User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Thanks for commenting on my RFA

Thank you for commenting on my RFA, which was withdrawn. Whether you supported or opposed, I thank you for the suggestions for improvement. Marlith T/C 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalizing the "Pearl of Lao Tzu"

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Pearl of Lao Tzu, you will be blocked from editing. AFUSCO 11:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please learn the meaning of Vandalism before making future revisions and comments. To benefit your knowledge of such, the following is offered:

The Wikipedia definition of Vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

What is not Vandalism:

Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. 204.193.117.66 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in case you haven't noticed wikipedia is vandalized a lot, and your edit appeared to be vandalism. I am going to AGF but i think you should use the edit summary to avoid future misunderstandings--AFUSCO 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kings school senior edit

My edit on this article was not vandalism, the article in it's current state is poor and biased. The previous version is more balanced but still requires work. As a schools inspector I have good knowledge of this school. Please don't revert again without reading what is there. --Richmondman 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Constructions edit

The information I removed from the Constructicons page was moved to Devastator (Transformers). It was NOT vandalism. Mathewignash 22:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My Edit...

My edit was not vandalism.. it was redirecting a page. Look more clearly next time. RedEyesMetal 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with AFUSCO that a new page for Neliel was not needed, RedEyesMetal's edits were not vandalism. Please assume good faith with other editors, and treat their edits, whatever your personal opinions on them are, as legitimate unless they are indeed vandalism. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, RedEyes, use an edit summary next time. –Gunslinger47 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hidden pages

Hi! Just saw your barnstars from finding secret pages. You could consider finding mine. Thank you.--Vintei 22:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversions & templating at Binational solution

You reverted ([1]) edits of User:Firstamend) with the summary "Reverted 4 edits by Firstamend identified as vandalism to last revision by Jaakobou." and marked your reversion minor. Subsequently, you sent Firstamend a user warning template informing him that his actions "did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed".

It appears obvious that no question of "vandalism" was involved, and that your edits were in no way minor. Can you explain why you did this? Was it an accident? <eleland/talkedits> 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A script you might like

If you were to get Firefox, I believe you'll like this script at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Friendly since you like to welcome new users. Thanks! Marlith T/C 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I hope that your issues are resolved and you come back soon! Marlith T/C 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For all your hard work in fighting vandalism! Subdolous (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar--Alexfusco5 16:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollywood films

Hello. I just saw that you reverted Blofeld's edits to my version. All the Bollywood films are being split into years so that it would be easier for users to gain access to the films. Its under construction right now. Im gradually adding the films and all the relevant years. Just thought might want to know. Kind regards. -- Pa7 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info but edits that remove content without a valid edit summary are suspicious especially with all the vandalism on wikipedia Alexfusco5 18:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I thought it might be better to inform you about it. Happy editing. -- Pa7 18:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes mostly I do use edit summaries and usually say split but I figured people would see what is happening also as the new pages section is littered by the split pages. I thought you might have known I wasn't a vandal. But good to know you are on your toes. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again i apologize for the misunderstanding it is just easier to determine vandalism from good edits with summaries Alexfusco5 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

About 2000 edits in a month

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This editor edits like there is no tomorrow. Never tiring, always fighting. This user deserves this barnstar. Marlith T/C 05:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
And you ought to take the test at [2]. Marlith T/C 05:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Why did you delete my article on J-Dizzle. (sorry I don't know how to send you a message)
First, a late thanks to Marlith for the Barnstar. Now the article on J-Dizzle was not deleted by me, i just tagged it for speedy deletion, Under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion and an admin deleted it. Also to send a message, click the little plus sign next to the edit link and remember to always sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) :)Alexfusco5 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, now, let us finish the fight. Marlith T/C 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't do vandalism templates

