User talk:Zoohouse

Tagging stubs unreferenced

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

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!

		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

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

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

hello can i ask something? are you an editor here?