User talk:Nemesis of Reason

Fighting vandalism

It's good that you want to improve Wikipedia by fighting vandalism, but generally speaking you should give a level one warning to someone unless they've had another level recently (eg, {{Uw-vandalism1}}, {{Uw-vandalism2}} etc). It's also a good idea to give add the article name as a parameter to the warning, eg {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|Article name}}. You should also make sure that what you are reverting genuinely is vandalism (ie deliberate), see WP:VAND for further information. --JD554 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

there you go

like I said I would, I made you'r talk page more organised, all past postes are under archive 1, if you have any questions, just ask. regards--Orangesodakid 15:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian constitutional law

The removal of unecyclopedic, unreferenced material is not vandalism. And don't template the regulars. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars is not an official policy/guideline. If a regular is deserving of a warning template, then s/he should get one. However, where the warning template allows for additional text, it would be nice to add something that tempers and/or mitigates the template a bit. But, whether or not to follow WP:Don't template the regulars is entirely up to each editor. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heat transfer and 148.126.100.82

Hi Nemesis! You quite correctly reeverted vandalism to Heat transfer by 148.126.100.82, and you gave him/her a warning. However, s/he was already at a Level 4 warning. Therefore, you should have applied a Level 4im warning with the {{Uw-vandalism4im}} template and then filed a report at WP:AIV. Would you please consider deleting your warning template and replacing it with {{Uw-vandalism4im}} and a report to WP:AIV? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No misuse!

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:70.242.128.91 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. This section was redundant, although it tripped a filter, please discuss before reverting. 70.242.128.91 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, remember to subst your templates. Like this:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}} produces:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Just add subst to beginnig. 70.242.128.91 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Congradulations

Hey, if you check your barnstar page, you'll notice that you have a new, anti-vandalism barnstar. Congrats.--Penguin Warchief 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Prodan is not signing for Liverpool

Listen big man. Daniel Prodan is not coming out of retirement to sign for liverpool for a fee of £2.5 million. Why did you change it back????? 92.244.166.26 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you can fix it--NemesisofReason 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Substituting warning templates.

Hello, I notice that you are warning vandals. Can you please substitute the templates
e.g. {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}

Also when undoing vandalism, can you please check to see what you are adding back in, and check the page history. Many vandals will make multiple edits, or work as teams. Also content removal is not always vandalism, there are often legitimate reasons to do this. Martin451 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here Here! 92.244.166.26 (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV reports

Hi there. Thanks for your anti-vandalism work. Please take vandalism reports to WP:AIV, not WP:ANI. Thanks! Tan | 39 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it doesn't look like you're reading the sections at ANI...

The type of reports that you are making to WP:ANI should instead be going to WP:AIV. Reporting simple vandalism for blocks at ANI generally makes the admins there cranky and much like The Hulk you probably don't want to make admins cranky. Syrthiss (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I was patrolling Recent Changes and saw you reverting away. You've been doing a ton of great stuff battling vandals, keep up the good work! A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Just repeating JD554's advice above - please do not use 4im level warnings for garden-variety vandalism; that will not necessarily help, actually, since admins may decline to block on the ground that the warning was insufficient. In addition, for IPs in particular, since one IP can represent different people & computers at different times, normally warnings more than a week old do not count. Tim Song (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal Patrol

Hi there. I noticed your edits on A Night at the Opera (Queen album), specifically those reverting edits made by an IP editor [1]. You then issued that editor a uw-vandalism1 tag[2]. I don't see anything really wrong with the edits in question, much less anything that should be construed as vandalism. Please assume good faith more and be a little less heavy with the vandal tags. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry--NemesisofReason 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW

btw not everything with tags is vandilisom. regards--Orangesodakid 17:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Gideon v. Wainwright

