User talk:Drew R. Smith/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Drew R. Smith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Will to Power (band)

Hi Drew, I really owe you a big thanks for getting into this whole brouhaha. That article has needed help for quite a while, and the way it reads now looks good to me (at least I tried to be neutral), but I'd love it if other editors not affiliated with them took a look at it and trimmed it - I think if anything, it's too long now, but I'm kind of wordy :) I've never taken the time to really learn chart tables, so the one near the bottom where it lists song, peak on this chart, peak on that chart, etc looks a little lopsided. Other ones I've seen use some kind of "rowspan" command to include things like what album each single was on, which would be Will to Power for the first four and Journey Home for the last two. I may teach myself that at some point, unless you know how to fix it, in which case I don't just owe you one, I guess I would owe you two! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could probably look better, but I figured out how to adjust the column width and get the rowspan thingy to list the albums. Still, I appreciate what you've done with all this. Take care. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Their music never was more than a few swallows of "my cup of tea", either, and after all the drama I'm ready to pour the contents of the cup down the drain. I kind of liked the song "Say It's Gonna Rain" and remember hearing that in clubs years ago. If you Google the two names there's some info I found on a freestyle music blog that I didn't post here (unreliable source, not to mention somebody would have gone through the roof!) that talks about the history. It's been a vendetta by this person and his multiple accounts against her since before I found the page and I finally had enough and took it upon myself to learn more about them than I ever cared to, just to make sure the article is legit and NPOV. Again, thanks for the help. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention a couple of mountain ranges! Well, I guess those are nothing for a dragon, but for those of us plodding along on foot... I'll be curious to see what happens when the two admin-imposed "wiki breaks" expire later this week. Thanks again for your help, and happy editing! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for adopting me! --Monkeyfox (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it Night For You?

For us its 10:24! Where do you live? Programmer13 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm Sorry that your Chinese algae eater died. People can get pretty close to their pets. I should know. I'm also sorry about having no job and such. America's really in a financial crisis. Programmer13 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Me to. Seems like a pretty cool type of fish you lost there. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Me three the fish looked pretty awesome.Monkeyfox (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(I'm replying ere because so many people are talking at once)Actually, I wasn't that close. My first fish (at least, the first one I bought, and the first one in a long time. My parents got me bettas and goldfish all the time...) was a sailfin molly, who was a beautiful white male with a long sail, died at the hands of this aggressive fish. Were I to have inroduced him into a tank with something a little more suitable to handle his aggressive tendencies, then yes, I may have felt some remorse. As it stands, I had to keep him seperated from the main tank 6 out of 7 days, and had to watch closely else he would eat other fish instead of algae. I did take good care of him, I'm not a killer, but due to the large number of fish that died to him, I wasn't too upset when he died.Drew Smith What I've done 22:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Finished the task, I think

Hey Drew, did I do the pictures right? I think I did, but I'm not sure.Stormcloud22 (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

All but the 3px one was right, but everyone is having trouble with it, and I can't find the how-to now that I really need it. Go figure. We're going to move on, and when I find the page explaining it I'll show you again.Drew Smith What I've done 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done! But if you could tell me the difference between an internal and external link is, that would make things clearer.Stormcloud22 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoptees

Hi Drew, I know I'm sorry, I read above the article once I had edited and thought - oh dear, maybe I shouldn't have put that! Then when I went to revert he had already replied. :-)

SnoozingInTheLemonGrove (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blocked User request: User talk:154.20.131.164

I received your message regarding my block. I'm not sure when you say to "forward all the information", do you mean to post it here? Or is there an email method? There's not a lot of information, but it would clutter up a Talk Page. Thanks! User: Bushcutter (User talk:154.20.131.164)

RE:Adoption

Yeah it looks good. Though you may want to do something to distinguish who is talking, such as putting your comments in italics of making sure you, and your adoptees, use : to indent their comments. Feel free to link to any of my adoption help pages. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I finished it.

