User talk:Chromaticity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: "Vandalism"

It's an automated twinkle warning, and it's a user warning level 1, which assumes good faith. Thanks for looking out for the newbies, though. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 05:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, and I believe you have a good point. However, the edit summary is automated and is used by many vandal fighters across the encyclopedia. It's important that when users blank their talk pages of warnings in an attempt to evade blocks that we are able to easily see what type of warning was given without having to spend a sizeable period of time sifting through diffs to the user's talk page. I understand that it's not "vandalism," but I also didn't revert the edit citing it was vandalism, either. This was also the second time that the same IP has blanked a page to insert content, so I feel that a warning was appropriate; however, I simply do not have the time to custom-tailor every warning to every situation, and I apologize for that. --slakr\ talk / 05:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Clearly you feel strongly about this issue. As a result, I went ahead and brainstormed up a better wording for the level 1 edit summary to use "General note: Altering talk page comments" instead of using "Talkpage vandalism." You might consider dropping by Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle as well. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yikes... that must have been stressful. :( I hate getting accused of wrongdoing, too :\ Hopefully now we'll be able to better prevent that happening in the future, though. :) --slakr\ talk / 08:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism

Hey there, thanks for catching that vandalism on my user page! Much appreciated. GlassCobra 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :) Chromaticity 16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [1]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini hablame aqui 16:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that warnings serve little or no purpose, and choose not to take the time to issue them. There are better ways to track whether a given editor is a vandal than the number of templates plastered onto their talk page, after all. I understand that others feel differently; to each their own. The main point is that the vandalism is removed. Chromaticity 16:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK. Although multiple reverts, such as here would not be necessary if you would consider helping administrators in the process of blocking repeat vandals. Have a nice day anyway, Kukini hablame aqui 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

Thanks for your revert on the Food chemistry article earlier today. I really appreciate it. Chris 18:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Chromaticity 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Oh, hey... thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage earlier! The Chronic 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks from me as well. --TeaDrinker 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto :) --carelesshx talk 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise; I see that at least two of you reverted my user page as well.  :) Chromaticity 18:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] homosexual vs. same-sex

Hi, I saw you changed "homosexual" to "same-sex" in the Ben Nichols article and labeled "homosexual" as a non-neutral word. I was just wondering your basis for this, especially as same-sex redirects to homosexual. I have no problem with either term, but I just wanted to know if I was missing out on something. --Cjs56 19:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's because I've heard "homosexual" said with a sneering, derogatory tone so many times that the term has built-in derogatory connotations in my mind. Keep in mind that "homosexual" is a term that originally referred medically to the diagnosis of a perversion, and that the Dewey Decimal System still categorizes materials about homosexuality as a subcategory of mental illness (or at least did when I was in college, which was admittedly a few years back). "Same-sex" doesn't hold such connotations. It also seems to me that the latter term is more commonly used in law and media to describe domestic partnership relations between members of the same sex. Chromaticity 19:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Clean

Hi. All due respect. I'm going to unrevert your rv of my edit on Talk:The Clean. There's no reason to keep those out-of-date notices. I'm posting the setlists as a temporary thing. Something may be juiced from them for the article, otherwise they can be dumped. Just let them sit a day or two. I'm the only one that walked away from the shows with a setlist, and I promised others I'd put them up for reference. Wwwhatsup 00:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's usually best if you're going to remove old discussion to do so in a separate edit with an explanatory edit summary; it will reduce the risk that someone will think that you're blanking the content out of ignorance or malice. Also, you should be aware that some people believe that discussion should never be deleted, but only archived. I'm not one of those people, but as there is no consensus regarding that issue in the community it is likely best to be circumspect and to explain yourself when you do blank old discussions. Chromaticity 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Wwwhatsup 16:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints

If you wish to complain on my talk page, please do it on the proper page. F9T 19:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I found your talk page confusing and did the best I could. Perhaps you should consider making your talk page less complicated so people can actually use it to communicate with you. Chromaticity 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:68.179.178.210 attack page speedy declined

Hello, I have declined this speedy deletion. This is not an attack page. If you have any questions, please let me know. Dlohcierekim 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] attack warning

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your warning to User talk:72.51.165.224 was not appropriate. He had reverted vandalism and was making an attempt to warn the vandal. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 21:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Posting "Go away, dude" on someone's talk page is not civil. The warning was justified; even if the other person happened to be a vandal, that doesn't excuse such atrociously rude behavior. Editors, even those suspected of being vandals, ought to be treated with respect at all times. Chromaticity 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Williams

Thanks for your concern regarding page move. I have created Clarence Williams dab page, which explains my reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)