User talk:L Kensington

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, L Kensington, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Rod ^talk 16:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Good job new guy...Keep up the great Anti-Vandalism work! Moxy (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Missouri

Why do you insist my editing of this is vandalism? Do you even take the time to read it? I am simply replacing what is false and misleading with what is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.14.218 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you did not cite any reliable sources, and therefore could be considered wrong. The information that was previously there was well supported by its sources. Next, if you do want to add information that can prove controversial, please use the discussion page first. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Toy Story 2

Why did you call this edit vandalism? BOVINEBOY2008 10:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I thought the user was deliberately deleting sections of the article since there was a significant removal of material from the article. Sorry if there was any confusion. L Kensington 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Culiacán. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 03:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry, warned you by mistake. I added you to my whitelist to prevent any more confusion. Sorry about any trouble, Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 03:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RC patrol

Nice work with the reverts, but please remember to warn the user as well. Thanks. -Reconsider! 04:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you calling references vandlism?

This makes no sense considering wikipedias policy "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles" How does a reference to a directory that relates 100% to the topic be considered vandlism? If adding valuable info to wikipedia just gets delated, why would anyone waste time adding any info? That will just let to a breakdown of the site that is to be build on nothing but user input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.94.247 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are adding spam links to the article even though it has been removed. I can easily justify the revert as vandalism because your are adding information that is not beneficial in any way to the article, and would otherwise be considered as nonsense. By the way, sweepsplay.com is NOT a reference and was NOT listed as so. It was listed as a external link. L Kensington (talk • contribs0

So you have no real reason to delete that reference other than someone else did it first? That is fine. It is sad and I really don't understand it, but it is fine. I have no dog in this fight. I use several of these directories and sweepsplay.com is the one I use the most. I am sure that others would like to find this site that is 100% related to the topic being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.94.247 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who deleted it first, Sweepsplay.com is still considered a spam link. It has NO value to the article whatsoever. For the sake of this argument, I personally visited sweepsplay.com and found no material that gives a user info/knowledge on the subject, besides from the blatant fact that it is a commercial sweepstake website. It is a spam link, end of story. I'm pretty sure users would not like to hear about the thousands of websites of dog breeders when they look up Dogs or see the millions of restaurant websites when they look up food. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to research the website. I don't agree with you about the value, but I do appreciate the fact that now you actually know about the site instead of just blindly deleting it because someone else did it first. It seems to me that is where the value of wikipedia comes in. Many people input what they feel is valuable and contributes to the topic. One may not see the value of one contribution but many others may. Everyone comes here for different information so what is valuable to one person may seem like nonsense or be irrelevant to another. I feel that the contribution I made was and would still be valuable to many and those who didn't find value in it, would just ignore it. It did relate to the topic.

Think about it like this...Why would someone start researching sweepstakes in the first place? Many (not all but many) will do it because they are interested in entering some. That is why I did. If they are interesting entering them then a list of sweepstakes organized for them would be extremely valuable. It was for me and this one site in particular because it was free (not commercial). If the person researching sweepstakes was doing it for another reason, say they are doing a research paper, they may find no value in the link to sweepsplay.com. That person would just ignore the link. The presence of that link only adds value to wikipedia and does nothing to deminish the value.

I have included this link before because I see the value and I am sure that several others will too. I have fought this issue before because I am trying to help build this user built site. I thought it would be fun to help add to it, but it hasn't been.

Again I don't have a dog in this fight so I will not try to push the issue any further other than to say that I think you should reconsider your position. Have a good one! I am going to go spend my time entering some sweepstakes and hopefully win some money or prizes. In this economy, as a commercial roofer, I (and I am sure many others) could use all of the help I can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.185.92 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the link does not add value to wikipedia. It does the exact opposite. Would you really like to see www.giftelectronics.com! Get a Free iPod, Laptop, PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii & Plasma TV stuffed into an article on laptops? Or what about finding lightbulb.com - get lightbulbs 50% off! Buy 1 get 1 free! on a article about lightbulbs. It's called spam. Most people hate it. They're tired enough of finding spam email messages in their inboxes and wikipedia articles certainly don't need it. It's everywhere, from YouTube to Facebook, to text messages. "You are trying to help build this user built site" Once again, it's called spam. Just because Joe Schmo from Faketown, Westovia decided he would launch a website advertising users that they would get an ipod if they submitted their credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank accounts and other information doesn't mean it's a good website let alone a useful one. Most of the time, companies, not individual users, are behind these spam links. I'm not surprised why it hasn't been fun for you. I cannot emphasize enough how much people hate spam.

