User talk:Grant Lemons

Image discussions

Hello? Please remove whatever this is if I am doing something wrong. I don't know if what I am doing right now is correct. I hope I am talking to Grant Lemons. If I am, I just added an image of Gigguk that was available through your editing program or whatever, and it has been removed, was curious as to why this is. Also, there are images of CDawgVA on his social media's that are accessible to the public that I would think can be added. As of writing this I have received a message saying I might be blocked for adding copyrighted material to a page?? I have only added what your site allowed me to add so I do not understand that.

Okay cool I did this right. I think I understand a little more. Thanks for taking the time to deal with me and letting me know how all of this works

Unsigned messages above were from Walkuk77 (talk | contribs)

Welcome!

Hi Grant Lemons! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! 0qd (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haridwar

Hi, it please go through the article Haridwar hate speech and see if it lives up to the Wikipedia standard of Neutrality. <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view>. The article is filled with speculations and sensationalist spin so that it reads more like a biased news article than a Wikipedia page. Go through the changes made by me and tell me how is it 'Politically or religiously motivated vandalism'? I will get the article reported for not being neutral and being of poor quality as well as report you for biased editing if you continue to remove legitimate changes. Thanks 106.212.114.113 (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anti vandalism

When you are autoconfirmed, consider using a semi automated tool to make anti vandalism easier. Also, please read about what vandalism is. For the "fixed typo" summaries, they are example edit summaries on mobile devices that everyone uses.

Also, do you operate more than 1 account? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add ~~~~ to the end of your messages to sign them. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: Hi, Thanks for the tips, I had no idea on the fixed typo summary and assumed they were trying to hide their edits. I was a little overeager in my early edits to find vandalists, I've read the definition and now see some edits where I falsely marked it. I do not operate multiple accounts, though I may have an account from a few years ago... I don't remember. Why? Thanks for the notice about the signature, I've started using it as advised. Grant Lemons (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know a lot for a newcomer. It's a bit suspicious, so I decided to ask.

After your account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits, you can install RedWarn, one of those anti vandalism tools. It offers quick rollback, fast warning/reporting, etc.

This edit that you reverted was a canned edit summary, or premade edit summary available to the app users. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some further advice that I began to use when I started doing anti vandalism more: If someone is obviously only vandalising, you can immediately report them. You do not need to wait until they vandalise 5 times and get a final warning. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are now autoconfirmed. (4 days/10 edits) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: Thanks for the advice, what would you classify something like what 106.212.114.113 is doing on Haridwar hate speeches? I don't want to mark it incorrectly but it does seem malicious or at least biased. Grant Lemons (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be unsourced, may be POV, but it is not vandalism since it is not a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia (e.g. replacing Retired with Retard or adding random among us memes to articles) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]