User talk:Wayne Slam

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current Monthly Archive 2024/December Past and near future    Monthly Archives: 2010/May 2010/June 2010/July 2010/August 2010/September 2010/October

NASCAR Newsletter

Hello, again! Since you are fine with creating the new newsletters, after the next one, please change it to the second volume. Or do you think it would be better to wait until the time of the year that the first one came out. (June to August, I think) Also, you can reply here, as of I added your talk page to my watchlist. Nascar1996 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it because this is the first year of WP:NASCAR and next year it would volume 2 because it's the second year of WP:NASCAR. You may change it to volume 2 if you want. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR was created in either 2004 or 2005. Nascar1996 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was created in July of this year. Now I know it was created in either 2004 or 2005. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, in July I referbished it so the project will be ready for future editors, and good ones at that. Also, since all of the vandalism, you may consider talking to an admin for semi protectection. You can also create another talk page for them. Nascar1996 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the vandalism on WP:NASCAR? Do I create a non-protection WP:NASCAR talk page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about your talkpage. Nascar1996 22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry because I thought you was talking about WP:NASCAR but my user talk page was semi-protected once by Tide rolls on 28 October 2010 at 00:07 (UTC) time. Should it be semi-protected again? Also, will you put my name on this edit? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It up to you. Also, sure I can add your name to the list. Nascar1996 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait until the vandalism picks up on my user talk page again. Thanks! Also, I'll keep creating the newsletters as well as creating the talk pages for the new NASCAR-related articles while you keep editing each race doing what you're currently doing is by adding the race results, race winner, etc and Airplaneman can protect the pages. Do you think this plan will work? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It might untill November 21, 2010. Nascar1996 23:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What's going to happen on November 21, 2010? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its the last race of the season. After that I'll probably will try to reach each of this seasons race articles to GA form. Maybe some FAs too. Nascar1996 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I know but shouldn't it also be nominated as a did you know because not a lot of people know about NASCAR? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

DYKs are only for newer made articles. Nascar1996 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but what are we going to do on NASCAR articles and WP:NASCAR during the offseason? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We can also work on the biographies, update the 2011 seasons articles, and update all statistics. Nascar1996 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, but if there's an IP address that put something unsourced, I will revert it because Huggle doesn't mention it unless if somebody's vandalizing it. I will also continue to fight vandalism on Huggle when I'm not editing a NASCAR-related article but how do assess a talk page? Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

See if you can understand: WP:NASCAR/A. Nascar1996 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Also does size matter to determine what you need to assess an article? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just from a stub to a start. A stub has less than 900 words. Nascar1996 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it. Is WP:NASCAR missing anything that it needs? Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice new signature! Nascar1996 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you want to change your signature? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is recently new. I changed it a couple months ago, and I still like it for now. Nascar1996 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your signature looks nice anyway! Are you still working on the NASCAR articles? Do you think you won't always be working on NASCAR articles? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Once the season is done, I may start doing more automated edits, such as using AWB and / or Huggle. However, I will continue to edit NASCAR articles probably until I retire sometime in the future. It also depends what happens in the races, if my favorite driver does't do well, I may not edit because I have a bit of a temper sometimes. In otherwords, that is a completely different story. I will edit the season article, and I'm also working on imporving P:NASCAR to FP status. Nascar1996 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know if Jimmie Johnson struggles, you may not have to edit or use Huggle more if you want. What are you going to do when your favorite driver retires from NASCAR? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably will retire by them. He still has about 10+ years left. Nascar1996 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard Petty raced in NASCAR until he was 55 in 1992 and please don't leave Wikipedia when Jimmie Johnson retires. Younger drivers like Joey Logano may dominate like Jimmie does now. But, please stay on Wikipedia. WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends what happens in real life if I leave or not. I'm not planning to retire anytime soon. Once I get a job, and a family I may, but that is still some time away. (10+ years) Nascar1996 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some people have said that you need to work at 18. Do you want to become an administrator? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I probably am, that date above is for like permanet jobs and stuff. I would like to be an admin, but not right now. I'm not ready. Nascar1996 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep doing what you have to do, and you should be an admin. WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain your vandalism comment

Did you look at the discussion page?

