User talk:Scarian

vn-46This user talk page has been vandalized 46 times. Message from my partner: Hello, Pat. I love you. --DeaaaaCall me Gertrude 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC) BOO! --DeaaaaCall me Gertrude 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I hereby name thee "Internet Hero". I LAAAAAAVV YOUU. <3 DeaaaaCall me Gertrude 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Another Huggle blunder-boy Is RedZionX another one these impatient Huggle-goofups who doesn't know what WP:VAN actually is? Users should have to take a test before they try being a vandal hunter. Saves on the blunders. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) You're a class A gem you are! 6500 thank-yous to you. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry but under the new under EEC regulations, the maximum amount an individual may bestow upon another is up to 5.5 thousand thank-yous, you may however bestow up to 7.5 thousand tas, as these are much more compact and therefore the carbon footprint is smaller.--Alf melmac 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Alf, I stopped boiling the kettle just for me so I'd reduce the carbon footprint... but now I can't have more than 5.5 thousand thankyous? ...It's just not fair... Damn you EEC! Damn you all! Runs off crying... ScarianCall me Pat 11:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I'm Canadian the EEC regs do not apply for me and I hereby issue 100000 more thank-yous... but so as not to cause any incidents... this latest shipment will remain 201 miles off the English coastline on a boat marked the HMCS Scarian. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) HMS Scarian - For Queen and Country! ScarianCall me Pat 12:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Alf informs the coast guard, reminding them of how well they did on 'fixing' Radio Caroline, chuckles evily and rubs hands together in manic delight. re: Huggle concern I am no true expert on said article's content, and though that the user had blanked simply for the sake of blanking. I make sure to double-check edits before I revert them, and did not know that the removed information had been false, so I replaced it. I will revert my edit. Sorry about everything, it was an error on my part. Cheers! RedZionX 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Hello, Scarian. Congratulations on your RfA! Very impressive level of support you got. I saw your name listed among the RfA's and recognized you as someone who played a very positive role in a difficult situation I was in recently. I don't usually take the time to vote on RfA's that already have 100% support, but since I recognized your name with gratitude I thought I would vote. I started looking through your contribs as I normally do for RfA votes, but had at least 6 projects going at once at that time and didn't have time to complete my analysis up to a standard that I felt would be needed in order to vote in your RfA (even in the neutral section). However, I thought I would let you know after your RfA completed the comments I did come up with, hoping that they're useful feedback for you. I've often made mistakes while providing this kind of feedback, which is one reason I didn't feel comfortable bringing it up in your RfA, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes I make here. Often it turns out there's some aspect of a situation that I wasn't aware of. Another thing that I considered is that it's clear from the situation mentioned above where I first remember running into you that you're clearly open to criticism, making a post-RfA comment seem a reasonable choice. I encourage you to use welcome templates more often. I see that you often post vandalism warnings on pages which have apparently never received a welcome template. I believe the welcome templates (in addition to a vandalism notice) are important in order to give the users a positive idea of what's expected. Re your warnings posted to User talk:Mc chill529, i.e. first warning at 14:51 14 Feb 2008 and second warning at 14:52 14 Feb 2008: I don't think there was even a whole minute between these two warnings of yours, since you did a lot of other edits in the same minute before the first one and after the second one. However, even if there was a minute between them, I don't think a minute is enough to be reasonably sure that the user would receive your first warning before doing the edit the second warning is about, even if the "you have new messages" banner works properly and instantaneously, which it hasn't always. The user could have opened a page for editing before you posted your first warning, and posted the change afterwards, thus receiving both warnings at the same time. But wait! In this case, that doesn't even apply: the user had no edits at all between 14:29 and 21:30 on that day, so the user could not possibly have vandalised after your first warning and before your second warning. So I have two messages to you here: first of all, please hesitate before posting consecutive vandalism warnings in consecutive minutes unless the pattern of edits is such that you can be reasonably sure the user has received your first warning before doing the vandalism referred to in the second warning (i.e. probably only in the case of more than one edit per minute by the user); and secondly, please check whether the user has already received a warning from yourself or from anyone else after their last vandalism before you post a warning about it. To sum up: here you posted warnings at 14:51 and at 14:52 complaining about edits the user did at 14:18 and at 14:29. Given the timing, only a single warning would be appropriate. In addition, while the first edit was clearly vandalism, the second edit looks like a possible good-faith edit to me. ("wernt official members)" therefore for several reasons, I think the "final warning" you gave was not justified in this case, and was probably experienced by the user as a sudden "final warning" before receiving any previous warnings -- not the way these warnings are supposed to work. On this talk page is another situation where you've posted a warning only a minute after a previous warning on the same talk page. In this case, the previous warning was by a different user, and in this case, unlike the case above, the user was actually editing around the time of the warnings. (The user edited at 14:51 and 14:52.) But wait! The first warning, posted by Ossmann, specifically mentions the 14:52 edit of Urethra by 162.27.161.188, therefore it must necessarily have come after that edit. Your warning mentions the earlier, 14:51 edit of Princess Albertina. Therefore, the user had not vandalised after the most recent warning at the time when you posted your warning. Again, I would like to encourage you in general not to post warnings only a minute after the previous warning, except in cases where there it's clear that the user had the opportunity to receive the first warning before the second vandalism edit. These particular situations also involve other aspects of the situation that make such warnings more clearly inappropriate. Remember, vandals are our friends. While many of them will simply go away or get blocked, on the other hand a small but significant fraction of them will eventually become productive Wikipedians. Some of them may be reasonable people most of the time but just happen to be feeling angry or mischievious at the time. Maybe some of them will later regret how they first edited Wikipedia. Some may change their attitude towards Wikipedia based on what their friends say to them, and some may simply mature as they grow older. The way we treat them makes a big difference, in my opinion, to how likely they are to become productive Wikipedians -- or how likely they are to get angrier due to perceived unfairnesses and vandalise more. If you haven't already, I would like to encourage you to study the case of Ggggggggggggggg12 as an example of how standard procedures, applied carelessly and incorrectly, can cause a valuable contributor to be permanently lost to the project. In general, I would like to encourage you to do RC patrol more slowly and carefully, and looking harder for opportunities to be friendly. If you revert less vandalism, it's not a big deal: someone else will get it later, and maybe it will even encourage someone to join who has never previously edited: their first edit could be reverting that vandalism. But if you go too fast, problems can occur. We might never know which users might have become productive Wikipedians if they were just left alone during their first few edits. By the way, I find your talk page a little difficult to read due to the dark grey background colour. I hope you take this criticism in the positive spirit in which it is intended and know that I respect you as a person who has shown a willingness to admit to error, who has spoken to me with courtesy and who has received tremendous positive support on their RfA. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)