User talk:Zoohouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tagging stubs unreferenced[edit]

Hey there. I just noticed you tagged a few stubs with {{unreferenced}} .. Most stubs don't need to be tagged with anything, because they've already got the stub tag, which implies that the article is incomplete. But if you really must tag stubs as unreferenced, then here's a little trick you should do: add the |auto=yes parameter, as I have done in this example. What this does is make the tag invisible to readers but still categorizes it in Category:Articles lacking sources. This way we don't have a big ugly tag on the page that's bigger than the article itself! Thanks, œ 06:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that parameter. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hi Zoohouse. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep it up![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For giving me the runaround at AIV all evening! Keep up the good work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Thank you for your reports at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Unfortunately vandalism by anonymous IP editors can only really be dealt with if it is actively continuing at a high rate. Since many IP addresses are used by many different users, it would not be helpful to block IP addresses used by constructive editors because occasionally incidents of vandalism are made by other users on the same IP address. I don't know if you have checked back to AIV to see any responses to your reports, but you may like to do so. In case by the time you read this the responses have disappeared from the page, here is a link to a version containing several such responses. Please don't take this as trying to discourage you from making further reports, as that is the last thing I would wish to do. However, I hope that this explanation will help you to learn better what kinds of reports are useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, the reason I reported those IPs is because in the past, when there has been recent vandalism of the nature I reported, the IP address were blocked from editing and the user were encouraged to get a user name. I believed that when there were IP address that were constantly involved in vandalism, that the general consensus was to keep the IP from making further edits, and encourage the users to create accounts. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

hello can i ask something? are you an editor here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.182.186 (talkcontribs)

Yes, he is an editor; he may be able to talk to you shortly. みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You can just go ahead and ask me. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Pay close attention[edit]

First, read WP:SOAP. Second, you started a discussion blasting other volunteers for doing their job on a talkpage that you have no business doing. Third, the person was already unblocked, so your WP:POINTy actions were un-necessary. Finally, when you left a message on my talkpage, it says not to use the TB template, as I will always watch conversations I'm involved in - as I was merely a block-decliner, there's nothing on that talkpage for me to be involved in. According to WP:AGF, we all did what we're supposed to do, and acting like a WP:DICK won't help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

* What were your reasons for declining the unblock?
* Are you assuming bad faith from my part? -- Joel M.Chat ✐ 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
My reasons for declining were clearly stated. I can only assume good faith to the point where you prove people wrong: WP:SOAP and WP:POINT are pretty serious. If you don't understand Wikipedia, or the community nature, or the idea that volunteers make decisions based on the information available to them at the time, then re-think your involvement. Getting snarky in defence of someone who is no longer blocked is a significant waste of editing time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Article/Revision/Undo/Revision/Undo......[edit]

Hi Zoohouse,

I'm having a difficult time getting controversial information added to an article. In this case, it appears some do not want a balanced article, only allowing penning with a flattering instrument. I think it could degenerate into a Drug Company vs Homeopathic Remedies sort of thing.

Would you be willing to assist? You know your way around Wiki much better than me - so I believe you would would be much more effective and I could learn a lot.

The quote is 'on par' with notables such as Pat Robertson's and "Haiti deserved the earthquake due to a pact with the devil".

Jeffrey Walton 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention.... I'm familiar with WP:DR.
Jeffrey Walton 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talkcontribs)

New version of STiki software available[edit]

Hello there. I've noticed you are a frequent user of my software tool, STiki. First, I wanted to thank you for your use of my tool. Second, I wanted to inform you that a new version just became available (see this post on STiki's talk page for a brief summary of changes). I encourage you to download it! Further, keep your bug reports and feature requests flowing in. STiki has now reverted over 25,000 instances of vandalism, and I hope together we can help this number continue to grow. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviving collaboration on WikiProject Cuba?[edit]

See this discussion on WikiProject Cuba, I'm trying to drum up some teamwork and collaboration to create an article on the Cuban Liberation Army. Despite the fact they won Cuban independence in the 1890s, they don't have their own article! If you, or anyone you know would be interested, reply on WikiProject Cuba. –NickDupree (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

About Unibrows[edit]

Hello! Thank you for your work on the Unibrow page (the Davis photo might still need some work, and maybe the headline one too [but less so]).

I am writing to inform you that I changed the Unibrow article. The old picture was weak, and the one you proposed was much better, but someone wanted a more "epic" one. I believe I provided that, but I also added your photo (and the old one)just further down the page for further illustration of the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyebrows

I would also like to ask you if you had any thoughts on replacing or adding pictures on the eyebrow page to sync up with the unibrow one more. As in, add the now headliner or use the headliner to replace the blue eyed one.

Thank you for your time, --Z11o22 (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)