Archives
February - June 2006 July - August 2006 September 2006 -

My IP address may be identical to someone else's, or you may have typed it in wrong, because I have not ever looked up much less edited "Apartment Derangement". Can you look into this further? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.88.242 (talk • contribs)

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moeron, I just had an edit I did to the Crank Film page reverted. The information I added was correct and as far as I can tell shouldn't have been reverted. Did I make some sort of mistake?

Thanks -- 70.24.154.235 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- moe.RON

I added this to the "Love and War" page. It's an unique and serious project in many ways. For some reason it got rejected. / Tomas

• "Love and War", a 2006 short film by Fredrik Emilson. Probably the world’s first animated opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.171.126 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because there was a link to an off-site webpage in a disambugation page. As long as you keep the link out, it would fine for you to add "Love and War", a 2006 short film by Fredrik Emilson. (noticed I also removed the "probably" part, since that is speculation and implies something that is not verifiable). -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel my edit[1] was a test, as you labeled it, nor do I feel your warning was justifiable. The template you used is for obvious vandalism/tests; my edit was a neutral statement with a reference. The correct course of action on your part would have been to discuss your problem with my addition on the article's talk page. - 81.178.102.118 01:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was reverted because forums are not a reliable source due to original research. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing policies, original research isn't the same as unreliable sources, but you have a point (the practicalities of editing esoteric or popular culture articles means that often what are generally considered unreliable sources are given exception, see: WP:IAR). In any case this doesn't excuse your inappropriate use of vandalism templates, or deletion of the statement (especially considering there's another statement in the same paragraph without any reference.) Overzealous vandalism patrolling isn't the best way to attempt to become an admin, in my opinion, but that doesn't seem to prevent a vast swathe of relatively recent editors from doing it. Sigh. - 81.178.102.118 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I've changed the reference. - 81.178.102.118 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you know that I never considered you a vandal, but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie. When this the case, I will use the template:test1 warning, which does not make mention of a vandal, and hopefully directs people in the right direction. For people who ARE vandals, there are other warnings I will use. I just don't want you thinking that my revision of your edit makes me think you are a vandal. =)

As for the sources ... I like the first one, but I am still bothered by the forums link, re: Wikipedia:No original research. However, it gets tricky when you possibly consider it under the sixth point of Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F. Due to this ambuiguity, I humbly ask if you would consider removing the forum source and leaving the other to stand for itself. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"but perhaps a Wikipedian newbie." I've been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2003. - 81.178.102.118 02:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say that is how I view most IPs when assessing vandalism.. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. To be fair, I suppose that's probably an accurate assumption for the most part. - 81.178.102.118 02:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

there's a typo in your disambiguation page "Test". The bullet "Stiftung Wahrentest Test" is supposed to be "Stiftung Warentest" (without h). The same typo reoccurs in the WikiLink at the beginning of that bullet.

Cheers Klaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.18.134 (talk • contribs)

I see that you are correct and that my reversion of your edit was in error. I apologize and will remove the template:test1 from your talk page. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]