User talk:Corpx/archive1

Rosie O'Donnell

My edit was in no way "spam." It was a relevant link to the topic at hand.

Fair enough, I've linked to a professional article. Now I have to insist you do not revert and refrain from threatening to ban me.

Yeah well I'm not sure too many people would appreciate you coming into their discussion pages, arbitrarily labeling their edits as "spam," and then threatening to have them banned. 128.211.220.136 05:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vince Young

Hello, I need some help please in understanding your last edit to Vince Young because I don't understand what you are looking for. Here is the sequence of events as I see them:

1. I found an article here that says Vince Young and Matt Leinart accepted an award for "Best Game". I misinterpreted that to mean they "won" the award.
2. I added a statement about the award, along with the reference to the article, into the Vince Young article.
3. You corrected the wording, but you also removed the reference.
4. I assumed your removal of the reference was in error, so I added it back.
5. You removed the reference again with the edit summary " (1) please link directly to youtube where original uploader put it up. 2) video is now removed from youtube due to copyright issues.)" [1]
6. This leaves me confused. In your edit summary, you say I should like to yourtube, but then you say the the video is no longer there, so that seems contradictory.
7. I don't understand why you mention yourtube at all. I never even went to yourtube and the reference is not to yourtube. The reference I cite is to an article which is stil there. Even if it weren't still there, we can link to news articles that are no longer on-line. That is why we put the "accessdate" field in the template, to tell people when we pulled down the content. In fact, the url field is an optional field in template {{Cite news}}, which is what I used.
8. If you want to reference a different source for this same fact, plese put the new reference in instead of just taking mine out. Otherwise, I will restore the reference I am using because it is better to have the fact supported by some source rather than none-at-all.

Thanks in advance for your explanaiton. Johntex\^talk 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry about that....didnt realize that he had updated the video link. Originally it was a youtube player imbedded, and now its from Myspace. Feel free to revert it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2006 July 25

Thank you for your explanation. Whether or not the video is still there is not really relevant. I am not linking to yourtube. I am linking to an on-line reference that mentions they won the award. The fact that reference also mentions yourtube is not relevant. I am not using them as a source about yourtube, I am using them as a source about the award. The video is not relevant, I only care about the text that says they won the award.

As to why reference that fact and not others, we should be striving to reference every single fact. The fact that we are not there yet does not mean we should delete references when we do have them.

I am restoring the reference.

Thanks, Johntex\^talk 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it depends on what they are saying. If they were saying something like "Vince Young sleeps with underaged girls" or "Matt Leinart has three heads", I'd be looking for a more mainstream source. For something as innocuous as this, I think its fine. You're welcome to replace it with a different source if you want. Johntex\^talk 01:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Vince Young: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Ryūlóng 08:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Poets of the Fall "Vandalism"

Hey Corpx, thanks for your quick action, but I think you misclassified my editing act as "vandalism". I wanted to edit only the "Discography" section, but my computer crashed, so I restarted it but Firefox has fortunately saved my session... except that it put all the data in "editing" whole Poets of the Fall article, not the section only, that's why it happened. I'll be more careful in the future, but please don't ban me or anything :P wlodi 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ow, thanks. I thought I was about to be banned.. Still nice to know that people spot such act so quickly. That was truly amazing speed of reaction :D wlodi 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Andre Gill-McVey

I dont understand why you deleted my page. It is for a very important school project.

Your vandalism warning to User talk:210.188.146.58

Hi, there were two problems with that warning:

1. The edit in question was an extremely minor test, and the last edit from that IP was seven weeks ago, so the appropriate warning was {{test}}, not {{test4}}
2. You didn't subst the template.

I changed it from {{test4}} to {{test1}} -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more point. If the previous warning on that page had been from 10 minutes ago, as opposed to last September, it was only a {{test1}}, so the next warning would still have only been {{test2}}. The {{test4}} template should only be for serious ongoing vandalism after the user has ignored several current warnings. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked his/her previous edits and noticed another "plop" blanking and a couple of other blatant vandal edits. However I'll cede to your judgement. Also, thanks for the subst tip. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs).

Good point! I didn't notice that. If I'd noticed a pattern that connected today's vandalism to the older vandalism, I'd have probably gone with {{test2}}. But you wouldn't normally go directly from {{test1}} to {{test4}}. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template substitution

Hi, I noticed that you aren't using subst in your templates. Templates posted to talk pages should be subst'ed; if you're not sure what that means, take a look at WP:SUBST. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Corpx! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. froth^{T C} 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please

Do not be gentle with the gamelan pest SatuSuro 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I know two on at the moment - thanks for your anti vandal work anyways! SatuSuro 01:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Westmar High School. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Mike6271 02:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Westmar High School

I agree, it does look very unencyclopedic. Would you like me to remove "unencyclopedic" information from it? Mike6271 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-D Mike6271 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tequila

Not sure why you have removed extrnal link Tequila.net. It is a site that has updated Tequila News, Frequently Asked Questions, and a database of tequila products. Seems relevant... not SPAM as you stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.58.0.142 (talk • contribs).