What is incorrect or unreferenced about my updates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you put an edit summary explaining your changes? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Wayne Olajuwon & Dabomb87

Hello Mr. Olajuwon,

Here is what I wrote on October 30, 2010:

My sincerest apologies for any misunderstanding. I am new to Wikipedia & understood that I could offer valid information to the site. Please help me understand what I did wrong. Others on this site have interesting information that also leads to blog pages or other content that complements it. Thank you very much for your kind response. Know that I will honestly & fully abide by Wikipedia's rules. Architect7

Trying to respond again, I wrote: Hi Dabomb87, I appreciate your help. 1) I do understand that. I've done a full review of the Policies, and 2) I will herein describe my useful edits: The updates were to describe a type of Walking Cane not listed in the Assistive cane article, but is prevalent. These are canes made from wood and it's many forms, all listed with interesting articles in Wikipedia. How can I write this short addition in order to fit the guidelines precisely? Also, I submitted the wrong supporting URL. The correct one is Why-To-Choose-A-Wooden-Walking-Stick written by a third party from a respected web site called About.com. Does this informational URL better fit the guidelines? Grateful for your help, Architect7.

By the way, how do I use the Sandbox? How does it work for the Wikipedia team to preview my contributions? Thanks, Architect7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architect7 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were spam links as well as unreferenced edits. You use the sandbox and click edit on the top of the screen and then when you make an edit, click preview and it'll show yours edits before it's saved. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More specificity required than “vandalism”

Hi Wayne! When you reverted this edit, you templated the IP editor for vandalism (here) when in fact s/he should have been templated for spam. You’ll notice on that IP’s page, the other three Hugglers templating him/her used the template that specifies linkspam. There is a pulldown list in Huggle that provides greater specificity for most edits being reverted. When there is a more specific classification available, we are supposed to use it. I’ve seen some Hugglers raked over the coals at ANI for this. Some have even had their rollback privileges revoked. It means we won’t be as fast, but we’ll be more accurate and the editors being reverted will have a better understanding of why they were reverted. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 02:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Spike. Next I see an edit like that, I'll know it's spam. Thanks and your welcome! If the edit a user made is a test, should you warn them with vandalism or with a test template? Wayne Olajuwon chat 02:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You know what I do: if the talk is showing as red for them, then this will be their first ever warning, so I make it a test warning, unless the edit was really egregious. If the talk is blue, and I think that test might be a possiblity, then I select Advanced to see how many warnings they already have for today: if zero, then I select test; if they have already received warnings and are still vandalizing, then I select vandalism. Have fun! — SpikeToronto 02:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If an edit is really bad (i.e., rascist), then I go right to Level 4 with my warning. Then I make a null edit on the talk page so that I can insert an edit summary somthing like this: Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism. — SpikeToronto 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How would you skip to the level 4 warning on Huggle if the edit is racist? Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You know how when you are in HG, the button for reverting and warning is the leftmost red button that has as its icon the overlaid image of and ? Right next to that button is a ▼ that brings up a pulldown list of revert/warn choices. At the bottom of that list is the choice Advanced. Choosing Advanced brings up a dialog box that does several things. At the bottom is a window that shows what warnings the editor has already received (be careful to note the dates). Above that is the place where you select the warning Level: Automatic, Level 1, …, Level 4. Above that is a pulldown list from which you select the type of warning. Finally, at the very top is where you can put in an optional revert summary that will appear in the article history. You can leave this blank, and the system will use HG’s default summary.

For instance, HG presented me with this diff. Now, to change the name of the 1960 President of the country without a reference, is significant. In such an instance, I select Advanced; for Level, I leave it on automatic; for type of warning, I use Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source; and in the Revert summary, I put the following:

Significant content change w/out citing a verifiable reference/citation and/or providing explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

In the end, the article history has that summary and the editor has received a warning template similar to the series that begins with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.

Going back to your actual question, if you use Advanced to select a Level 4 vandalism revert for an edit that is egregiously racist (e.g., Anti-Black, Antisemitic, etc.), then immediately after, go to the editor’s talk page, edit it by placing one blank line above the Level 4 template you just added (i.e., a null edit of sorts), then place the following in your edit summary:

Escalated to Level 4 b/c of racist nature of vandalism.