I don't do templates for vandalism. I've been told it's better to construct a message than to slap a template anyways, but thanks for the note. Mr Which??? 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the templates but please try to AGF Alexfusco5 02:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to assume good faith when the vandalism included "poopy butt hole" or whatever it was. What possible good faith good the vandal have been demonstrating? Mr Which??? 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't undercut my "only warning" message with a "final warning" template when they vandalize again. This makes both us and WP look rather weak and indecisive when dealing with vandals. After an "only warning", the matter should be AIV's. Mr Which??? 02:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand but please try to give a warning like {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}} first. If it is Blatant try giving a warning like {{uw-bv}}. Also please try to direct new users towards the Sandbox when warning them Alexfusco5 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that templates are pointless when dealing with a vandal that blanks sections and leaves a message reading "poopy face butt hole." One warning (non-templated) suffices in these cases. And no, I won't be pointing a vandal that leaves "poopy face butt hole" in place of a section at Emily Dickinson to the sandbox, per common sense as well. Mr Which??? 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am speaking in general, not just this situation. However, I stand by WP:AGF Alexfusco5 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You can "stand by" it all you want. It doesn't apply to vandals who blank sections of a major article like Dickinson with a "poopy face butt hole" message. Common sense trumps AGF in that case. Wow. This conversation has been a bit pointless. Mr Which??? 02:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An AIV report would probably be declined Alexfusco5 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It would now that you placed a second warning. If I had gone when the vandalism was done again, the "poopy face butt hole" vandal would now be blocked. Instead, you left a second warning, which directly conflicted with my "only" language of my warning. Where was the assumption of good faith there? I, in good faith, gave the vandal an only warning. You trumped me with a "final warning template", overriding me, and assuming bad faith on my part. Anyways, do what you want, and I'll do what I want. Both of us are attempting to fight vandals. I would ask that you not template someone after I've taken the time to craft a personal only warning, but other than that, happy vandal fighting to you. Regards, Mr Which??? 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

<-----undent

That's the problem with templates, Alex. Not everyone thinks they're a good idea in all cases (I use them only for deletion notices), so misunderstandings happen when a templater "rewarns" an already-warned vandal. It appeared to me that you were not assuming good faith on my part, when you rewarned the IP after my "only warning" message. If that appearance was mistaken -- and it seems it was -- I'm sorry it upset you. I'm also sorry that our interaction started off on such rough footing. Regards, Mr Which??? 13:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Advice re vandalism & thanks

I am a newbie editor, and have just had the experience of having ~10 KB of work on particle accelerators trashed by an unregistered editor. I see you have helped with some of the reversions, and wanted to thank you. Also, do you have any general suggestions about dealing with such situations? I guess I need to learn how to revert to earlier editions, but otherwise? I did report to ClueBot's talk page and copied much of that to the article discussion page. Anything more to do?

Thanks again.... Wwheaton (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to revert. One is tho click the undo button, scroll down and click save. This however is difficult for reverting more than one revision. A second way is to click on the last "good" revision, click edit and save the old revision. The last (and the version i use) is to install anti-vandalism tools like WP:TW. Click the link for more information on twinkle, just make sure you have firefox. Lastly, when you revert vandalism remember to place the appropriate warning template on the users talk page. If you install WP:TW like me when you click the 'warn' tab that will appear near the watch, history, and move tabs it will give you a list of templates to place on the users page Alexfusco5 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

About your revert

Why are you welcoming me to wikipedia? i am not a new member. also, please go back to the company page to review the changes i made. if you were looking on the talk page, you would have noticed that both myself and the editor who's change you reverted back to, both agreed for me to make a couple of changes. i was basically reorganizing the list. please visit the discussion board in the future to discuss any major changes or reverts before they are made. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but edits that remove text without a reason in the edit summary 9 times out of 10 is vandalism Alexfusco5 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

please take better care in the future of identifying vandalism, because your revert can damage my reputation as a contributor. secondly, i didnt use a edit summary because the changes were already agreed upon on the talk page. i would hope that you would do a better job policing users in the future. i did not remove text, i moved it to another space on the page. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I think you may find this essay helpful. Templating regular contributors can often offend them, as it did in this case. Mr Which??? 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

vandalism/spam

Thanks for the message, I realize what you mean, but all I do is put a strike through the text, because some pages can be full of racist abuse, and when I strike it, it looks better untin an admin can delete the page.

