User talk:Tropical Storm Angela


I don't think you got permission to edit that template. --Jollyeditor (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) She didn't explicitly need permission to edit that template - Jollyeditor, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consensus for every edit isn't needed. Hiàn (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping In general that's true, but there should be discussion before changing this kind of thing. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Ping I was not addressing the template directly - I was addressing Jollyeditor's statement that she didn't get permission. I don't object to gaining consensus for a change like this. Hiàn (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

It's not done to attribute when the original article is 30x longer than our version, and we have only a few lines. Otherwise it loses its point. Virtually every article uses something from English wiki, indeed they are supposed to. Attribution is really for occasions when large chunks have been translated into simple e. onto our pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Ping It's not so much the amount that was copied as how close the wording is and how much original work went into creating the article here. Plus, let's not discourage people from including attribution when we already have people who forget it or don't even know about including it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Sorry to bother you. Can you help put the pictures in the rights spots on this page please. I don't know how to do it. Büttenhardt is the page. Thank you.

I wish I could. But you better ask an administrator on this one. Angela Maureen (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Ok very sorry for test


Have you been intending to add attribution to those articles you are creating? Your edit summary says adding english attributes, but all you added to the pages were the talk header template. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I was meaning to add attribution. Angela Maureen (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Then please do so soon, before creating other articles. You might not have known, but copying an article from one Wikipedia to another is allowed only if attribution (not "attributes") is given. If it is not given, the copy is technically a copyright violation: the article can be deleted, and/or we can get into legal trouble. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Really I only meant the few you had just done. I didn't mean going back over everything you ever touched. And since you have been doing that, I have to point out that you are saying those articles you did were based on the most recent versions of those articles when some of them you haven't touched since 2011 etc so what you are adding to all those pages is incorrect. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Angela, it looks like you're still adding invalid attribution information. Here's an example of what Djsasso is talking about, using Samuel L. Jackson as an example:
  • 17:36, 27 March 2012‎: you created the article here. At that time, the latest timestamp on the enwiki article was 22:09, 28 February 2012. The article here must have been based on that version of the enwiki article or on an earlier one (only you would know that).
  • 08:44, 13 April 2019: You added attribution to the talk page, pointing to the enwiki article with a timestamp of 18:29, 10 April 2019. As of the time I'm writing this, that's the current version.
  • In the seven years between the time the article was created here and the time you added the attribution, the enwiki article was changed hundreds of times. The article here was based on the version at enwiki that existed when the article was created. However, the attribution points to the version that's current now. That version didn't exist yet when the article was created, so the article here can't have been based on it. The attribution needs to point to the version of the article that was used as the basis for the article.
Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page

Angela, you are allowed to remove whatever you want from your talk page. However, instead of removing the warning you received (especially with an edit summary saying that it was insulting), you could have taken the opportunity to figure out why User:Examknow thought you weren't assuming good faith. The reason is that 1) you reverted some edits by an IP user, but left a warning on the talk page of a different IP user, and 2) the edits you reverted weren't really bad enough for the warning level you chose. If you want to show good faith, you could acknowledge the mistake on the talk page where you left the warning. Then you could leave a lower-level warning on the correct user talk page if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mighty Ducks of Anaheim

Hi Tropical Storm Angela.

You recently reverted a lot of my edits where I corrected the former name of the Anaheim hockey team to "Mighty Ducks of Anaheim", from the typographical error "Anaheim Mighty Ducks". In case you are not a hockey fan, the Mighty Ducks were the only NHL hockey team to use this style of naming so it is common for it to be mistakenly written the wrong way. You can see the Anaheim Ducks article (or its equivalent on English Wikipedia) to review the naming history of this team.

It may have looked like vandalism because I am a new user and I am reverting the edits of DJSasso who is a highly permissioned user here, but these are completely legitimate and helpful fixes. As I intend to re-fix these mistakes, I ask that you not automatically revert them without taking the time to review the history of this team's name. "Anaheim Mighty Ducks" was never the official name of this team. Midnight whisper (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I shoulda known. Thank you for reminding me. Angela Maureen (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Your edits were actually ok. He fails to understand en:WP:COMMONNAME. In reliable sources the team was often called the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Whether they were doing so mistakenly or not, they did it enough times that it was used more often than their official name which makes it the common name. And Wikipedia uses the common name over official names. -DJSasso (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)