User talk:Krellis/Archive 2/Archive March 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Don't Bite The Newcomers
Just a friendly reminder not to bite the newcomers, due to the comment you left at User talk:Cavsluver013. We should assume good faith, and the user did revert their own test and should be thanked for that. The {{test-self}} template is a good one to use in such a case. I know vandalism is a pain, and I've fallen foul of this myself in the past. Anyhow, thanks for the good work you are putting in against the vandals, and since no-one has said so yet, Welcome to Wikipedia! Ollie 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, and sorry about inappropriately replying on your talk page rather than here. Maybe I need to get away from the computer for a while... —Krellis 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused about where to put this, but no probs!! Ollie 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism reversion
I'm not exactly sure how anti-vandalism tools work, and it's certainly not as if I'm chastising you, but here, you reverted info that was correct to a previous version that was incorrect. If possible, be a bit more careful. Happy vandal fighting! -- Kicking222 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer. I think the problem there was that I caught the user in mid-edit, and it looked fishy - specifically, because they changed the name and TV show information in two different edits, but I only saw the first edit when I was considering it to be vandalism. I'll endeavor to keep a closer eye out, and thanks again for the heads-up. —Krellis 23:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
National Parks Barnstar
 |
The National Parks Barnstar | |
| Awarded for your creation of {{National Historical Parks of the United States}}. Nationalparks 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
Thanks! I'll proudly display this on my user page! —Krellis 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Hawthorne Heights
Your recent edit to Hawthorne Heights (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: AWB Approvals
Thanks for alerting me that, I have pressed save page but apparently a timeout or something like that kept it from updating. I have now properly updated the checkpage and yes you are one of those who are approved. Happy editing. --WinHunter (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to IP over Avian Carriers.
Hi,
Just so you know, I reverted your last edit to IP over Avian Carriers, as it took a functional link and replaced it with a redlink.
—RuakhTALK 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I'm surprised that the April 1st RFC redirect existed but April 1 RFC didn't, since the manual of style dictates that the latter is the correct format for describing a date while the former should not be used. I've created April 1 RFC as a redirect to the same location as April 1st RFC, and unless you feel strongly that it should be otherwise, will change it back at some point. —Krellis 03:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Not a problem. I didn't know about that MOS section myself until I started doing typo fixing with AWB and looked into it, since I wasn't sure that changing "1st" to "1" all the time was really correct. Thanks again for letting me know about the revert and the redlink. —Krellis 15:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
WP:UW
Hi,
You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 08:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Marfan Syndrome Article Graffiti Attacks
I have reviewed the history of changes on the Marfan Syndrome article over the past few weeks and have noticed an occasional graffito is written into the article. The vandals perpetrating these attacks usually do it without logging in, thus leaving no contributor trace. I recommend that whenever any of the responsibly acting contributors log in to do some more editing, first look at the most recent edit. If it is an anonymous edit, just revert the article to the previous edit before doing more edits. Leeirons 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there's no consensus to protect an article from anonymous contributors, then it's not your place to decide to revert all anonymous contributions to it. The decision to revert an edit should have to do with the contents of the edit, not with who made it. (That said, it's very reasonable to take a closer look at anonymous contributions to an article that attacks anonymous vandalism; the problem is just when you revert edits without looking at them.) —RuakhTALK 15:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not entirely sure how this conversation wound up on my talk page, but I agree with Ruakh - blind reversion of anonymous edits isn't the way to go. Looking at the edit history for Marfan syndrome, I've only edited it once, reverting obvious (non-anonymous) vandalism. Leeirons, endeavoring to clean up the article is absolutely a good idea, but, again, as Ruakh points out, simply reverting all anonymous contributions is not the way to do that - many legitimate contributions to articles on Wikipedia come from anonymous users. I'd recommend that this discussion continue on Talk:Marfan syndrome rather than here on my talk page, if there's any need to discuss it further. —Krellis 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Re: "I'm not entirely sure how this conversation wound up on my talk page": I assume Leeirons posted this message to all past non-anonymous contributors to Marfan syndrome; I only saw it because I never got around to un-watching your talk-page after our earlier conversation here. Sorry about that! :-P —RuakhTALK 18:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sounds about right. Not a problem, your point was certainly a valid/important one to make. :) —Krellis 03:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Tim Tebow
Thanks for the alert; in fact I'd rolled back an edit by an on., who'd removed a chunk of perfectly reasonable text with no edit summary. Only after wards did I notice that the text in question was duplicated elsewhere in the article, so I rolled back my own rollback. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then...
 |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for beating me to the punch twice in the same minute. :-) Regards, Húsönd 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC) |
- Thanks! —Krellis 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User_talk:64.4.104.2
This user has continued vandalism even after your warning, at Mongoose--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have reported the user at WP:AIV for the attention of an administrator. Thanks for the heads-up. —Krellis 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:UW
Just saw your edits, deletes are much better that way, keep it going. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Fenway Park Linkspam
You just considered my addition to "Fenway Park" vandalism. My site provides an up to date schedule of events taking place at Fenway Park. How is this spam? Other for-profit sites are linked on this same page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.145.62.189 (talk) 22:06, January 25, 2007 (PST)
Vandal warnings
Hi there Krellis!