Thanks for that task, it teaches me a lot! I think If you hadn't assigned it I would have never read it! Thanks again, your a great tutor! Programmer13 (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC) hey can you help me create a cool userpage? Thanks. Programmer13 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Maybe you would like to automatically archive your talk page. I can see that it is getting a bit crowded. If you add the following template to the top of this talk page it will automatically archive it. Remove the stuff in square brackets.

{{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 30K |counter = 1 [THIS IS THE NUMBER THE ARCHIVING STARTS AT] |algo = old(20d) [THIS IS HOW OLD SECTIONS HAVE TO BE BEFORE THEY ARE ARCHIVED. AT PRESENT THIS IS SET AT 20 DAYS] |archive = User talk:Drew R. Smith/Archive %(counter)d }}

I hope this helps! Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 22:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

I've been waiting 10 hours for you! Can I have my next task, I'm eager to keep going! Programmer13 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Also, I created a article, what do you think? Jatropha Berlandieri, Again, Welcome back! Programmer13 (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Finished

I'm done with the next task. Programmer13 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For the DYK

I'll you know if I find anything interesting about it. Monkeyfox (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!

I meant to put my task here, not There

Just wondering

Have you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? If not, you should.Stormcloud22 (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Life always seems to work like that. If you can get your hands on it, I suggest you give it a try. And about the "judging a book by its cover", you probably would treat me pretty different if you met me in real life. That's true for anyone on wikipedia, or the internet in general. In real life we judge people by their appearance, whereas here, we can't do that.Stormcloud22 (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done both tasks on my page.Stormcloud22 (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering...

I created an article already, do I have to make another for my next task? Programmer13 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For my fish article

I wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what needs improvement, also if you can help me find a picture of my fish that is able to be uploaded? Monkeyfox (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

so!

What's my next task? Programmer13 (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Time

I am often on during the afternoon, and you said you live in hawaii, which i believe is twelve hours behind me. So logically, if i am on at six at night, you are on at six in the morning. i know i'm addicted to wikipedia, but at least i sleep... Stormcloud22 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I try not to judge people based on their looks either, but that's tough to do in real life. Here, it's a lot easier. Haha about the "drop dead gorgeous" thing. Not even close. But I think you're right. Looks and age and stuff like that shouldn't matter.Stormcloud22 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your guess is correct (for me, at least) but I don't want to give out too much personal info, so I will neither confirm or deny any other guesses made about me. If you want info, look at my user page. You can probably figure out a lot about me just by looking at my interests, and that's true for everyone.Stormcloud22 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm done the task.Stormcloud22 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Uikopdep

He's the sock of a banned user, and this new sock account has been used to harass other users, such as myself. He isn't using the account to write an encyclopedia, he's using it to harass people. It's a fine reason. Please see this for more information.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the admin meant to say what the other admin said on yesterday's sock, "not here to write articles." That wording would have been clearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew what he meant right away, but only because it was deja vu from the previous night. He could have been clearer in stating the reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Just keep in mind that your sig should be 255 characters or less (see WP:SIG#Length), to prevent filling up the edit window. The link to Linkin Park seems unnecessary, imo, and is what's dragging it above the guideline. –xeno ^talk 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A friendly warning

Drew,

You could be seen as being incivil at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab in some of your comments, like when you claim 'skimming for keywords and didn't read his post at all'. That is possibly even a personal attack, as you're implying laziness and ignorance.

In your shoes, I would be more careful in order to ensure that I would not be personally criticising/attacking users. Computerjoe 's talk 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's close to the line. Just be careful. Computerjoe 's talk 06:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Done

Programmer13 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But...

Why would I make my article B-Class fish if my article is about plants? Programmer13 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find it

I can't find were you send in your articles! Programmer13 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

comment

was your comment on Rootology's talk page intended to be sarcastic? Either way I suggest you remove it or clarify. Viridae ^Talk 02:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:WikiProject_User_Rehab

Drew,

I have mentioned you in a Wikiquette alert. Our recent discussion made me think a third opinion may be required.

Thanks. Computerjoe 's talk 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I picked the worst topic

This plant is so rare/boring! I can't even find a picture of it! How far until my article is B-Class?
Not being nosy or anything, but what is with this?
Programmer13 (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How?

