|
It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new.
But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful.
There is more security in the adventurous and exciting,
for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.
|
|
|
|
Jennavecia (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Please_assist.
Thanks much! 207.237.61.26 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked for three months. لennavecia 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome. Thanks much!
- PS- The World AIDS Day article is going to be hit hard by vandals today and I'm not sure how to do anything about it, can you help protect it? Thanks again. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, I'm sorry, but already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.164.80.168 has vandalized World AIDS Day (and then un-vandalized it), this person has been warned about vandlaism repeatedly on their page. 207.237.61.26 (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted a protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was declined, but I've watchlisted World Aids Day. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP noted was last warned like three weeks ago. A final warning should not have been dropped as you did, as IPs change. So the user you warned is not necessarily the user who was last warned. لennavecia 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that there have been "disruptive edits" adn warnings on at least 5 occasions on that IP, to the Missy Elliot and Playstation3 and Sparta articles, all since September. I'm not the most experienced editor, sorry. How many warnings does a person get? 207.237.61.26 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically, a series of four escalating warnings. However, they need to be relatively close together as far as time issued. If a user is given three warnings in one day, doesn't edit for a week, then comes back and makes another poor edit, the series usually starts over, or goes back down to level two. It depends on the edits, the number of previous warnings, and (honestly) the mood of the editor issuing the warning. However, IP editors are a bit different than registered editors. IPs change, which is why we block IP for a matter of hours or a few short days, usually. So warnings to them really need to be in the span of a day or two. Otherwise, you may be warning someone else. لennavecia 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all huggled out, I've been waiting for someone to take over for almost two hours (x_x) --Closedmouth (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O snaps. Next time, just drop a note! لennavecia 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's so addictive. I was telling myself, "Man, I really need to stop, just ping some people to take up the slack," but I was really thinking, "No way, man, don't make it stop, I'm on a fucking roll tonight!!" Damn you Gurch. Damn you to hell. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha... I'll be sure to pass on the message to gurch. XD He is, indeed, brilliant. لennavecia 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
The edits I was in the process of making were not vandalism - I was sorting out some double redirects. Thanks! Rubisco (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm here. Double redirects are handled by bots nowadays. Not that fixing them is bad, just not really necessary. And blanking the page doesn't help anything. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Rubisco. Sorry about that. As Closedmouth sort of blunty noted, blanking pages with no edit summary is typically viewed as vandalism. Best to replace the link rather than blank and then fix. Either way, edit summaries are always good! I struck the warning, tho. Thanks for letting me know. :) لennavecia 14:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I've been keeping an eye on User:Thegreatestmoever for a few days now, they seem to do some decent edits but mixed in with a load of vandalism. I've already given them a level 1 warning, as has another person, which they blanked (and I briefly restored, because I was under the mistaken impression that users weren't allowed to blank their warnings), and then as you probably saw gave them a level 3 warning today for further vandalism, as the second user to give a level 1 stated that they'd likely have used a level 2 if my warning hadn't been blanked before they came along. You've now added to this with a level 4 warning, and as you're an administrator I'm just wondering - do I still need to report this user to WP:AIV if they continue their vandalism, or are you now keeping an eye on them, ready to block? That, and thanks for the help! :) Xmoogle (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm. I apparently reverted my reply when I reverted Thegreatestmoever. Well, anyway, doesn't matter now, he's blocked indef. He did make a good point, tho... I need bewbs!! XD لennavecia 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw. I feel your pain, I could use being less flat chested myself! And I'm quite amused that he called Jac16888 the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" when I'm the very tall (but hopefully not smelly) lesbian who's been keeping an eye on him for quite some time, reverting his edits and giving him warnings, and I've suffered no abuse at all for it. I think his insult targetting system needs recalibrating! Xmoogle (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahahaha... ah, good times! XD لennavecia 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, just so you know, I fixed the unblock template that Thegreatestmoever tried to put on his talk page (which has since been declined)... I think I felt kind of sorry for him, even if the reason given appeared to be untrue... hope it wasn't a problem to be fixing this template for him, like, against any rules or anything? Xmoogle (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfectly acceptable. What a joke that thread turned into, by the way. Haha. لennavecia 16:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, with all these wikiwords flying about (wikistress, wikibreak, etc), there needs to be a new one if it doesn't exist already - wikilols... PS, I love how your talk page is formatted, I may just have to steal some of the code for my own! Xmoogle (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the "big smelly lesbo bitvhhh" comment very funny, certainly a new one I don't think I've ever been called that before, although he seemed to be a bit mixed up since I never gave him a last warning--Jac16888 (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he knew what was going on. He just knew he was surrounded by females, and apparently thought they were all lesbians. >_> لennavecia 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(cur) (last) 15:56, December 1, 2008 Jennavecia (Talk | contribs | block) (55,820 bytes) (Reverted edits by 64.115.219.114 to last version by (HG)) (undo)
You just gave away my secret! I thought no one would ever figure out that I am WP:HG...
