User talk:CLCStudent

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Fighting vandalism

Thanks for your helping to fight vandalism, by this revert at China–United States relations. When you added a vandalism template at the user's talk page, you went straight to level 3. But since this was their only edit and the transgression wasn't very serious, I backed it down to a level 1, which is almost always the place to start with multi-level templates, unless there's some history (this was their first-ever edit), or the content was extremely serious. Thanks again for your work fighting vandalism! Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for what you do man! Giooo95 (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Smith

I see that, at the time I reverted your edit, Smith's appointment wasn't yet actually official, which is really rather extraordinary but then nothing should surprise us any more. I owe you one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Gang Leader (2019 film)

Hello, I was investigating a AIV report about this IP user when I noticed you reverted the IP's edit here. I'm a little confused, as it looks to me like the IP was correcting a typo in the article. The article said the film would be released on August 31, but the reference says August 30th, which is what the IP changed it to. Could you explain why you changed it back and warned the IP for vandalism? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought I was doing the opposite and reverting 31 to 30. CLCStudent (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a first...

I saw the most recent edit vandalizing Jonathan Gems which I had reverted an edit from the vandal on it earlier, and for the first time ever, someone directed a personal attack at me. Guess there is a first for everything... James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get them a couple times a week. CLCStudent (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural thing when fighting vandals, right? (I've only been a rollbacker for a few weeks) James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when you revert vandalism

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from MPEG-4 Part 14. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your tireless work against vandalism. It is highly appreciated. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Hey! Based on a complaint about you at WP:HD, I looked into the mentioned edits and was a bit confused: why did you use the "revert (vandal)" option and uw-vandalism based on this edit? This seems a good faith edit. --MrClog (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was both unsourced and controversial information. CLCStudent (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:NOTVANDALISM and seemingly not permitted under WP:ROLLBACKUSE. --MrClog (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Friendly reminder - notification system seems to have failed. --MrClog (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

What notification system? I am getting my notifications just fine. CLCStudent (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I saw you were doing some other things after I posted this here so I figured you may have not received a notification, apologies. My concern above ("That is WP:NOTVANDALISM and seemingly not permitted under WP:ROLLBACKUSE.") still stands. --MrClog (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that my comment may be perceived a bit passive aggressive (absolutely not intended!) so I am going to give a friendly tip: using the "rollback (AGF)" option and simply inserting "unsourced" as the reason, combined with the appropriate user warning template would have been incredibely helpful for the user (who felt very discouraged after being marked as a vandal). I don't doubt that this was an isolated incident and that you simply misclicked/misinterpreted the user's edit, but figured a comment on your talk page was appropriate because the user was quite upset at the Help Desk. Keep up the good work! Thanks, MrClog (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will bear that in mind in the future. CLCStudent (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebsdetails.com as a source

Hi CLCStudent. I noticed that you used celebsdetails.com as a source for information in a biography article, Nikhil Upreti. I am unable to find any evidence or discussion indicating that celebsdetails meets reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gorsuch

I've blocked the troll for 3 days. Let me or RFPP know if he surfaces again. That was quite a spree of rapid-fire vandalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I see that the same edits were made previously by a different IP, so blocking will probably not solve the problem. I am going to protect the page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When placing user warnings

Hi, CLCStudent. When placing user warnings appropriately, as you did here placing {{uw-vandalism1}} at User talk:197.26.160.146 for their unsourced change at Tunisia, don't forget to take concomitant actions implied by the wording of the user warning. In this case, the warning states that the IP's contributions "have been undone", but in fact, you didn't undo them. I've taken care of this for you, so there's nothing more to do there, but in the future, please do the revert first, and leave the user warning second. (I know you are an experienced user, so assuming this was just a glitch or brain fart of some sort; we're all human.) Thanks for helping to combat vandalism at Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts588

I just wanted to let you know, if you had placed a level 3 (then level 4) warning on this user's talk page, then I'd already have reported them to WP:AIV. However, because you neglected to do so, I was only able to escalate to a level 4 with a personal note. Keep up the good work, but please don't forget to warn users about our policies. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, Thanks for removing something. I don't care to bother checking what it was you removed, but thank you very much. By coincidence, I was reading the sockpuppet investigations instructions at the exact same time you were removing those edits. Still doing that. Any advice will be appreciated. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 14:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing: I've blocked the IP that harassed you on your page for 72 hours, for all the good it may do. Let me know if there are other IPs, in case you'd like your page semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 15:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please be more careful

I refer to this edit of yours: [1]

I came to this user page intending to place a warning for test edits/vandalism on it, though after reading your talk page it seems you've previously been cautioned about needing to be more careful when reverting vandalism yourself. I'm now under the assumption that your edit was a poor attempt to revert vandalism, rather than you vandalising the page yourself. But in any case, this behaviour is concerning. It was Today's featured article and you reduplicated an entire sub-section on it. Simply looking at the page after you edited it should have make this extremely clear. Of more concern you did not explain your edit using the edit-summary. Please try and be more careful in the future. And please make use of the edit summary so that other editors can get some understanding of what you're trying to do. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sushma Swaraj

You reported it right? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and it is handled. CLCStudent (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh... Phew..!! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LIII

I assume this was a mistake since it needed to go one more revision back to catch the vandalism, as the Saints did not play in Super Bowl LIII. I already reverted back to the correct version, but I just wanted to shoot you a note. Take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10050 Cielo Drive

Hi! I noticed you're hard working on anti-vandal, as usual. But, the edit you reverted in this case wasn't vandalism. The IP was right, I checked the reference and it's a direct quote. Expletives and all. I could see how, on a quick glance, adding profanity may look like vandalism. In this rare instance, it isn't. I took the liberty of removing your warning from their talk page; if I overstepped, I apologize. Cheers. Ifnord (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is not why I reverted it. That editor changed the present tense to past tense in the first thing they changed. CLCStudent (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Silva

Hi there. I understand that you are a rollbacker. Could you please rollback all edits done by the IP 180.246.187.156 on the Lucas Silva's article? This IP vandalized and destroyed the page inserting wrong information. It's easier to rollback everything than fixing manually. Regards. --SirEdimon (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. CLCStudent (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings still remain. Silva is Brazilian and not Uzbekistan as stated in the article a few times and in the infobox. I created the article and I could try to fix it, but I'm afraid that I could miss something because this IP messed everything.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your efforts

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hello CLCStudent. I see your name on my watchlist reverting vandalism and filing reports in all the right places. Sometimes I wonder when you get any sleep :-) For all your work I am happy to present you with this barnstar. Best regards. MarnetteD\|Talk 01:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be more careful

I guess you know by now you tagged todays feature article, and I'm guessing you will be more careful in the future when you see your patrol tag reverted by an experienced editor. I just want to say I appreciate the hard work you do patrolling for vandalism, having done it in the past. Cheers. ---- Work permit (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	you truly are Jack90s15 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you

	Greetings
	~ thanks ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Geller

Any reason why you reverted me? There was no edit summary. El_C 16:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to revert you. I was just trying to fix what the previous person did, but now I realized you already fixed it, so I undid my edit. CLCStudent (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I suspected as much. El_C 16:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP DELETING

Pamela Geller is a Jewish American, so? - John Bolton has NEVER been to war, so again, so? - Encyclopedia, my behind. Again, (as an unbiased 'editor') go fufu yourself. As a person, take it easy. I'm going for a walk. I could give a what-what about this biased as all hell 'encyclopedia'. It was a nice experiment, but, except for some quick info on stuff like video games ... the Britannica is still the place to go.