I don't know how to send in my article! I got to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment,but how do they know my article is B-Class or not!? Programmer13 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

My fish article.

Can you grade it real quick, also I'll not be on Wikipedia until Monday EST. Monkeyfox (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC) What else should I link to? Monkeyfox (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Drew R. Smith. You have new messages at Jennavecia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

لenna vecia 19:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my post at Jenna's page. I have added a further brief reply. Best wishes.21:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I Think I'm Ready

I think my article is B-Class, can you grade me? I base my information on this
Programmer13 (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey.

1. Is my article B-Class now?

2. This guy named porkchop28 put something on your user page that desurves to be on tour talk. I know I did that, but that was an accident! I think you should accept him, you are an awesome tutor. Programmer13 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you on?

You've been on in my afternoon, you usually arn't on when I am. Programmer13 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

3/iii

Sorry for the confusion about my name. I rarely use Wikipedia and so I must have created one account, forgot about it, and created the next best matching name years later. I agree it does look suspicious but Wikipedia's been around for a while so people can forget they registered usernames. I was wondering why I had so few edits attributed to my name.Mangalaiii (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How do I drop the other username?Mangalaiii (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I didn't notice which one I was signed in with. Firefox defaults to one while I may have logged into a different account when I sometimes use Google Chrome (less tab confusion). Plus there's no reason why I would want to use two different names because I wanted the controversy I was reporting to you to be recognized by the work I was doing with one username. Two usernames would have only confused you about resolving my problemMangalaiii (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Lupin's, eh? Haven't seen many people use it in a while. I've given you rollback after a scan of your reverts. You can test it out here. Remember not to rollback good-faith edits. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people I've known recently use TW before Huggle. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE. I personally don't use any anti-vandal tools, so I really can't make a judgment. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for undermining the project

Thanks for undermining the project. It has been hampered by the MfD, and your comments have ended up helping those who wish to stop it developing into its full potential for good. You're on your own. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My discouraged comment above is definitely NOT a "handing of the reigns" to you. "You're" is a collective/generic "you". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined Speedy Deletion: Fuck (band)

Hello Drew R. Smith, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined your speedy deletion tag on Fuck (band) because Criterion A7 does not apply: the article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any queries, please let me know. Ale_Jrb ^talk 10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Gregg's (New Zealand)

It took you three minutes between my first start on this article and your nomination for deletion. Speaking as a regular new pages patroller, may I say that this is the reason why we are told to start patrolling with the earliest pages on the list - it gives people time to reference articles that are thoroughly beyond the non-notable level. If an article is that new, a quick google-search should indicate whether it's likely that the company is notable or a reference is likely to be forthcoming ("Greggs' + "New Zealand" + "coffee" registers 137,000 ghits). Luckily, another New Zealand NPP regular editor spotted your addition of the speedy template and removed it, and the article has already been nominated for New Zealand collaboration of the month. In future, please give editors a chance to improve works where there is any chance that an article is likely to be non-speediable. It should be obvious which articles can go instantly (things made up at school and autobiographies of eight year olds, to start with) and which are not, and any article which claims any form of notability (operating continuously since 1861 in a country that was only settled in 1840 is inherently notable) is not speediable. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

S'alright - it happens. I didn't know that huggle went for the newer articles. Still worth waiting a few minutes with ones like this, though (and Gregg's isn't a restaurant - it's a coffee manufacturer). FWIW, the article's already considerably larger than it was. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Why did you revert my edit to List of Quest for Glory characters? It was not unconstructive; I changed "narcissistic" to "self-centered" because I did not think that "narcissistic" was the proper word to have in that sentence and I left a detailed edit summary explaining why. 72.94.47.127 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Self centered violates WP:NPOV. Drew Smith What I've done 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Drew. I just came to your talk page because I noticed that you've been rolling back edits simply because you disagree with them. This is highly inappropriate, and I must ask that you cease this behavior immediately.

Only unambiguously inappropriate edits for which the reversion rationale is self-evident (such as vandalism and misplaced tests) should be rolled back. Any other reversion should bear a custom edit summary and should not be labeled "minor."