<CURSE YOUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J.delanoygabsadds 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude... considering how often you beat me to reverts, I think it's obvious you're HG. >_> لennavecia 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current revision as of 12:57, 1 December 2008 J.delanoy (Talk | contribs | block [rollback]
m (→:O: I didn't realize how much I mauled this page with all those <big>'s. Sorry)
- You ought to be ashamed of yourself! لennavecia 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was my addition of a review considered vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.179.168 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a blog site. It's not a place to drop your personal opinion or negative, unsourced comments about living people. لennavecia 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the critical reception portion of an article, I assumed it was ok to post reviews of the comic. I was attempting to link the reference as well, I am a bit new at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.179.168 (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Let's review what you posted:
:John Solomon of Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad has this to say about Sluggy Sluggy Freelance as "Sluggy Freelance is and always will be a bad webcomic. It has bad art, bad writing (despite a few good jokes and a few more good jokes that were turned into terrible jokes by overplaying them) and almost three hundred thousand words of backstory for you to enjoy before you even come close to understanding what the fuck is happening. That's pretty much the hallmark of a bad webcomic."
- Our critical reception sections are for notable reviews. Is John Solomon or Your Webcomic notable? Judging by the language of the review, my guess would be no. لennavecia 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has be cited in two other webcomic articles Dresden Codak and The Wotch#cite note-js attack-27 70.157.179.168 (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not anymore. We don't cite blogs. لennavecia 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake sorry about the error. For future notes does that include commercial blogs like engadget.com? 70.157.179.168 (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends. See WP:Reliable sources. لennavecia 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm touched that when the words "disgustingly uncivil" are used the first thing that comes into your mind is me. ;-) [1]
(If there's some acane rule about having links to that site on wikipedia, then please just delete the link.) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a rule about linking to WR, someone can bite me. As far as that thread, hahaah... well, when I read "disgustingly uncivil", you are not the first to come to mind, however, when Alex is speaking about prolific content contributors who happen to be appreciated by SandyGeorgia, you do come to mind. :D <3 لennavecia 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. It's certainly true that I don't understand a world in which a comment like "Bigger amount of posts, wouldn't make your claims look more credible, actually" results in a warning for a personal attack. (No, it wasn't me who said that.) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given who's saying it, I kind of assumed your "disgustingly uncivil friend" was me. Although if he's refering to an uncivil friend of Sandy's who gets leeway not granted to others because of his contribution history, I think I might be able to work it out. (Speaking of civility, read this lurch over the line into insanity. Even by the standards of my talkpage, this is above-and-beyond.) – iridescent 16:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus: Who issued an NPA warning for that? I srsly need to lay a smackdown with a clue-by-four.
- Iri: Hmmm. I would think a reference to my disgustingly uncivil friend would be someone else entirely. But, yes, he was speaking of Sandy's friends. Your talk page is a circus, by the way. لennavecia 17:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The world has gone mad.[2] Sandy and I have had our disagreements, even recently, over the behaviour of a certain administrator in relation to this article. So I'm not entirely certain she would count me amongst her friends anyway; I'd settle for not being on her list of enemies. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case the pair of you missed it. – iridescent 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, when I think of Lara, "sexily uncivil" comes to mind... ;)--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 0.0 ... Thanks. ;) لennavecia 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can i comment on this page jennavecia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.221.112 (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. What is it you would like to discuss? لennavecia 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are you a real person? 78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)are you a real person?[reply]
- No, I'm a machine. لennavecia 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)are you being sarcastic? i mean, do you like work for wikipedia?[reply]
- I'm part machine. I'm not telling you which part, though. HalfShadow 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78.145.221.112 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)i do not understand you. and why is your name now 'halfshadow' wheredid jenna go?[reply]
|
