User talk:Arenlor

|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|

|}

|}

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

25px Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on {{{1}}}}}, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} --SineBot (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arenlor, Before you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23&diff=339636265&oldid=339633364 accuse editors] of being single-purpose accounts, check your facts.

Take a look at List of Wikipedians by number of edits, entry number 15. You have made less than 500 edits, which is fine; we all have to start somwhere. But don't put the SPA label on someone who been editing for 4 years and has made 400 times as many edits as you have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:You also applied the label to User:Aboutmovies, who has made 61779 edits since 2006-10-29.

:I suggest that you may want to withdraw your {{tl|SPA}} tags. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion. Please explain to me how after checking the last few thousands of both of your edits, and the first five hundred of each too, and finding that all of your edits are of the same manner even though the articles vary wildly and are unrelated therefore, that I should not believe you are a Single Purpose Account. I did not read through every single edit, but I read through five pages of five hundred and only of the namespace article, and did not see a significant number (I think you had two, in 2500, and my guess is that it is representative since you started and ended in the same manner) of edits outside of that purpose (which is cleanup). The tags stay, since you are a Single Purpose Account, simple isn't it? Arenlor (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

::You really really do need to do a bit more checking. Try some other namespaces, and some other periods.

::I don't know what you mean about my edits only being cleanup. Are you checking someone's else's edits?

::The tag you added says that an editor has made "has made few or no other edits outside this topic". You added that at a CfD debate about skyscrapers. How many skyscraper-related edits can you find me having made? And however many skscraper edits you can find, how many does that leave outside the topic? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Your edits that I saw did not add/remove information, they were Wikifications only. If I didn't know better I would honestly think you are a bot. The majority of what you do is add a category. I do not consider that to be editing but rather Cleanup. Please understand the tags were added in good faith of the understanding of what a single purpose account is. The third part of it is "performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia". Arenlor (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

::::This is why you should check your facts,

::::I am currently engaged in adding an external link to articles on British MPs, and to correcting categories and succession boxes at the same time. There are about 1,00 such article, so there are a lot of edits in that area.

::::But, as I pointed out to you, I have been editing for 4 years; I have also been an admin for 3½ years. You chose to check a set of recent edits (about 1.5% of my total) and draw your conclusions from that. Bad mistake. If you check back further, you will find literally thousands of new articles created (see [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=BrownHairedGirl&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 here], but beware that the list takes a long time to generate, and may time out after only a few hundred). That includes hundreds of the article which I am currently adding a link to.

::::If you look [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=BrownHairedGirl&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia here] you will see I have made over 20,000 edits to article talk pages, 5000 to user talk pages, and so on.

::::Anyway, you say that you added those tags in good faith ... but I'm afraid that you did completely inadequate checking before doing so. If so, it was an honest mistake which you should now retract; but if you don't retract then I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith.

::::Wikipedia has a convention of not biting newcomers like yourself, but if you persist in making false accusation against long-standing editors you will probably find that your welcome is short-lived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::You speak of checking facts... I joined in October of 05, which checking your logs makes you the newcomer. I started editing around when you did too. I have just not been as active as you. I did remove the tags, and I had checked your first 500 to compare. As I said, they were not any different, so I just assumed they were all the same. My way of checking people so far had cleared everyone of the possibility of being a SPA except you two. Arenlor (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, Arlenor, this isn't complicated. You did some really sloppy checks on a tiny fraction of the edits of two prolific editors, and apart from misunderstanding the edits involved, you made the lazy and lazy and stupid bad-faith assumption that all the edits were the same.

Thank you for removing those tags. If you had actually been acting in good faith, then you would have apologised for your mistaken attacks on other editors .... but since you didn't, I can only conclude per WP:DUCK that you are a troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/dplbot/ch/dab_challenge.php see the project page for details on scoring points]). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)