thanks, Cf38 (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

cradle of liberty dispute

Why are my repeated removals of an unsupported sentence considered "vandalism", while repeated reinsertions are not? The cite given has nothing to do with the unsupported sentence. My removals are commented, while the repeated reinsertions are not. But I'm the vandal? Brian Westley (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

your summary said the statement was uncited however there was a citation Alexfusco5 15:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit to The Moon Is Blue

Arrggh, I was looking through old versions trying to spot when and how the phrase "Catholic censorship" was introduced and mistakenly made my one-word edit to a version from somewhere around May of 2006. Mea culpa. ;-) . I'll reintroduce the change. --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mr. Fusco, please refrain from accusing people of vandalism. Please check their edit history before doing so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guppywon (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry however 99% of edits that remove content without an edit summary are vandalism. I apologize for inconvenience but wikipedia is vandalized a lot Alexfusco5 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

11-24-2007: Yes, please refrain from accusing people of vandalism. I added a wiki list to a page and you deleted it and accused me of vandalism. Sounds like you are the vandal.

Gisele Bündchen Stock Index

A study did for Fred Fuld, an American economist, specialist in finances and market, identified a biggest profit in every enterprise wich image is associated with the supermodel Gisele Bündchen's face, creating the Gisele Bündchen Stock Index, refering to the Dow Jones Stock Index from New York. The objective is to prove the great impact resultant with the correct choise of a person to publicize a brand, causing a enterprise's valorization in all market.[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.48.2 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add this contribution Mr. Alexfusco5

Article : Hannah Montana 2: Rockstar Edition

I removed the speedy you placed on this article and redirected it to Hannah Montana 2: Rock Star Edition instead. Hope you don't mind :) ARendedWinter 19:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i was wondering why there was no article for it but there was no context Alexfusco5 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...

Marlith T/C has passed you the WikiJoint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?

Marlith T/C 05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Richard Wilson (1759-1834)

- Please would you remove the templates you put on the above page, as

- 1 "The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject." The Introduction (and the whole article considering it's length) state the name of the person, his date of birth and death, and what he was notable for. That's hardly insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.

- 2 "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it." I already put a "Stub" marker there, the above template is overkill.

- 3 "This article needs more relevant internal links to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article by adding useful internal links." There are links to Member of Parliament, Ipswich, Parliament of Great Britain, Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency), Sir Andrew Hamond, 1st Baronet, William Middleton, Robert Stopford and Sir Home Riggs Popham. In a sixteen word stub I'd say that was pretty good going wouldn't you?

- 4 "This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." The whole article consists of 16 words, 8 internal links, a succession box and 5 categories - How much more wikified can an article that short be? - Thanks for taking time to read this Jcuk (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

how do you delete the wikipedia account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulplaya 63 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

how do yoU delete wiki akkount?

Falcău and Sadău Rivers

You have tagged the stubs for these river articles. They are part of the Wiki River Project. For the time being the structure of the hydrographic network is set up to indicate the links between the rivers. Thereafter there will be other information added. Stubs do not have chapters and for an article of this size it is unclear what more indications you deem necessary. I really do not see at this stage why a direct link at the end of each phrase would help. I am willing to take care of your concerns if you could explain why these two rivers should be treated differently than the rest of the project's river. Work on this project has been going on for nearly a year. What's new?Afil (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i was trying to flag the articles down for improvement Alexfusco5 22:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Try slowing down a bit