This way, when a blocking Admin sees that the editor later got reported to AIV without having received four warnings, s/he knows why. (Of course, said blocking Admin can always decline to block.) Hope this helps! — SpikeToronto 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I use the edit summary: Reverted addition of unsourced content and/or unexplained removal of content? WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to be as specific as possible. If the revert is for unsourced content, say so. If it is for unexplained removal of content, say so. And remember, for some unsourced content, an inline template like {{Citation needed}} or {{Fact}} is preferable to a revert. But, overall, be as specific as possible. It my mean you have to take longer deliberating over each diff, but you’ll be much more error free and get little to no negative feedback. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But, what happens if this happens on a disambiguation page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 03:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a disambiguation page is not supposed to have article-like text. So, there would never be unsourced issues. If someone adds to a disambiguation page text about someone/something on that page, it is very possible that they are a new editor who doesn’t know that they are not supposed to. Use Advanced to determine what other warnings they have already received that session, and take a look at their talk page to see the warnings. This will help you to determine if they are vandalizing or making good faith edits, however misguided. If you feel that it is a good faith edit, but that it was simply made in the wrong place, use the Huggle button that only reverts and does not warn the editor. It looks like this: . Select Advanced and manually type in an explanation for the revert, something like:

Reverting good faith edit incorrectly made to disambiguation page. Please enter such text in appropriate wikiarticle.

Just in case the reverted editor is so new that s/he doesn’t know how to look at the page history in order to read edit summaries, a little note left on his/her talk page explaining why their edit was reverted might be in order. Plus such a note will obviate the need for them to come and complain on your talkpage.

If they remove content without an explanation, then select Advanced, warn using Removal of content, and add an edit summary for the revert something like this:

Removal of content w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

If they removed from a wikiarticle text and verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) without explanation, then use this edit summary:

Removal of content including verifiable references/citations w/out explanation. Pls use edit summaries.

(By the way, I keep all these special summaries in a simple little .txt file from which I cut and paste the appropriate message.) Recent changes patrol is not for the faint of heart. It’s a lot of work, takes a lot of time deliberating, and is relatively thankless. To be done right, one needs to bring to the recent changes table a certain amount of content creation/editing experience in order to understand where the editors whose edits we are reviewing might warrant reverting. (Hence why I am probably the slowest Huggler out there!) I hope all this helps! — SpikeToronto 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I add those three summaries to WP:Huggle/Config? WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We’re really not supposed to toy with the progject config. Is there anyway you could add them to User:Wayne Olajuwon/huggle.css? That is your personal config file. — SpikeToronto 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't I add it in my edit summaries section? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Try it! Let me know how it works out and I’ll add it to mine. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I will try it when it happens. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I added to my config the various edit summaries I use when I think that the HG default is insufficient. I have also added to my config some single-level templates that are useful on occasion. You can cut and paste the config into yours if you want. It is located at User:SpikeToronto/huggle.css — SpikeToronto 06:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay but why don't you use your main account to fight vandalism? WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I use a legitimate doppelganger account for maintenance purposes. Thus, these thousands of HG edits are kept separate from my content editing and content creation edits. Thus when one runs one of the edit analysis tools on my main account, the results won’t be skewed so badly by the so-called automated edits, even though there is very little that is automated about HG since one must deliberate and ponder over each and every diff before taking action; it’s not AWB after all. I only just started this, and I made tonnes of HG edits in October on my main account, so it will take a h*ll of a lot of content edits on my main account to tamp down the impact of those automated edits. — SpikeToronto 18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that why your alternate account is called SpikeTorontoRCP? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The RCP stands for recent changes patrol since that is the specific use of that account. You will note at WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:DOPPELGANGER that such accounts cannot be used for editing — for which one uses one’s main account — and the user and talk pages for the doppelganger sock account are supposed to be redirected to the user and talk pages for the main account, as mine are. — SpikeToronto 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true and some people put a message on their alternate account's talk page saying if this account causes harm, please let the main account know. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They’d be better off putting a redirect on the alternate account’s page to the main account, which is what policy requires. And, then they should add the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template to the top of the main account’s user page, which policy also requires. — SpikeToronto 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you don't follow this policy? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, it seems. But, I’m a stickler for the rules, so I follow them. Plus, why would one not want to? Why would one want to maintain more than one userpage and more than one talkpage? By redirecting, and using the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page, you reduce your maintenance workload since you only have to worry about one userpage and one talkpage. And, the {{User Alternate Acct Name}} template at the top of the main account’s user page explains the connection. — SpikeToronto 01:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It would just be a waste of time and people would be able to find the account easily instead of taking forever to find an alternate account. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Daniel J Smith