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Gideon v. Wainwright. Note that old versions of Wikipedia articles are kept in their page history, and it is usually better to deal with vandalism by using the page history to restore the previous version, rather than removing it manually, as otherwise any content removed by the vandal is not restored. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Hi Nemesis! I noticed that you reverted vandalism in the Gideon v. Wainwright article. However, the anonymous editor whose edit you undid actually had made four (4) vandalism edits in a row. You only undid the last one. You needed to apply undo to all of them. If you look at the edit history for the article, I will explain to you the step-by-step process of what happened. Next to each edit you can see that a numerical figure is given. This is the size of the article. In this case, by the time you got to it, the article had been reduced by the vandal from 17,359 to 14,314, then to 12,825, then to 11,004, and finally to 9,135. When you undid only the last edit of the miscreant editor, you only returned it to size 11,004. It needed to be returned all the way to size 17,359. After you, the same vandal came back and further reduced the article to 8,456. Then a recent changes patroller using Huggle came along and reverted only that edit, which only took the article back to the incorrect size that you had left it, 11,004, and not to the 17,359 that it should have been. Thankfully, that recent changes patroller took a second look at the article’s size and put it all the way back to the 17,359 that it should have been. Summary: It is great that you are working to undo the handiwork of vandals here at Wikipedia. But, you have to be very careful that you do it correctly and don’t worsen the problem. It was lucky that the other editor came along and realized that the article’s counts were off. — SpikeToronto (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looked like the same thing happened on George Raft, but was caught by Riddleme. It might be worth slowing down to make sure you're restoring the right version. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony Hawks

An IP made this edit removing contentious uncited material from Tony Hawks, and filled in the edit summary explaining what he did. You undid his legitimate edit, and have warned the user for vandalism, when it clearly was not. Martin451 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind, could you brush up on WP:VAND and WP:BLP? Not every edit made by an IP is vandalism and I would ask that you be more careful with your reverts in the future. Thanks, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, ill read it, i thought that all tags were vandalism--NemesisofReason 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol

Nemesis, your talk page is filling up with comments about your decisions regarding recent changes patrol. Most of these show that you are not quite ready to be reverting vandalism. You’ve been a wikieditor for less than a month. So, it may be too soon to be dealing with (possibly) vandalizing edits. One has to exercise judgement with each and every diff before deciding to revert, stating clearly the correct reason for that revert, and placing the correct warning on the offending editor’s talk page. Knowing how to do this well takes time. For the a long while when I joined Wikipedia, I contented myself with reading articles, and making Gnome-like edits, such as fixing a comma here, and a spelling error there. You need to be more conversant in the myriad policies in Wikipedia and that means reading them. There are a lot of them and becoming familiar with the ones that relate to recent changes patrol takes time. You really should take a step back from dealing with recent changes and get to know more about the relevant policies first. Instead, you should focus on making minor edits that improve Wikipedia incrementally. These bit-by-bit improvements to Wikipedia are every bit as important as dealing with vandals, with far less risk accruing to you. In the meantime, you have been adopted by Dylan620. You should work with him more before working on recent changes patrol. Let him guide you through it. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks--NemesisofReason 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page

Don't you think you should respond to the above posts? I just got a complaint on my talk about your unresponsiveness... --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 23:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. ill try to respond from now on....--NemesisofReason 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edit

Actually that was me,I'd accidently logged - even given that, don't template good faith contributions where there is an edit summary and it is clear *not* a test edit. Engage your brain before going "durrr ip must be bad". --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your talkpage, it's full of complaints about your poor judgement in reverting IP editors, I suggest you get a mentor or learn some basic policy and leave off the robocop stuff until you understand what you are doing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and i will--NemesisofReason 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hello, Nemesis of Reason. You have new messages at 75.69.0.58's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Audley Harrison

Re, your revert at the article, do you know that this edit is being discussed at the BLP board and there is no consensus to add it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See above, that was me, I switched machine was not logged in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Under the situation, would you please revert your edit Nemesis? Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure why not?--NemesisofReason 11:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to revert your edit to the Harrison article? Off2riorob (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So you have bullied this editor into reverting an article to a position which has no concensus and to support a single edit IP and to remove referenced material just so you two can feel smug? good one lads!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ricardo Montalbán

Regarding this edit [3] for which you issued a vandalism warning, I think you jumped the gun here. If you read the edit summary for that edit, the IP editor stated the s/he was in the process of moving a paragraph of text, which was then done[4] just as you warned them.