Regarding the reversion cited above, I don't understand your logic. User:72.94.47.127 provided a sensible explanation for the change, which you inexplicably treated as vandalism. I'm baffled as to how the description of a fictional character as "self-centered" violates WP:NPOV, and I'm equally puzzled by your belief that using the term "narcissistic" somehow avoids whatever violation you believe exists when "self-centered" is used instead.

The image change at Template:Test4 is another example of an edit that should not have been rolled back, and it's quite troubling that you responded to the user's inquiry as to why you reverted by removing the message from your talk page. While I agree that the template edit warranted reversion and the user's subsequent conduct on this page was disruptive, a simple explanation (either at the time or when the user requested one) might have prevented this unpleasant incident from occurring. —David Levy 05:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not use rollback, but simply reverted. And on the second occasion I akcnowledged that the user may have had a legitimate reason for editing, however I saw a change to an established template, and thought it was vandalism. Drew Smith What I've done 05:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not referring to the MediaWiki rollback feature; I'm referring to the act of rolling back an edit (performing a reversion that contains no custom edit summary and is labeled "minor"). The technical method through which this is accomplished is irrelevant, as the end result is the same.

2. What led you to believe that a simple change from one stop hand icon to another (complete with an edit summary documenting the change) was vandalism? And when/where did you acknowledge that you might have been mistaken? When the user protested your reversion, you removed the message without explanation.

3. Please address the List of Quest for Glory characters situation and the broader issue (your tendency to roll back edits that you simply disagree with). —David Levy 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also see that you've been rolling back good-faith edits at The Used (in an edit war that has brought you up to three reversions in the span of an hour). Again, you must cease this behavior. No matter who's right and who's wrong, it is never appropriate to roll back edits as part of a content dispute. —David Levy 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<----I have every right to remove things from my talk page. Usually removing messages from a talk page is considered an aknowledgement. I didnt know that it was changing one hand to another. I saw the addition of a single word, and thought it was vandalism.Drew Smith What I've done 06:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your right to remove messages from your talk page, and I've plainly stated that the user's subsequent actions were disruptive. However, you stated above that you "acknowledged that the user may have had a legitimate reason for editing," and I do not see such an acknowledgment. (Removing the message merely acknowledged that you received it.) I understand that you mistook the edit for vandalism, but upon realizing your error, you owed the user an explanation. If you are unwilling to address legitimate complaints that arise from your rollbacks, you mustn't perform them in the first place. (I realize, of course, that most of your rollbacks are entirely valid.)

I await your response to the remainder of my comments. —David Levy 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My response was to stop reverting.Drew Smith What I've done 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? Do you acknowledge that it was inappropriate to roll back edits simply because you disagreed with them? Do you intend to address future good-faith complaints stemming from your rollbacks?

I also would appreciate a response regarding the List of Quest for Glory characters situation. —David Levy 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't because I disagreed with it. I thought it vandalism. And no, I will not address future issues. If someone has a legitamate complaint, I will simply cease reverting. In quest for glory my edit was made to remove POV terms.Drew Smith What I've done 06:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding your rollback of edits simply because you disagree with them, I'm not referring to the template. I'm referring to such edits as those to List of Quest for Glory characters and The Used. When reverting a good-faith, non-test edit that you regard as inappropriate (because it violates a policy or otherwise lowers an article's quality), you should include a custom edit summary explaining your concern, and you should not label your reversion "minor." (See Help:Minor edit for an explanation of why.) If someone violates WP:NPOV or another policy, state that in the edit summary. Do not treat the edit as vandalism (unless there is ample evidence that the user is acting in bad faith).

2. You haven't explained how the term "self-centered" violates WP:NPOV or how the use of the term "narcissistic" avoids the alleged infraction.

But again, even if your assessment was correct, it was inappropriate to roll back the edit instead of supplying an explanatory edit summary (without labeling the reversion "minor").

