User talk:StonedChipmunk/TalkArchive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This talk page is an archive. Please post in my main talk page.
This archive is a general archive. It is no longer active. It was created on 11-07-06 and shut down on 11-14-06. All earlier posts are either in a specialized archive or were deleted.


Contents

[edit] Welcome

And by the way, since no one else seems to have done this yet ...


Welcome!

Hello, StonedChipmunk, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Newyorkbrad 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Tyvm! Already gotten this a few times (I purge my messages periodically or when the conversation is over). I know it's not good practice but I don't really need everyone to know my conversations I had a while ago. - StonedChipmunk 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
They will still be there in the page's history. Better to archive them.--Guinnog 02:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • By "archiving" do you mean copying the code into a subpage? - StonedChipmunk 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I do. Or you can move the page to a new subpage (probably better). Or there is an automated way to do it. Best wishes, --Guinnog 02:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saintstephen

I do not appreciate you accusing me of vandalism on the Saintstephen page. I did revert some vandalism, and upon looking at the history reverted to YOUR last edit, since it contained the speedy deletion tag. -- Maxberners 22:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • As I said earlier, I am sorry if the message has come to you in error. There was an error in the vandalism filter that detected that you vandalized the article, but as I was sure you were not one of the vandals I saw the last time I looked at the page's history, I wanted to be careful with it. The message on your talk page has been removed. --StonedChipmunk 23:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks -- Maxberners 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Template

Stoned, StoneIce here (we related? :)... I saw the template you used to warn Tbdorn11 and I like it. What is the code for this template? Stoneice02 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found your template page. Looks like some cool templates in there. Stoneice02 00:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. Feel free to use any of them, I add more all the time. --StonedChipmunk 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply

My message went abit wrong, sorry, what i was getting at was that:

  • i was congratulating you on your vigilance
  • I was stating that my message my have been more polite, than a standard wikipedia template.

the messages are actually one big message.

Suicidal tendancies 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No prob. Thanks for the congratulation.
    By the way, vandals usually don't go too well for politeness... and from the look of it the vandal you are talking about had a few final warnings already. (Forgive me if I'm talking about the wrong one.) --StonedChipmunk 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Warning Notice template

What is the name of this template? I haven't seen it before. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It's on my Templates page. I was sick of seeing users with, like, 10 Final Warnings. Doesn't the final warning Wikipedia template say that any more vandalism causes the user to be blocked? And then, like, 9 more final warnings follow it saying the same thing. Vandals shouldn't be given that much slack. --StonedChipmunk 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Whitman edit

I am not sure why you "warned" me (whatever that may mean) regarding my edits to Walt Whitman's main wikipedia entry. I added several relevant and referenced introductory comments about Whitman, which you later deleted and supplanted with an assertion about his alleged invention of American literature that had no citation. Please don't do that. Jstenar 21:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions

Thanks for your message.

Ok, two questions, two (fairly similar) answers.

I was wondering if it is possible to see the articles a certain template is used on.

Certainly. If you display your template, you should see at the left side, under "toolbox", a link that says "What links here". If you click this link, you'll get a list of articles which currently link to that template. It works for all articles, not just templates. It is a very handy tool.

how do you check the contributions made by a certain user?

Similarly, if you are on a user page or a user talk page (as I am now), you'll also see a link in that same toolbox called "User contributions". This is also a very useful thing to be able to do. You can use it to see everything a particular user has contributed. I always use it before warning a vandal; it will give you a very good idea whether you are looking at a good faith user who has made (what you think is) a mistaken edit, or a habitual vandal. Care must be exercised as anonymous editors (IPs) may not always be identified with the same individual over time; AOL users for example change their IP (the number that looks like 123.456.789) with almost every edit.

I really hope that helps make your editing more fun and productive. Best wishes, --Guinnog 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User warnings

Please do not use Image:Redflash.gif (or any animated image) on user warning templates, as it is distracting. Limit images to that hand icon and the exclamation mark sign, or better still use none at all – Gurch 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The problem with not including images such as these is many many times IP vandals' talk pages include 2 or more final warnings. It seems to me nobody realizes that a final warning is final. That particular use of that image was because the user continually vandalized and would not stop... adding threatening articles also, so I finally gave them a final warning... the vandalism slowed down a bit, but after adding that image they somehow suddenly noticed it and never vandalized again. I won't use animated images, but I highly disagree with not using any at all as nobody will even notice they have been given a vandalism warning (the Wikipedia template for final warning is the only one that includes an image). --StonedChipmunk 17:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User templates

Some of us suggest that these user templates are unnecessarily confrontational. Wikipedia is a community of encyclopedia editors. We caution new editors with respect and in hopes we can bring them into our community the right way. We don't want to BITE newcomers, even ones who need a little guidance.