"Why would someone start researching sweepstakes in the first place? Many (not all but many) will do it because they are interested in entering some." Sorry, but your arguement is baseless. If a person looked up BP to find out more about the oil spill, I don't think that they would enjoy finding the BP gas prices for the moment. And yes, a person could browse over the info if it did not interest them, but once again, most people don't enjoy finding websites advertising lightbulb sales when they look up light bulbs. If we were to allow this to happen, we might as well let wikipedia run loose and have comments such as "I like Pie" in the middle of articles pertaining to pie. And unfortunately, I will not reconsider my position on this topic. Not now, not ever. I personally find that those websites are hoaxes, nothing more than to collect information about you so that companies can sell it to other companies and vice versa, but you don't have to agree with me. That is my personal opinion. Having said that, please don't add links like or similar in nature to sweepstakes.com to articles.

L Kensington (talk • contribs)

I don't believe that you really can't see the difference here. I don't think that anyone is truely that obtuse. Take the lightbulb, and laptops examples that you gave. If you look up those topics then I wouldn't expect to find listings advertising free lightbulbs and laptops. If I looked up poker then I would expect to see examples of poker websites. That fits right in. If I look up sweepstakes then I expect to find examples of sweepstakes. That would include free laptop and lightbulb giveaways. You are taking an abstract search term (sweepstakes) and trying to compare it to concrete search terms (lightbulbs, BP, laptop, etc). They are apples and oranges. Physical and immatarial.

The not fun for me part was in reference to trying to work within the Wikipedia guidelines to help grow it beyond what it is today. I can see that the site is falling into a rut that will keep it from expanding much beyond the current level. Don't fall prey to the click mentality. It is ruining this site.

"And unfortunately, I will not reconsider my position on this topic. Not now, not ever."....Really? You know that never being willing to grow or change your opinions means that you will never grow beyond the point that you are now. It means that you are not willing to put continued thought into any particular topic. That is a really bad thing in any aspect of your life. I assume that you are a young person. In the coming years you will see the foolishness in that statement. That is true in every aspect of your life. (I can give personal examples of seeing the foolishness of rasicm or homophobia, in spite of being raised to hold those beliefs. After much reflection I have grown passed the beliefs I was taught to be true.) It goes way beyond this basically meaningless (in the greater sense) of this website known as Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.185.92 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

John Decyk

Well spotted. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User 74.102.20.237

I have removed your final warning ([1]) from the user's talk page. As annoying as vandalism is, there is a set procedure to be followed.

1. General Note, e.g. {{uw-vandalism1}}
2. Caution, e.g. {{uw-vandalism2}}
3. Warning, e.g. {{uw-vandalism3}}
4. Final warning, e.g. {{uw-vandalism4}}

It seems that you issued 74.102.20.237 with an immediate final warning for his first edit, which was a page blank and the inclusion of silly rubbish. In this case you should have issued a level one for page blanking or a level one for factual errors: either {{uw-delete1}} or {{uw-error1}}. I removed your immediate final warning and issued the user with a caution for knowingly introducing factual errors ([2]) (you should have issed a general note, so mine should have been a caution). I have since had to add a warning ([3]).

If you want a user to be blocked then you will need to go to WP:AIV, and they will want to see a proper warning history. If there isn't one then the disruptive editor won't get blocked. It's like being in the police force: if you want to lock up criminals then you must follow procedure; otherwise they will get off on a technicality.

Obviously if very serious vandalism occurs, for example racial or sexual comments then you can issue an immediate final warning. Take a look at this page, it lists all of the warning templates. If you have any questions, then drop me a line. •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

I'll have to disagree with the user above (sorry for invading in on your talk page) - we shouldn't be giving out freebies to vandalize 4 times. Use your best judgement - if it appears to be a good faith contribution not in line - then issue a 1st warning. If it looks to be a deliberate attempt to damage the content - it can be appropriate to second warn, then jump to 4th or go to 3rd, then 4th (if the edits warrant it) - why waste your time with a particular vandal that doesn't take not of the warnings and keeps vandalizing? Just my two cents. Connormah^talk 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your input. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