3. As you have continued to defend your misconduct and have explicitly stated that you will not address legitimate complaints that arise in the future, I have revoked your MediaWiki rollback feature permission. I look forward to reinstating it when you are willing to handle the tool responsibly. In the meantime, please refrain from emulating its functionality via the use of scripts (such as Huggle). —David Levy 07:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<---- Do you ever listen? I acknowledged the not so legitimate complaint via not re-reverting it. I was in the middle of other things, and didn't want to take the time to respond to a purported sock. As you can see above, when I was questioned about a prod, I answered, but that was a legitimate complaint, by a legitimate user. Furthermore, usually warnings are given before retracting any rights, whether they be admin, rollback, or whatever. I have recieved no warnings.Drew Smith What I've done 08:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue is not limited to a specific incident. You noted above that you "will not address future issues" and further stated that "if someone has a legitimate complaint, [you] will simply cease reverting." That is unacceptable. When rolling back edits, willingness to communicate is essential. If you are unwilling to address legitimate complaints that arise (by explaining why you rolled back the edits in question), you should not be rolling back edits in the first place.

Furthermore, you still haven't acknowledged that it's inappropriate to roll back edits as part of a content dispute. It is equally essential for users engaged in rollback to understand that and refrain from committing such abuse.

Upon granting your request for rollback permission yesterday, Bibliomaniac15 reminded you "not to rollback good-faith edits" (something explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Rollback feature, where it is explained in bold red text that "misuse of rollback may cause the feature to be revoked by an administrator"), and you promptly proceeded to roll back good-faith edits anyway (and then attempted to defend this behavior on the technicality that the rollbacks in question were performed via a different tool).

Nonetheless, I repeatedly warned you to refrain from engaging in such conduct and gave you every opportunity to acknowledge the problem and agree to rectify it. Unfortunately, you refused to do so. But as stated above, I'll gladly reinstate the rollback permission if you promise to use the tool responsibly. —David Levy 08:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will use the tool responsibly, however in my defence I need to say two things. 1)I was unaware that removing the addition of POV words was against rollback policies. I won't do this again. 2)I didn't know huggle used rollback, as it said revert which is compeletely different. Again, I won't do it again.Drew Smith What I've done 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You need to understand that rollback is a type of reversion and that the technical means through which a reversion is performed is irrelevant. It would be equally inappropriate to revert an edit in a content dispute by manually restoring the page's previous text, ticking the "This is a minor edit" checkbox and typing the summary "Reverted edits by [name] to last revision by [name]." This would accomplish exactly the same effect as the use of the rollback feature, which we place restrictions on because it facilitates such actions (not because it somehow alters the actual reversions' nature).

2. Thank you for agreeing to refrain from performing inappropriate rollbacks. Do you also agree to address legitimate complaints that arise? (Note that I'm referring strictly to complaints with actual merit, not those from vandals who object when you revert their vandalism.) —David Levy 09:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, the addition of kicked out, looks very much like vandalism.Drew Smith What I've done 08:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By definition, vandalism is performed in bad faith. I see no evidence of a motive for that text's addition other than the honest, good-faith belief that the musician in question was expelled from the band. The issue of whether that claim is accurate and should be included in the article (and whether "kicked out" is appropriate terminology) is a content dispute. Rollbacks should never be performed as part of a content dispute. —David Levy 09:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonono, I agree, rollback shouldn't be used in content dispute, however I saw "kicked out" and thought some kid doesn't like that guy and changed "left" to "kicked out". Yep thats vandalism. However, when he messaged me, I talked it out with him, and we came to a compromise. Yes, when a legitimate user has a legitimate complaint I will address it.Drew Smith What I've done 09:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Drew! I've reinstated your rollback permission. Please use the tool with great care. —David Levy 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :)Drew Smith What I've done 09:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Used

Branden was kicked out of the band, he did not leave. Please read the source for confirmation thanks. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

saying he left is false information. saying he was kicked out is correct. there is no POV here. he was kicked out and it is properly soruced. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brandens blog direct quoted him as kicked out. but blogs can't be sources. but branden himself said he was kicked out and that site announced what he said. we can't say left the band because the band did not qoute that either. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying he wasn't kicked out? Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a source you don't, you can't say he left unless you can prove it. my source is reliable and there are 2 sources there. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Its better then then yours since you dont even have one. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is pointless. This editor is banned user USEDfan, per WP:BAN his edits are not welcome here. Doesn't really matter what the content of the edits are, either way he is a banned user. I will be alerting the checkuser that last dealt with USEDfan shortly. Landon1980 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Marques Houston

