User talk:Scott Delaney: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Scott Delaney (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 116: Line 116:


Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marinduque&diff=prev&oldid=496223378 This edit] was not vandalism and should not have been tagged as such. Also, The IP editor you templated seems to be a regular contributor to the article. You really need to be more careful when tagging edits as vandalism and templating editors. I'm a little annoyed that you did this less than 2 hours after I warned you the first time. <span style="font-family:times; font-size:10.2pt">~[[User:Adjwilley|Adjwilley]]</span> <span style="font-family:times; font-size:7pt">([[User talk:Adjwilley|talk]])</span> 17:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

== You need to stop ==

Scott, you need to listen to what people are trying to get you to understand: you are being far too careless. Why on earth did you leave a templated "Editing tests" warning for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:50.53.92.16&diff=prev&oldid=496223849 this], a '''sandbox''' edit? The [[Wikipedia:About the Sandbox|sandbox]] is where editors are ''supposed'' to test their edits. Same with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X9&diff=prev&oldid=496222442 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:X9&diff=prev&oldid=496221613 this] which are edits to Template:X9, which is a '''sandbox''' template. Dude, WTF? [[User:Mojoworker|Mojoworker]] ([[User talk:Mojoworker|talk]]) 19:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:00, 6 June 2012

Userboxes

Can you tell me how to add a userbox? Thanks,--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most userboxes are templates, so it only requires you enter a single line, which makes it kind of easy. The key is creating a "container" to hold the userboxes, in html, a DIV typically. Wikipedia:Userboxes is a must read, and explains it better than I can You can find premade userbox templates all over Wikipedia, or create your own, however, the templates are much much easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

  • Wow, that is the $64,000 question. Boredom, they have an account and are getting vengeance against another user, they are mentally ill or just "not quite right", they have some agenda, they are kids and think its funny, or think "Wikipedia is dumb". Those are the top reasons. Not everyone gets the idea of trying to help in a small way to make something bigger than themselves. That is part of the price Wikipedia pays for being so open and easy to edit. I spend a good amount of time on vandalism patrol, looking for it and reporting users when appropriate. Lots of others do as well. Most vandalism doesn't stay on the page very long, sometimes just a matter of minutes. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary blocking

What is a temporary Block?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • When a user is blocked for a fixed amount of time (not permanant) such as 72 hours or 1 week, to prevent them from doing damage. Blocks are not punishment, they are done then a user has shown they are vandalizing or causing problems, as a way of forcing them to "cool down" and keep them from disrupting Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Blocking policy explains it further. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Sock Puppetry

I think it would be so they can continue to vadalised articles. Merely active to disrupt the project because they have too much time on their hands and not enough to keep them busy. Mrlittleirish 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

What is a Rationale?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk|Contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Justifiable reason, an explanation for an edit that might be controversial or contested. For example: If I tag an article as "Needs more references", my rationale might be "Only has one reference, lots of facts without sources". Or if I delete a large section of an article because no citations exist or can be found, I would say so "rm section because no sources can be found". Usually this provided in the summary or on the talk page, out of courtesy, so others don't have to ask why you did something. All edits *should* have some summary, even if it isn't exactly a rationale, so we can understand what each is doing. This provides a reason or rationale. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite Block

  • What is an indefinite block?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopped from editing. Forever. If you are caught using a different account, that one is blocked. Most who do, are caught in time. Using a different account like this is one form of sockpuppeting. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rollback rights

Sandboxes

Use of Old IP warnings template

Hello. I notice you added the {{Old IP warnings top}} template to several talk pages. Some of the warnings on those pages were not stale. In future, when using this template, please make sure to also include {{Old IP warnings bottom}} so that the current warnings are still shown. Also, the {{TOC right}} template should come before {{Old IP warnings top}} so the Table of contents will still be shown and work for the non-hidden sections. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits at User talk:198.110.175.129 and it looks like you are having some trouble, so I fixed that page for you. The {{Old IP warnings bottom}} template is used in conjunction with the {{Old IP warnings top}} template – in other words, they are a pair and one goes at the top of the sections you want hidden, while the other goes at the bottom. I hope that helps make things more clear. If you click on any of the template links here in this section, you can read more documentation on how they work. Mojoworker (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Scottdelaney1067. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Tow Trucker talk 03:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am proud of all the Vandlism I have reverted.--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do most people on Wikipedia like being rewarded with chocolate chip cookies?--Scott Delaney 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit is not vandalism. The IP did not provide a valid source for this addition and US Airways's website shows no nonsotp flights from Honolulu to Charlotte on January 1, 2013. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly bogus reasoning for reverting

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rare_Ltd.&diff=496035113&oldid=496034676

You left this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.36.79.193&redirect=no ( Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Rare Ltd. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I changed spelling for flow purposes. It's not at all a verifiability issue. This is why people hate editing wikipedia. 108.36.79.193 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for your excellent vandalism removal. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Scott Delaney 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Hey! Thanks for being so dedicated to helping out Wikipedia. Your help is really appreciated.

In addition to saying thanks, I also wanted to encourage you to be a little more careful with new or anonymous editors. You're reverting a lot of nasty vandalism, but when someone makes a simple mistake like this or this, giving them an automated warning might not be the best thing to do. It is much better to explain to them directly why their edit needed improvement, since they were really trying to improve the article. If it's a good faith mistake and not intentionally harmful vandalism, you can use Twinkle to "rollback AGF", which makes it easy to enter a custom edit summary and talk page message.

Thanks again, and keep up the vandalfighting!

Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Scott, I'd like to echo what Steven has said. Dennis Brown and I have discussed this as well – sorry I forgot to follow up on that the other day. You're on the right track, but you just need to be a little more careful. For example, with this edit [1] you left a 3rr warning to an IP that appears to never have edited at all, let alone reverted 3 times. Perhaps you would like to check out the WP:CVU for anti-vandalism information and perhaps even get a mentor at the academy there. If you have any questions, just ask. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind Scott, templating people for disruptive activities, and being wrong, is itself a bit disruptive and can boomerang on you. If you aren't 100% sure on a template, don't use it. Dennis Brown - © 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi: I, the creator of my present account, would endeavour to show you that I have not edited many of the pages that has been claimed to be edited through my account. You have flagged a warning against me for editing the page George Vancouver, and I have not edited that page. I had never vandalised Wikipedia, and I do not plan to do so. All the information that I have added to Wikipedia are true and accurate to my knowledge. To be frank, I find it disruptive and insulting that someone (not you in particular, but many persons) should hold my edits as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that this post may cause, but I feel bound to express these views to you.

Yours truly,

alex0723alex0723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0723alex0723 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your usage of vandal templates

Hi, we've never interacted before, but I thought I'd drop you a note concerning your use of vandal templates. I noticed that you templated this new user using a level-4 final warning vandal template for their first edit. I looked at the edit, and it was not clearly vandalism (they had even made an attempt to source it). When the user came to your talk page to say that they weren't vandalizing, you simply reverted them and templated them again with a signing template.

I'd suggest that you be more careful with the way you deal out templates. Wikipedia needs new editors, and we can't afford to be scaring off potential editors with scary vandal templates when they're attempting to edit in good faith. I also recommend reading WP:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]