But an immediate final warning was issued for a first edit. A first edit that simply blanked a page and added silly comments. You are free to issue immediate final warnings for things like this; but they are empty threats. No admin would ever block a user for a second, similar, edit. (This was the edit that was given an immediate final warning.) •• Fly by Night (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that this particular time would be appropriate - rather I was trying to get at the reason you shouldn't always be going up with 4 for even severe vandals - it's all about good judgement. Connormah^talk 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one ever said that an immediate final warning could never be warrented. As I said in my very first post on this page: "Obviously if very serious vandalism occurs, for example racial or sexual comments then you can issue an immediate final warning. Take a look at this page, it lists all of the warning templates. If you have any questions, then drop me a line." I would have hoped that the rule of common sense would have been applied to fill the gaps. The clear fact of the matter was that this edit did not warrant an immediate final warning. As such I took it upon myself to give a brief outline of the warning protocol. Having followed WP:AIV, I have seen many times that proposed blocks are rejected because proper warnings have not been given. (Obviously, some levels can be skipped in the case of repeat offenders, previously blocked users, very strong personal insults, etc.) Although: Can I just say that L Kensington does a really good job. I don't question his/her commitment or motives. I just thought s/he went in a bit strong and thought that a refresher was in order. •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, great job. Yes, I did recognize that that edit did not warrant a final warning. Good luck with the rollback. Connormah^talk 23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edit above - that could have actually been a second warning. Like I said, just use your best judgement - nothing is worse than the same vandal just wasting your time (where they could be blocked faster). Just my two cents. Connormah^talk 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also as a sidenote - as you've been doing a great job recently - have you ever thought of requestting rollback, to enable you to use other automated (and a bit speedier ;)) tools, such as Huggle? I find vandalism patrol very easy with Huggle - it takes only the press of a key to revert and warn (plus when it gets to 4 warnings, it reports too, automatically). Connormah^talk 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have, I just wanted to make more edits before I applied. I probably will ask for it now. Thanks! L Kensington (talk • contribs)

Sounds good. Keep up the great work. Connormah^talk 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, (not to hound you), but have you looked into Huggle? Connormah^talk 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have. Actually, I already installed it on my computer without the proper knowledge of rollback at the time. I found out that I needed the rollback feature once I installed it (since I didn't read the documentation). It's a bit nerve-wrecking looking at the Requests for Permissions/ Rollback page. Especially knowing that I have only been registered for less than a month. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

It shouldn't be a problem for you - you have plenty of experience, and from what I can tell, you've got no pressing complaints regarding any mistakes. Good luck. Connormah^talk 20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. Connormah^talk 21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm glad we talked. You've been really helpful. I am really excited now that I have rollback permission. Thanks again. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

No problem. Connormah^talk 23:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, please allow me to draw your attention to our guideline on signatures, which requires that your signature contain at least one internal link to either your userpage or your talk page. If you could modify yours to abide by that, it would be much appreciated as it helps other editors, particularly inexperienced editors, get in touch with you. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me? I thought my signature already contains links to my user page and talk page. I visited the WP:SIG page, but I couldn't find anything that would help me. Sorry if I am doing my signatures wrong. L Kensington (talk • contribs)

I'll just leave this here...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work keeping an eye on the recent changes. ... discospinster talk 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've been online reverting vandalism tonight and it seems like every time I go to revert something, you've beaten me to it! I see you've only been an editor for less than a month, which makes your editing skill remarkable. Keep it up! GorillaWarfare talk 00:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi, I've blanked your userpage to remove a personal attack. If you want the page itself deleted, remove the <!-- and --> around {{db-u1}}, if not just make it how you want :) Pilif12p :  Yo  02:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me out, I'll request for the page to be deleted. Thanks again. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt! L Kensington (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Now, for the future (as you are a vandal fighter, you are prone to personal attacks/vandalism on your userpage), if you wish to maintain no userpage, I can request that it be create protected, to keep those vandals from creating it with personal attacks. Connormah^talk 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? That would be great! Thanks for helping me! You are a great Wikipedia contributor! L Kensington (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I'll put in a request. Connormah^talk 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So it shall be written. So it shall be  Done. --Jayron32 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, and thanks again Connormah. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you could redirect it to your talk page (or I can do it for you since it's salted) so at least it doesn't show up in red. :) I can fully protect the redirect for you if you like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. What do you think? Connormah^talk 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Viva Macau

Hello. I see that you reverted some edits I made to the Viva Macau page. As currently written, the article oversimplifies a complex situation to the point where it's somewhat misleading. In an effort to create a more balanced, accurate article, I added details that were all backed-up by reputable 3rd party external references, so I'm not sure what the issue is and look forward to your feedback. Thank you. Sdmccullough (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I rolled my revision back. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place! L Kensington (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I actually have more info about the airline that I think can help make this a more informative article (and I also spotted some other misleading statements related to the suspension of operations that I'd like to try to address) so will keep chipping away at it, but do let me know if you spot any edits that seem problematic. Sdmccullough (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go :)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've been seeing ya around on the recent changes alot, Good Work! Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

I've noticed that you have been editing Wikipedia almost around the clock for the past few days. You're doing a fine job, just be careful about not burning out, okay? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I have a horrible sleeping schedule, and I do take alot of breaks. I'm not even tired right now, and it's 3:30 in the morning. But anyways, I'm fine. Thanks for looking out for me. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly

How do you revert so quickly; I mean, how are you prompted that it's vandalism? Obviously you don't just sit around and hit the revert button? do you? 75.25.175.232 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huggle.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is just another one of your accounts Jeff? 75.25.175.232 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)