I semi-protected it because it looks like the vandalism is being done by new accounts. I've got the page on my watchlist, but let me know if the vandalism continues and I'll full protect. Dreadstar † 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the reason I requested full was because they weren't IPs, so I thought a semi wouldn't cover it...Drew Smith What I've done 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

121.7.5.101

Hi, thanks for reporting this vandal. Huggle isn't lettng me report him, is it broken? F (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I honsetly I have no idea. It wouldnt let me warn him or report him because it said he was already blocked, so I had to do it manually.Drew Smith What I've done 10:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was confused as that user keeps on editing even though Huggle says it was blocked. Maybe it didn't check the block expired? I'll report this at the Huggle page. F (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He'll be laughing all the way down the block. For three days.Drew Smith What I've done 10:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:EAR

Hey Drew. On EAR, the new template is Template:ear, which can be used for all threads (see the documentation on that page). Could you make sure to add your signature (as described on the template page) so that it is clear how long things have been tagged? Thanks. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 11:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. I like the old template better, less confusing. But oh well.Drew Smith What I've done 11:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AIV reports

Can you try to wait until the user/IP is warned with at least a level 3/4 before reporting? (You can of course start at an elevated number of warnings if it's severe etc.) -- Menti fisto 13:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk.Drew Smith What I've done 13:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well, I was thinking of this report. Yes, you don't generally do it. -- Menti fisto 13:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to show that your vandalism fighting is noticed

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I read what happened to you and just wanted to let you know that your vandalism fighting is appreciated. Its not easy being the good guy sometimes. Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rollback, etc.

The only time I use rollback is when it's obvious vandalism, as per the rollback rules - and that's a very short list. One is when they post stupid stuff like "Hi!" or some random comment or obscenity. Zap. Roll back. The other is when they delete a section or some random portion and provide no explanation. Roll back again. If there's any doubt, I use the conventional approach of going back to a previous version and saying something in the edit summary. As far as warnings go, if a given bit of vandalism is done by an IP address and it's their one and only entry, my personal approach (and this may or may not be the recommended approach) is to do nothing, for fear it will only encourage them. If they do it more than once, warn them. If they keep doing it, report them to AIV and let an admin decide what to do. If it's a registered user, they will probably (though not always) block without question. If it's an IP, they tend to be more cautious because the IP address can float. If they reject it, then you have to keep watching and warning and eventually they will issue a block. IP's are never indef'd, but if it's coming from a school, they might issue a lengthy block that will take them through the semester or through the summer. That's always a judgment call on the part of the admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? They give longer blocks becaues it's a school? I never knew that. I guess that would make sense....Drew Smith What I've done 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless an IP address is known to either be fixed, or is an open proxy situation, blocks are usually fairly short, just to basically make the specific vandal go away. If he goes to the computer in the next cubicle at the library and does the same thing, a range block might be needed. I've often seen a "school block" where the IP is known to be at a school and they block it for months at a time or even a year. That's relatively unusual, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threating IP

Already takin care of. --Abce2|AccessDenied 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your wikipedia have weird font too?

My font suddenly changed. Do you know why?Stormcloud22 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine seems to have changed also, and I can't figure out why. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine is normal. Can you send me a screenshot and link to the pages these appear on?Drew Smith What I've done 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dixon

Thank you for experimenting with the page Steve Dixon on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Rgds, --86.138.220.130 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF? I never touched that in my life!Drew Smith What I've done 22:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cocks tastes good = Kaksteis guud

You said: "Do you have a source for this? Otherwise it needs to be removed immediatly"

No, I haven't a source for this because I talk Estonian very well! --91.156.168.23 (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 91.156.168.23

Your recent edits to my talk page

I have removed the profane content from the header of your post. I also have set it to be archived immediately by my archive bot. I have seen your apology and it is accepted. In the future, refrain form making humorous posts to vandals talk page. Thanks. T3chl0v3r (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)