From looking through the site for a few minutes, it looks like it might be useful...no popup ads, no google ads, no sales links; just information and reviews. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, assuming a spam warning was appropriate, why did you choose {{spam2}}? That was the first edit from that IP since November; we always start at warning level 1; err on the side of under-warning if you're not sure. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns

I did a spot check of your recent vandal warnings, and I found a few that concern me. For example, I would interpret this edit as a good faith effort to add a cited comment to the article. I would have reverted it too...the text is POV and the blog isn't a reliable source. But the user didn't just drop a link into the "external links" section; he or she added a complete paragraph, with a properly structured citation. I would have sent this person a personalized reminder that blogs aren't reliable sources, and possibly a pointer to our WP:NPOV policy. You can take the sting out of a vandal warning to a new user by posting {{welcome-anon}} first, then adding the note about why you're reverting their edit, phrased as friendly advice. The idea is to not scare off someone who could become a valuable contributor. Sending a {{spam3}} warning for a user's first arguably good-faith effort amounts to biting the new users.

Take a look at WP:VAND, particularly this point:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

I have a few suggestions that I think will help you get up to speed:

1. First, slow down; there's no quota, there are lots of recent change patrollers, and you don't have to catch all of the vandalism yourself.
2. Assume good faith. Go out of your way to try to consider if the edit might have been an honest effort to contribute, by an editor who doesn't yet understand our guidelines. It's much more important to help the user to become a good contributor. Punishing them for vandalism is easy...and can come later if it turns out that they really are here to vandalize.
3. When you determine that a vandal warning is necessary, review the user's contributions and review the user's talk-page history (sometimes users instantly delete warnings, so you will only see them if you look in the history). Use the lowest level warning that seems to make sense.
4. By default, assume that you are always going to post a {{test}} or {{spam}} to the user's page -- a level 1 warning. Before moving on to higher levels, be sure that you're confident that the higher levels are warranted.

Please let me know if you can use any help or advice. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that link was to a user blog that wasnt relevant to the article at all. I'm using VP and it alerts you if the IP has been warned before and the level(s) of warnings. Corpx 05:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read my comments? Yes, the original citation was to a blog. The new citation is to a legitimate newspaper. But the first edit was a good-faith effort to contribute to Wikipedia...labeling it {{spam3}} was completely out of line. Biting the new users isn't acceptable. Please read and think about the suggestions I've given you here. Accept that you handled this incorrectly and try to learn from it. Ok? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One more point to remember: VP didn't post that warning; you did. You're responsible for choosing the correct warning for each situation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IPs on WP:AIV

For future reference, when reporting IP addresses on WP:AIV, use the {{ipvandal}} template instead, since it has important WHOIS links. For instance, in the past half-hour I saw that two reported IP vandals came from the BBC (not blocked) and the U.S. House of Representatives (blocked) due to the WHOIS links. -- tariqabjotu 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm using VandalProof to automatically report the IPs. Any idea on how to change the template in VP? Corpx 22:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It has already been suggested on the VP's reqest feature page. Corpx 22:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There probably is a way already, but I'm not familiar enough with the program to know. You should get your answer anyway. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, I'm beginning to use this monitoring tool. Wont happen next time ^^' -- Esurnir 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Template Substituation

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

You reported Enamul h khan to WP:AIV, and he was removed with no action. The user's last edit, and last warning, was more than two months ago, and the warning was only a {{test}}. The correct warning today would have been a {{test2}}. I'm asking you once more to please read and consider the advice that I've given you above. The priority, whenever possible, is to encourage users to become useful contributors -- not to shoot as many vandals as possible. Please slow down. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reported similiar accounts where all the edits have been vandalism and the admin patrolling AIV permabanned the account. Example Corpx 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the difference:

User talk:Cbatech: Special:Contributions/Cbatech: Nine edits in two days, with a recent {{test4}}, showing a clear pattern of ongoing vandalism.

User talk:Enamul_h_khan: Special:Contributions/Enamul_h_khan: Four edits over ten months, with only one warning, that one being a {{test1}} more than two months ago. You proposed having him indefinitely blocked as a vandal-only account on the basis of this test edit, which warranted a {{test2}}.

WP:AIV says:

Before listing a vandal here make sure that the vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a last warning.

If you remember to follow that guideline, you'll avoid wasting your own time, and the time of the admin who has to evaluate the report. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your hard work reverting vandals and keeping Wikipedia clean, I award you this barnstar! Keep up the good work! ShakingSpirittalk 01:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Teeth marks

Hi! I found this edit of yours interesting. When I first looked at 165.138.77.201 (Talk) today, I noted the following items:

• That it's a shared school IP
• There hadn't been any warnings or edits for two days
• That at the time of my first warning there had been only one test edit and one self reverted edit done.

My conclusion was to start over at test1.
Between my warning and yours, there was one actual useful edit and two test edits. However, instead of giving a test2, you went straight to a test4.
It is possible that I'm missing something obvious about this case, however in the meantime, per WP:BITE I replaced your test4 with a test2 on that IP's talkpage (and fixed a test edit that you missed from before the one you reverted.) I know how easy it is to get heavy handed on the trigger finger, but it's important to research and be thoughtful before putting up user warnings. We want to encourage newcomers to become good editors, not scare them away. Thanks for reading, and have a great day! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 20:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good work!

It's always a good sign when they take the trouble to abuse you. :-) You might want to take a look at the suggested approach for dealing with this sort of thing: WP:DNFT. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:D Corpx 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)