going to disqualify CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post because Trump called them fake news?

You may also be in violation of the 3 revert rule. BurienBomber (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you threatening me as a way to WP:WIN? Not cool and definitely not advisable behavior. If you don't believe me re:TMZ, bring it up in an RfC or at the BLP and RS noticeboards and see where it goes. Previous discussions provided at the article talk page have already provided the answer, but, you are playing the WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI card, too, so... go for it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be careful

Please don't do the following:

(1) revert blindly without gaining talk-page consensus. You know as well as I do that on a BLP, there is no presumption of inclusion of marginal content

(2) label non-reverts as "reverts." This edit of mine kept the material at issue. I added new material and moved the content to the appropriate section.

(3) template the regulars. I've been here for a decade. I know our policies and guidelines. I wouldn't template you. You should extend to me the same courtesy.

--Neutrality^talk 01:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You've gotten dangerously close to being over 3RR and are telling me to be careful. Really? DTTR is an essay, a suggestion. It's not policy. Templating is important, especially when policy is being violated and there could be a possible build up to a noticeboard report. Like the one I would be filing on you at AN/3 if you had breached 3RR on this. Also, keep in mind that to edit war then present an undercurrent of a threat on my talk page that will keep me from reverting your inappropriate reverts... not great behavior for an admin, if you think about it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams Revisions pending review

Thanks for taking care of the photo revision so quickly. There are 5 other revisions (by registered editors) pending review which I think you will find unremarkable. I thought you might want to clear these so the status of the article is not complicated. Hoppyh (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Oliver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Christ's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Winkelvi --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Billy the Kid. 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 cup // beans // 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking admin comment: The length of this block is to reduce the expected administrative burden due to this being your 6th block for similar behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Coffee, I'm confused. How is reverting back to the non-disputed version three times (not four, as the first revert does not count) violate 3RR? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What policy states that "the first revert does not count"? I think I've been here for a decade, and I don't think I've ran across that one yet. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Winkelvi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting becauseI knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting ''because''I knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting ''because''I knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting ''because''I knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}