Hello Wayne Olajuwon. I am just letting you know that I deleted Daniel J Smith, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Huggle's Project Config

Hi Wayne. You may not have realized this, but with

this edit you removed our ability to template people for removing speedy delete templates from pages in main namespace that they have created. With this edit, I restored it … at least I think I did …

As I understand it, no one other than the people who maintain, compile, and release the Huggle software are supposed to change either the project config or the global config. We are only supposed to change our own personal config files (yours is at User:Wayne Olajuwon/huggle.css). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spike, but what you just restored won't work because of this edit and that's why I removed it because of that edit. Wayne Olajuwon chat 13:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Damn! He should never have removed those. I know he developed and has maintained the program, but I think he needs to take a step away from Huggle for awhile and let Sidonuke maintain it. He should never have removed those templates unilaterally like that. We Hugglers have to be consistent with the structure that starts with {{Uw-speedy1}}. Removing those templates from Huggle means having to manually template the offenders. The whole point of Huggle is that, once we decide to revert, the program takes care of the templating. This introduces an unusual requirement inconsistent with the rest of Huggle’s operation. Damn! I think we need to keep that page watchlisted and object to any such changes in the future. In the meantime, I reverted him with this edit. Now let’s see the sh*t hit the fan! I’m sorry I thought you were the one that made it inoperable. Thanks for the explanation. — SpikeToronto 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

86.32.109.14

You reported this person to Administrator intervention against vandalism and I initially blocked this person but on closer examination of their edits, I believe they were trying to make good faith edits however incorrect they might be. Please engage this editor and discuss the merit of their edits on the article talk page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those good faith edits that this IP made is unreferenced. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We do not template^[1] editors for adding material that is unreferenced! We explain politely the need for references and invite them to provide references. This editor's contribution that you reverted^[2] is supported by other references and material in the same article as well as this press report that I found in a 30 second Google News Archive search.^[3] You, Cirt and I made what I consider to be a grave error in hassling this editor regarding an innocent edit. (Cirt and me more than you). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How come there are unreferenced warning templates? Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Wayne, point well taken. Personally I prefer to use a more personal more touch for situations like that but clearly community consensus allows for use of these templates. But then let me ask this -- how come you gave this person a level 2 vandalism warning instead of {{uw-unsourced1}}? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to get slap-happy with templates, how about I give you a {{uw-agf1}}, a {{uw-bite}} or a {{uw-tempabuse1}}? (Heck, I deserve these even more than you do.) Do you start to see how chilling this can get, especially for a newcomer? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't give him an unreferenced warning because the edit looked like it was either vandalism, unreferenced or both, A.B. I know but I wouldn't want to receive a template. Please see WP:Don't template the regulars. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I encourage you to reflect carefully on this whole fiasco and consider being more judicious, if for no other reason that stuff like this could really come back to cause problems for you later. Our community has become very sensitive to potential admins being too bitey and trigger-fingered as a quick scan of recent unsuccessful RfAs will show. The sort of stuff Cirt and I did is exactly what they don't want to see admins doing and you want to avoid it like the plague.

And don't worry, I don't think I'd ever give you a template. If I was that way, I wouldn't have invested 30-60 minutes discussing this with you. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Admins being too bitey won't make them very successful. Can you give me tips to show which types of warning templates I should give to each user of each type of edit a user makes? Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just look at their edits and if they're made in good faith, leave them a note explaining the issue. I like to refer them also to Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; that's a good summary and a way to steer them past our labyrinth of red tape. If you really want to use a template, see the grid at WP:WARN. I really prefer a personal note, though, for good faith edits, even if they're inappropriate in our eyes. I think that anonymous editor from Sweden was just clumsily trying to improve our article and we really chewed him up badly.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It also says be civil an assume good faith. If some rule on Wikipedia doesn't help you succeed, then ignore it. -Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I can give some, albeit unsolicited, advice, here’s what I do:

• If someone adds to an article something that is unsourced but not egregious and not obvious vandalism, I do not use Huggle to deal with it. Instead, I open the wikiarticle in a broswer, I go to the text that they have just added, and I add a {{Citation needed}} tag. Then, if I am so inclined I use an {{Uw-unsourced1}} template on their talkpage because that template — unless it has changed at the time of this writing — does not say that their addition/change to the article was reverted. It just alerts them to the need to use verifiable reference(s)/citation(s). An example of this might be someone who adds to an article on McDonald's that the Big Mac is made from two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onion, on a sesame seed bun, but doesn’t source the statement. That only requires a {{Citation needed}} tag. But, if they say that Big Macs are made from rat tails and snake skins, that’s vandalism and you can Huggle it.
• If the addition/change to the article is vandalism, then label it as such and warn as such.
• If the addition/change is to a biography of a living person and unsourced, is it potentially libelous or not? If the addition/change is potentially libelous, then Huggle selecting “Inappropriate biographical content” since the warning template that that selection uses indicates to the editor the potential for libel. If the addition/change is not potentially libelous, but, because the article is a BLP and therefore requires greater adherence to the rules pertaining to verifiable reference(s)/citation(s), then Huggle selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc.

Does this help? If not, let me know. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This should work but does libelous mean vandalism or something else? Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Libelous means text that is likely to get Wikipedia sued! An example might be someone adding to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he used to beat his third wife mercilessly all the while he was having an affair with his children’s nanny. That requires reversion and warrants a warning using “Inappropriate biographical content,” which gives the offender a template similar to the series starting with {{Uw-biog1}}.

An example of something added to a BLP that is not libelous, but that should still be reverted, would be if an editor adds to an article on Hollywood superstar John Doe that he earned $20 million on his last picture and gave 75% of it to charity. It’s not libelous per se, but it still needs to be supported by a verifiable reference/citation. So, revert selecting “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source,” which reverts and leaves a message to the editor about the need for verifiablity, etc., using a template similar to the series that starts with {{Uw-unsourced1}}.

Libelous text is inappropriate biographical content and needs to be labelled as such. It is not mere vandalism.

Pure vandalism would be something like someone who adds John is gay to an article. (By the way, adding that a living person is gay to an article about them, without a supporting citation, needs to be reverted as inappropriate biographical content.) Or, adding Sarah sucks sardines. Those are obvious examples of vandalism. But, changing the name of a president, without a reference, and you and I do not know the real name, is most likely subtle vandalism. So revert it, but do so as discussed above here where you indicate in both your summary and the warning to the editor that the problem with the edit was that it required a reference.

Another example is, The moon is made of cheese: clear vandalism. However, The moon has a density twice that of Earth’s: add {{Citation needed}} to the text, and place a {{Uw-unsourced1}} on the editor’s talkpage.

Another example, in the article on William Henry Harrison, for example, if someone adds that his favorite food was honey and that he opened the first Chuck E. Cheese’s, that’s plain old vandalism.

So, yes if one labels everything as just vandalism, one will be fast, but one will not be accurate, and one will get into a sh*tload of trouble. The more time one spends deliberating over each diff, the more accurate one will be, the better informed the editor being reverted will be (after all, what does unconstructive mean?), and the less negative feedback one will get. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 04:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What happens if someone does revert an edit that needs citation needed? WAYNEOLAJUWON 14:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit that really only needed a {{Citation needed}} tag, I will sometimes restore the edit, and then manually go into the wikiarticle and add the appropriate, inline template. (By the way, there is a whole raft of them at {{Fact}} when you scroll down.) Unfortunately, because we can rarely edit another user’s comments on a talk page (see WP:TALKO), we cannot take back any warning template the other editor may have given the editor reverted. — SpikeToronto 20:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Please say don't edit other people's comments. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your response confuses me. What I was trying to say above is that if you decide to revert a revert, and instead add a {{Cn}}, you will only be able to reverse one half of the previous transaction. That is, you can revert the edit to the wikiarticle and add the {{Cn}}, but you cannot revert the warning that the reverter placed on the reverted editor’s talk page. — SpikeToronto 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean I could revert his revert but not remove his or her warning. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You can revert his revert and add a {{Citation needed}} instead. But, because of WP:TALKO, you cannot remove his warning. You got it! — SpikeToronto 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it! WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:North American Lutheran Church