While it's only natural to make some mistakes, given the number of issues raised on your talk page recently, you need to be more careful not to bite IP editors. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

STOP. You have been given numerous warnings regarding reversion mistakes. If this continues, you will be blocked. We appreciate your wanting to help, but you're being WAY too hasty. Tan | 39 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with Tan. While you've reverted a lot of vandalism, your false positive rate is simply too high. If you're looking for other things to work on, we do need help with the backlog and article maintenance. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest you slow down some and make sure your reverting vandals.--Coldplay Expert 18:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this guy is a loose cannon. He's been doing more harm than good!Dave clark86 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

You have already been asked to do so several times, but I will remind you once more that you need to substitute your vandalism templates on user's talk pages. Ali ^(t)_(c) 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

look

Now you can type reviews about your favorite editor, me (lol) BTW, you should stop reverting vandalism for a while. remember, not everything that is taged is vandilism. regards--Orangesodakid 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

About this edit

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.sorry, but you need to stop. regards--Orangesodakid 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion error

This edit was to remove a section of advertising from the article, as I thought the edit summary made clear. You reverted it as vandalism and gave me a test warning. I see this is not the first time this issue has come up, either. I would echo those asking you to be more cautious in making reverts, and to examine an edit (and its summary) to determine if it is really vandalism before reverting it as such. 75.71.46.105 (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that you are on, please respond to all these comments. regards--Orangesodakid 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making reversion mistakes, despite over a dozen warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another questionable reversion

Can you explain why you thought this was not appropriate? Also, if you are not retired, you probably shouldn't put the banner up on your page. Tan | 39 14:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be answered, or you may be blocked again. You are doing more damage than good with your inappropriate revisions. Please respond to this before reverting any more edits. Tan | 39 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you are choosing to ignore me? Tan | 39 18:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I share Tan's concerns and would be very grateful if you could quickly address them. :) Thanks, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I seggest you actually respond to these comments so that way you dont get blocked again! And Tan he is really trying ot be a good editor, just check his contributions he has been reverting real vandalism.--Coldplay Expert 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that Nemesis is trying to be a good editor. I want Nemesis to be a good editor. However, reverting edits that are not vandalism is extremely harmful to the project in many ways. A 98% "good revert" rate in this project is not good enough, and this is clearly an ongoing problem. Nemesis, I need you to respond to my initial question in this section prior to reverting any more vandalism. Tan | 39 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that this was vandalism, because there was not any thing but or I did not know that it wasn't vandalism--NemesisofReason 19:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I suggested earlier that you may wish to read WP:VAND. If you have not done so, I implore you to before reverting anything else. I understand you want to be a good editor, and I, like Tan, want that for you, too. Good editors know Wikipedia's policies. :) Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis, Those are tags that editors put on pages to indicate that sources or work is needed. Click on those tags for an explanation. Unless you are 100% clear that a particular edit is not vandalism, do not revert it - ask someone, move on to the next, etc. I truly appreciate you wanting to help, but any more reverting of good edits and I'm afraid you won't be allowed to revert vandalism here anymore. Tan | 39 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK NoR please go and STOP REVERTING VANDALS. fot at least a day or two. You need to read the policies that Kat. posted. please...I dont want oyu to be blocked again.--Coldplay Expert 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggested here (alternatively, here) that there were other ways to be useful to Wikipedia without reverting vandalism. Your response suggested that you understood this, were going to stop reverting vandalism, and contribute in other ways. Yet you persist. So, let’s go at this from another angle: Why do you think that reverting vandalism is the only way you can contribute? Why are you seemingly obsessed with vandalism reverts? There are other ways to contribute. You acknowledged this. Finally, Tanthalas39 suggested that your revert here was incorrect. So why have you not taken what that experienced Administrator has said, read between the lines, and undone your earlier reversion? — SpikeToronto 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Bayonetta

Thank you for reverting that edit. --an odd name 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Whats going on?

Why did you put the retired template up?--Coldplay Expert 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

what is going on, first you were blocked, seconed you put a retaired sign on your user page, than like two minits later, you took it off. whats going on, are you done with wikipedia or not. regards--Orangesodakid 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

well, your editing right now, so your staying? BTW you need to warn vandals, if you don't know how, I can teach you. regards--Orangesodakid 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, It dosent matter if there is red links, That is a good thing. It tells people that an artical about that topic hasent been made, and should be made, thus telling people what articals to make. regards--Orangesodakid 17:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

was it in the refferences? regards--Orangesodakid 18:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Um..whenever you find vandalism, revert the edit (after you make sure that it is really vandalism) and then go to the talk page of the user who made the vandalism. Then you sould paste this edit. {{subst:uw-vandalism1|subst=subst:}} (remember to replace the 1 with the corect number in the warning scale. Like if he has already had a warning then make it a 2 and so on and so forth. Now remember to sign you comment as well and if the user has already had four warnings then you can report them to the ANI or something like that. Thanks and regards.--Orangesodakid

Award

Here it is

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

--Coldplay Expert 17:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you deserve that.--Orangesodakid 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)