User talk:The Pikachu Who Dared
False Warnings? 12/2/11
[edit]I've noticed you've been handing out vague warnings to various wikipedia users, and that your first edit was on December 2nd, 2011. As I did not do anything to warrant this warning, and a lot of other people you have labeled as "possible vandals" probably havent either. You never took the time to explain the nature of the edit you have a problem with. If you think someone is a vandal, leave it to the admins to weed them out, and if you are an admin, please state the reason behind your suspicion. Thanks. 97.90.227.229 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, I have reasons for my warnings, and they are NOT false. One of them includes somebody modifying already-acceptable content. Second, somebody deleted content that had no negative qualities to it, which can be considered as unnecessary deletion of content. Third, are you even an admin? Admins are available to modify any article, but since YOU'RE an IP address, you can only modify articles with no protection. Tell me, have you even dealt with vandalism? I've checked your user contributions, and it seems you haven't. Penny for your thoughts, my friend? The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, this is my account, so I'M NOT just an IP address, I merely forgot to log in. Just because I was under an IP address doesnt give you the right to label me as a "vandal", because I work just as hard as you do (if not harder as you just made your account today). I mean no disrespect towards you, but if you're going to hand out warnings, hand them out to someone who actually deserves to be warned, someone who blanks pages to put "___ was here" or something stupid. I've been editing since 2007, so whenever I catch vandalism I revert it obviously. Are you an admin, because you appear to be a regular user. Have you ever dealt with real vandalism? I've checked your contribs and you have a few times, but the rest are just vague warnings and "possible" vandal suspicions. Please specify next time you give someone a warning, as "already acceptable content" doesn't cut it. What article? What section? etc. Again, food for thought. EDIT I saw the edit you made to Armed and Dangerous, and I see what you mean by "vandalism" which I hardly count deleting the Recorded time period when it is unsourced and probably inaccurate. I am a HUGE Anthrax fan so therefore would not vandalize their page. TJD2 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| You had a bit of a rough start, but you're catching on to the real vandalism at hand. Keep up the good work. TJD2 (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
Not vandalism
[edit]Read WP:VANDALISM and be more careful when tagging edits as such. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for the advice! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
May Not Have Been Vandalism Either
[edit]Just curious about your tagging of the edit of actress Robin Bartlett by 206.74.132.31 as vandalization. Was the objection to the identification of a character that she portrayed as being a "lesbian" because it wasn't sourced properly, or was it just because of a homophobic objection to the phrase "lesbian"? The character of Debbie Buchman was indeed a lesbian, and while I can understand if your objection to the inclusion of this information is along the lines of, "...if she was straight, we wouldn't identify her as the 'straight' sister of Paul Buchman," I do feel that adding this information does add to the information and completeness of Ms. Bartlett's Wikipedia entry. Or was your objection merely to the edit having been done by an anonymous IP address rather than a registered user? After seeing here that you apparently have had a history of previous accusations of false warnings and vandalism tags handed out, like the above poster, I too would encourage you to be careful about labeling something "vandalism" if you are unsure. Just because you may or may not agree with an actual or merely perceived slant of a particular edit does not necessarily make it vandalism. ROB 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thing is, was she ACTUALLY a lesbian? The Pikachu Who Dared (talk / contribs) 22:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- The character? Yes. If you look at the 'Mad About You' wikipedia entry, it even lists actress Suzie Plakson as playing Dr. Joan Golfinos, Debbie Buchman's "life partner". In fact, only if the character wasn't a lesbian, I would argue, would be the only way that that edit could even possibly be considered vandalism. At worse, you could possibly say it may have been unnecessary. But since it was true, not only is it not vandalism, I would argue it was a constructive addition to the entry. ROB 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I meant if she was a lesbian in real life. The Pikachu Who Dared (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. I mean, actually I don't know. According to the entry, she was previously married to a man. But it's not really relevant, the edit was just about the character. ROB 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Thank you! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk / contribs) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. I mean, actually I don't know. According to the entry, she was previously married to a man. But it's not really relevant, the edit was just about the character. ROB 01:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I meant if she was a lesbian in real life. The Pikachu Who Dared (talk / contribs) 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- The character? Yes. If you look at the 'Mad About You' wikipedia entry, it even lists actress Suzie Plakson as playing Dr. Joan Golfinos, Debbie Buchman's "life partner". In fact, only if the character wasn't a lesbian, I would argue, would be the only way that that edit could even possibly be considered vandalism. At worse, you could possibly say it may have been unnecessary. But since it was true, not only is it not vandalism, I would argue it was a constructive addition to the entry. ROB 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Test
[edit]I am currently running a test, 67.82.222.225 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Seriously, it's me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.222.225 (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)