Hi Wayne, I am the one attempting to edit the North American Lutheran church's Discussion page. I am the one who wrote the comments I am attempting to delete because they ALL refer to the older article which no longer exits and my discussion comments no longer relate to the current article or the content that has been listed, which corrects the previous article. That is why I wish to delete them. You should note that what I wrote refers to specific content in specific paragraphs which no longer exist. Therefore I wish to delete all my discussion, which would also render your later comment mute as well. You apparently did not see the replys from the original poster, and I see they removed their comments from the discussion, so I would like to remove mine too. If you can do this for me, rather than restoring them, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Rodney Lilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.47.130 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't edit or delete other people's comments unless if there is a reason put in your edit summary. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

Who is this guy who keeps adding garbage about time travel and nuclear reactors in the Midsummer's Night's Dream entry? Any way to block his IP? wheatdogg (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

95.131.110.104 was blocked three months by JohnCD for vandalism. Wayne Olajuwon chat 16:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I declined to block User:Mountaineer1976 at WP:AIV

Wayne, I declined^[4] your WP:AIV block request for this editor.^[5][6][7] Mountaineer1976's edits did not appear to be a classic case of blatant vandalism. I see this guy has created 3 decent-looking articles; if you disagree with their creation, I suggest you pursue the appropriate deletion venues.

I'll also note that this person did not have enough warnings to justify blocking as of the time of your report.^[8] You reminded me a few hours ago that we don't template the regulars. We don't block them without sufficient warning, either. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, is that he kept removing speedy deletion tags from an article and that's how he ended up being reported. Wayne Olajuwon chat 19:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw the back-and-forth with this, and tried to dialogue with this user via their talk page regarding it -- but have so far been unsuccessful. For what it's worth, it looks like the article did get speedily deleted and the user re-created it after that, and it hasn't been tagged again (yet). -KGasso (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He's probably try to make the article look more better. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Hey, You keep flagging me up for vandalizing the 'Quiff' page and I was wondering why, I have a feeling I'll be banned if it happens again. I noticed there was a post saying Jedwood were popular quiff wearers, so I thought I'd also mention Mark Kermode, seeing as he's one of if not the most famous film critic in the country and his quiff is so well known. I was pulled up for not referencing so i made a reference to the BBC page where he's described as having an 'impeccably-coiffured quiff'. I was pulled up again, not sure why, so I quoted from the page to show why I was using it, the BBc, a reliable website, describing Kermode, a famous film critic, as having an impeccably-coiffured quiff on his biography, therefore showing it to be key to his public identity as perceived by the bbc. Post deleated again. I was just hoping you could tell me where I've gone wrong so I can get through the barbed wire. Do you just consider Kermode less relevant than Jedwood? I'd consider him a much better example of the quiff, as Jedwood's are exaggerated caricatures. Man I need to get a life. Cheers, R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.252.115 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable reference and it won't be reverted if you explain it in your edit summary. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, so can I use the BBC site as long as I explain why its relevant? Or do you not consider the BBC reliable? Does that apply for all references? R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surells (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You may add it as long as you put a reference and explain why its relevant and it shouldn't be reverted. If it does get reverted, report it as a false positive. If you don't know what a reference is, please see WP:References. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'll read the rules more carefully before I edit again.

R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surells (talk • contribs) 22:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome and please remember to sign your signature like this: ~~~~. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, another lesson learned --Surells (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You got it right by signing your signature a few minutes ago right above my signature. I added a welcome template on your talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to read those articles --Surells (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome but why don't you create a user page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

see above

sorry, haven't edited for ages an remembered I have an account. Don't know if it matters but feel free to message or respond to me here in response to my 'quiff' question above.

R

I sent you a message on your talk page. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. Thanks

Salvio giuliano has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

My pleasure. See you around! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See you around too! WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Caution on Automated Tool Usage

I saw the work you did (and undid) on Ripley Hampers (disambiguation). Please evaluate what the change is before clicking or using an automated tool. I know I had some difficulty with getting the tools to work the right way, but I found that at bare minimum, manual editing is nearly always the safest solution. Hasteur (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I use Huggle, but everybody makes mistakes. WAYNEOLAJUWON 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking about blanking pages... (COTIK)