Simply having these templates in your own userspace is problematic; users may substitute them and there is no easy way to track their use. Actually using them on anybody else's talk page is almost certainly a bad idea. Suggest you use standard warning templates for the purpose. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I highly disagree. The Wikipedia warning templates serve very little purpose.
    First, most standard warning templates do not include an image. An image like the ones above notifies the user has done something wrong and should read the message (color and visually pleasing images do catch readers' attention). However, if the message is very kind and says something like "Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read the manual of style and vandalism articles. We don't like the edits you made." and it does not even have an image at all doesn't really notify the user of much. I try to use my FirstWarning template when I see a user who has done a mild to moderate first-time vandalism issue, but for blanking pages and severely editing articles (or creating new articles made for the sole purpose of attacking someone) I sometimes use the Warning template (which is simply more severe). As you can see (if you look), the FirstWarning template includes links to articles about vandalism and such and explains that the user did something wrong and that I highly suggest that they be careful editing and try not to vandalize. What even disgusts me more is that some people will actually see someone completely ruining an article and place this on their talk page:
    Thank you for experimenting with 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.
    What is with that?? The user did not conduct a test, they vandalized. Plain and simple. I really hate to be strict, but you can't be that nice to users or they'll believe that vandalism is not that big of a deal. If you clearly show that they are going in the completely wrong direction, they are almost sure to stop.
    You may have noticed a talk page I wrote on that is discussed in the conversation above. I added very eye-catching images and (I think) gave a warning right off the bat, then a final warning. The article they made was severely disruptive and the article was attacking the user's teacher, whom he hated very much. The user copied the article multiple times and refused to let us put a Speedy Deletion or Deletion code on there (he would take it off multiple times). Now, I don't think the template I used above would work for that.
    Oh, and what is the purpose of tracking their use?
    (If you found this reply offensive, I'm extremely sorry, but I have already gotten this message 3 times and am trying to get a point across.) --StonedChipmunk 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I am posing as a crazed weasel...ignore the stuff. It is just for fun. Mr Rookles 16:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Hi again. User:StonedChipmunk/Userboxes/NancyGrace includes a fair use image. As these are only usable in article space, and only under tightly-controlled circumstances, I'm afraid it is not suitable for use in a userbox. Sorry. --Guinnog 06:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wow

My god you are quick, well done, I was just leaving a message:

Timestamped by StonedChipmunk 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on your philosophy about vandals & vandalism

It's good to see you've made it your personal mission to stop vandalism and I'm glad you are so energetic about it. A few thoughts (or perhaps constructive criticism), though:

  • I was once a vandal before I set up the account I currently use. I wasn't perhaps the worst case of a wiki-vandal, but I suppose I was blocked a couple dozen times. So I understand the vandal mentality, even though I haven't vandalised in the past couple of years (although I've been known to make a "cute" edit every couple of months or so). Thinking back to the old days, I can say that for me, the thrill wasn't the actual vandalism. Most vandals realize that their edits aren't going to last very long, For them, the thrill is the reaction to their vandalism. And then the counterstrike which may be something like placing an image of Adolf Hitler on the reverter's user page.
  • So after reading your page on vandalism, how would I have reacted had I seen it during "those days" ? I probably would have laughed and vandalised that page. And there are ways to circumvent a block (especially if one uses AOL or has a dynamic IP). And then I would have kept on vandalising it. So the mentality of let's react in a loud way is actually the very worst way of dealing with vandalism. I would have loved to see the flashing red siren on my talk page. It would have only encouraged me, not detered me. The test template you criticize ? That only bores vandals and they might just decide vandalism isn't very fun and move along.
  • Vandals know they did something wrong. You state: An image notifies the user has done something wrong and should read the message (color and visually pleasing images do catch readers' attention)." You miss the point. Attention is what the vandal craves. Going straight for a strong message on the first vandalism only increases the chances of repeated vandalism.
  • Keep in mind that the most important thing, the thing we're all here for (or should be here for) is building an encyclopedia. There will always be vandals. It goes with the territory. So we are building an encyclopedia and when it comes to vandalism, we either hope individual vandals get bored and leave or maybe (rarely) get them to stop vandalism and help build an encylopedia. Our efforts aren't meant to be punitive, but simply to do what's best for the enyclopedia. I would say that back in the day, it was the adminstrators who reacted to vandalism in the most extreme way ( the well known RickK was an example) who encouraged me to vandalise more.

So, keep up the good work in fighting vandals. I do a lot of vandal fighting myself and am effective without drawing too much attention to fighting vandals, because that, in the long run, only encourages them and I'm here to make wikipedia a good reference tool, not to spend 'all my time here fighting vandalism. Jcam 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I do think you're right. But as you said that AOL IPs and such are dynamic, I've only seen around 2 AOL IPs so far in my vandalism-fighting. I'll consider that. But, I said in the IP Editing Proposal section that IPs should not be able to edit. I know it defies the point of anyone can edit (somewhat), but an account is free and if the account does something wrong, it's easy to go from there. Dynamic IPs would not be a problem. As for the attention factor, I can't agree, but I can't disagree either. As I have never been (or tried to be) a vandal, I'm not sure what it's like, but from your description it seems like the attention would be the most important reason. I'll weave in your thoughts about this. --StonedChipmunk 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of templates on User:Cs92

I agree these are less than appropriate. I may be naive but I can't see what harm they are doing. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

We are allowed a certain latitude in what we have on our user pages, as long as it is not harming the construction of an encyclopedia, our main aim. See Wikipedia:User page. --Guinnog 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/o/User_talk%7EStonedChipmunk_TalkArchive1_3a51.html"