You're editing rather quickly, and apparently not with much knowledge of what you're editing, nor of how tags are to be used. Take Ascunsu River - what could possibly motivate you to add five tags to the article? "Insufficient context"? The article tells you what it is and where it is. That's context. "Needs expansion"? This is what stub templates are for. "Needs more internal links"? No, it doesn't. All relevant terms are linked. What would you propose linking? "Needs inline references?" It's one sentence. You do not need a <ref> tag for a one sentence article. "Sections needed"? How, exactly, do you propose dividing a one sentence article into sections? This was only one of your edits, I'm sure if I looked over all of them I'd find many more such mistakes. So, please slow down, and think about your edits; Wikipedia isn't a race. Picaroon (t) 23:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not racing, but when it is expanded it should be into sections and have references. I understand your point and will gladly slow down Alexfusco5 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Electoral results articles

Whoa, that was quick work with some of those templates! In a list of election results, in-text citations aren't really possible or practical. I have removed these templates but left the context ones until I hear from you: I would say that the maximum amount of context has been provided (including a members list) and that if any further information is required, the main article for the electorate would be a better place to look. Cheers. Frickeg (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Great but more context would improve the article Alexfusco5 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vand on my userpage.KnowledgeHegemony 11:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Alexfusco5 14:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor Review

I have given you an editor review. I hope it helps. Thanks! Marlith T/C 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I have answered your questions Alexfusco5 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Division of Macquarie

It wasn't vandalism - due to the redistribution the electorate no longer covers that area. PMA (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that but edits that remove content without an edit summary are usually vandalism Alexfusco5 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break Edit

I work on the show and i currently know that Prison Break Cherry Hill is only a rumor and the only thing that has been evolved is the name. no characters, stories, or anything else has been created. no one is writing or directing the pilot for the supposed spin-off, so i erased the blurb in the wiki page. and i will keep doing it til everyone knows PB:CH isnt happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.157.106 (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok just use the Edit Summary next time Alexfusco5 18:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Alex, you were actually right on this. The test isn't whether it's true, but whether it's verifiable. And this IP's deletions constitute original research. The fact that Fox is considering a spin-off, is verifiable, per The Hollywood Reporter, while this IP's assertions are his original research from supposedly working on the show. You were correct in your revert. Mr Which??? 21:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Alexfusco5 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It was pretty cut-and-dried. I left a short note on his talkpage, basically gently warning him that the threats to continually revert could be construed as disruption. Mr Which??? 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for informing the IP about this and I would like to apologize for the previous misunderstanding with the WP:UTM templates Alexfusco5 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU clerking

Hi Alexfusco5. I would like to ask that you review the changing usernames guidelines before clerking futher on WP:CHU. Specifically, note that users are allowed to ask for a rename for the purposes of trivial capitalisation fixes, regardless of how many edits they have. You do not need to inform bureaucrats of how many edits users have if they are requesting trivial fixes, since it does not matter from the context of the rename request. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware because there were notes like that from other users in the past. I will try to take a look next time Alexfusco5 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Americas Next Top Model

Hi, I was just wondering why you undid the ANTM judges table and then placed a vandalism warning on it when it was quite a useful addition to the page? (Richardm9 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

The last edit to the page was vandalism and twinkle reverts all sequential edits by the same user or IP address. There is no problem with reinserting the Judges table Alexfusco5 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break: Cherry Hill

THIS IS A RUMOR!! it was written down on a post-it by one of the writers as a POSSIBLE spin-off and the rumor floated around from there starting with a newbie who found the post-it. it has never been confirmed by paul scheuring nor any other writers. any newspaper or article printing otherwise got misinformation. plus in order for anything to even happen with PB:CH and molly, she needs to be introduced and because of the WGA strike it doesnt look like they will get to that particular story line. too bad. oh and by the way, the hollywood reporter is like the national enquirer version of the tv guide. dont believe everything you read unless it comes from a reliable source, such as me because i worked on the set for 70+ hrs a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.157.106 (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Offer justification for your edit and it will stop being readded Alexfusco5 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)