Hey... what about this page? The author blanked it, but it was created more than three years ago. What is the procedure?” T_eLeS (PT @ L C G) 21:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think tag it for speedy deletion, but the article is too old for it to be speedy deleted. I still tagged it for speedy deletion anyway. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this page is too old for being speedy deleted too... but I'm not sure about it. Maybe a BLPPROD would be better (it has no source by the way). Regards.” T_eLeS (PT @ L C G) 22:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It only happens to BLP articles created after March 2010. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wayne, you tagged it for WP:CSD#G7, which does not apply. So, an Administrator reverted. Try WP:CSD#A7 instead. I do not think that it will work, because the threshold for A7 is pretty low. But, it’s worth a try. Most likely you will have to use AfD on the basis of notability (specifically, WP:BIO) and that it has been flagged as an unsourced BLP for over a year. — SpikeToronto 22:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was, Spike. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m confused. When you say, “It was,” what was it? — SpikeToronto 23:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When you said the article was unreferenced for over a year. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to say, and sorry if I didn’t make myself clear, was that if you wanted the article deleted, you could have set up an AfD for it. You could have used as your rationale that it (1) seems to be an autobiography; (2) that the primary editor of it seems to have a conflict of interest; and (3) that, since it has no verifiable references/citations, it is essentially an unsourced BLP. It would have been good experience for you to have set up and participated in an Afd. As it stands now, the article has been PRODed (see here) and seconded (see here). If the PROD fails, you could try the AfD route then. (I suspect, however, that this PROD will succeed.) — SpikeToronto 20:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It should succeed in the next week when it's deleted and Jeff then put the template {{prod2}} under the bottom of the Afd. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Davina McCall

How did I vandalise the page by adding that URL? Davina McCall presents the show on ITV, and is on the televsion right now.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbennett87 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't explain it in your edit summary. The link looked like spam. Change it, but explain it in your edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RE:Vandalism on Santa Cruz Monastery

Why in blazes would my edit constitute vandalism? "Iglesia" is Spanish, and NOT Portuguese. 95.93.137.186 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Spanish and Portuguese both have many similar and identical words. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It may do have similar and identical words and his edit didn't look like it was Spanish. WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whack! to all those who reverted the IP without checking to see if it was a legitimate edit. Which it is. —Soap— 19:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I only reverted his edit once, until he explained it in his edit summary. WAYNEOLAJUWON 19:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page Vrenator (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! WAYNEOLAJUWON 17:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
Message added 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A discussion about this stuff is going on at the village pump. Usb10 ^Connected? 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GLOSS FM

Regarding http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/GLOSS_FM

I freely admit I'm not an expert on Wikipedia, but I'm mystified by what has happened to our page and why you apparently seem to now have ownership over it and have told me I'm a vandal! Bazaar!

I created the page. I am a Director of Severnvale Media CIC which wholly owns and operates GLOSS FM - which is a community radio station serving the South Gloucestershire region of the UK.

When I checked tonight I was surprised to see a wholesale editing (deletion) of our carefully input text for this page by "Mwingereza". I am confident everything I wrote was factually correct. What I now see on this page is vastly less than what we wanted to say, and some of it is now factually incorrect.

It appears there are multiple edits which cite "minutiae" etc. Surely this is a matter of opinion? Why should a random commenter be permitted to make changes, whilst I, the creator of the page is not permitted to, and branded a "vandal"? Bazarre in the extreme!

Hopefully this is a mis-understanding. If you would like to confirm my identity, please can you visit the website address quoted in the page, click the "Contact Us" link, "General Enquiries" and send a message to the Directors. This experience has severely undermined expectation of Wikipedia which I previously thought was open and unbiassed. If the originator of an article cannot comment upon and undo incorrect edits then I really start to question the whole concept of Wikipedia. It opens up huge question in my mind when/if I use this resource for other subjects and situations.

Sorry if this comes over wrong, but I took loads of time to create this page (which is not so simple for ordinary people) and was dismayed to see it vandalised like it is now. It kind of makes me regret ever submitting anything. It's so easy to criticise, but rather more difficult to be constructive and create something, which in GLOSS FM's case after all is non-profit making and helping the local community.

In summary - How do I restore any ability to correct a page that I started?

I hope I've done the mysterious == and 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) signs right!

Radiohead319 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That article may need some more categories for it to be more notable. WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wayne Slam. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 23:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your often get to vandals before I do, but you do it day after day. Well-earned. Rodhullandemu 00:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

dance team

bboy club is one of the major clubs and has been around longer than the dance team. its been around for years.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.104.122 (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were unreferenced. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

You do not agree with me? ): im sorry. i just wanted to save the penguins... T-T <(;v;)> the penguins are crying too