I noticed you warned User:209.173.24.179 on his/her talk page about his edit to B-36B 44-92075 which i reverted (diff). It's probably a good idea to only warn vandals after your own reversions (unless it's clear the other reverter isn't going to), because it can be confusing as to how many times they've been warned in the past. This is especially true since a lot of vandalism fighters use semi-automated warning features, which would give two warnings for one piece of vandalism if someone else had already warned them. Keep up the vandal-fighting though! Cheers. ConDemTalk 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- When manually reverting, that is exactly what I do - I only warn after I've verified in the history that I was the one who performed the revert. That particular revert/warning was done through VandalProof, which doesn't do perfect checking to make sure it reverted before posting the warning. I generally leave the warnings in those cases, as I've found that many of the editors who remove vandalism don't issue warnings anyway, and it would be counter-productive to remove the warning if the editor who did the actual revert wasn't going to warn themselves (either because they simply didn't intend to, or because they'd seen my warning and avoided issuing a duplicate). I try to watch out for dupes when it happens, but, to be honest, in many cases, the user/IP in question has so many un-warned incidents of vandalism that they "deserve" an extra warning (or ten) anyway. It's not a perfect system, by any means, and, regardless of any of that, thanks for the heads-up, and you keep up the good work as well! —Krellis 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
electrical tape
why is this considered nonsense? I saw it on a tech-help video....?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.197.244 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
- If what you say is true (with regards to this edit), then the video you were watching was not worth the tape or DVD it was recorded on. Your edit clearly contradicted the article, and was, quite simply, false. —Krellis 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's on this video http: // www youtube com/watch?v=brdmnUBAS00 ... at the 1:08 mark. Is he wrong? 68.36.197.244 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't have time to watch the video, but if he says that electrical tape is so named because it conducts electricity, then, yes, he is wrong. It is called electrical tape because it is used in electrical work, and its use in electrical work is as an insulator, the opposite of a conductor. —Krellis 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-
Hi
Hi, I am impressed with the way you are dealing with vandilism. Keep up the good work. --Thunderinfo2 18:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I try to keep my watchlist clean, and other pages when I have time. I seem to have managed to pick a couple of particularly vengeful ones this morning, but luckily Kuru has had my back :) I see that you're relatively new to Wikipedia, and interested in RC patrol - welcome, and thanks in advance for your contribution to the fight against vandals. If you haven't been there already, WP:VANDAL and WP:RCP are good places to start with that. If you have any questions, feel free to ask - I'm still relatively new to this stuff as well, only having started a few months ago, so I know what it's like to get started. As always here on Wikipedia, be bold, and jump on in! —Krellis 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I will ask if i have any questions. I just can't stand vandlals on this site just ruining everything for everybody. You have quite a bit of edits so thats good. I've got some but nothing important. —Thunderifo2
--Thunderinfo2 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
RE: substing
Thanks for the tip :) I've been SUBSTing in everything now. Anything else I could be doing differently/better, please let me know :) guiltyspark 18:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
AIV helperbot
Well, since "teckwiz" is having problems with his ISP I think you can take over HBC AIV helperbot3. Please follow the steps I laid out in User:HBC AIV helperbot/installation, I imagine on linux, many of these steps will already be accomplished. I am pretty sure my code is portable to linux, it should be. I will e-mail you the username / password for the account. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. The code worked just fine, I sent you an e-mail back with a couple of questions, but it's up and running at the moment (so far your instance has beat it to the punch though :)) —Krellis 04:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- And the first diff from my instance, looks like it's working without a problem. —Krellis 04:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandal
If a user completes the same vandalism within a few minutes after numorous reverts can they be banned? -Vcelloho 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is generally to give users a chance to respond to warning messages before they are blocked, that is why there is a sequence of warning templates to issue. Many users will stop vandalism after they receive a warning or two, because they are just trying to have a little fun. I know it can be difficult, but you need to try to continue warning the vandal as they continue their activity, and if they continue past a final warning, then it is appropriate to report them to WP:AIV. Again, I would recommend that you read thoroughly through WP:VAND, WP:CUV, and WP:BLOCK for more information on these policies. —Krellis 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Bot update
Hi, I have updated the bot to include the feature of marking IPs that match certain patters[1]. You will need to update your source before your bot works again. You also need to install the Net::Netmask module. To do this, run the program called ppm which came with activestate perl. Inside that program type install net::netmask. Thanks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Updated, thanks. —Krellis 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just lucky, I happened to notice you were playing with the template, saw your edit summary, looked up the parser function documentation I had up the other day when I wrote it initially, saw the example working that way, and poof :) —Krellis 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nicholas II
Quit editing an unsubstantiated allegation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.249.26.181 (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
- Replied at length on your user talk and further discussion solicited on the article's talk page. —Krellis 06:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Recent AIV report (User:Shenme)
Thanks, I'm always lagging trying to find the 'right' way to do things. Though I noticed, after your message, that the page has no mention of the right script to follow, in particular your helpful direction. Do you know if the lack of instructions is on purpose? (As in, to discourage the too easily upset?) Shenme 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, very nice - placed where ready for cut-n-paste. Thanks. Shenme 19:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
WW2
Thanks for giving me the reminder. Like you, I don't really mind about this. But things seem to be heading in the right direction with this article. Previously, there was all sorts of mention of Nazis, Japs and the like. This seems to have toned down now. Also, the intro was a mess, and this is also more structured. Most events seem to be covered, and the participants have a mention too. The great thing about Wikipedia is that common sense seems to prevail in the long run. It gives me faith in humanity. Wallie 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I agree completely, improving the article is what matters - it just seemed like the particular discussion of the infobox was just going around in circles, and over and over again, without much new getting into the discussion. Hopefully the RFC will help change that, at least getting some additional opinions into the mix. We'll see where it goes from there. —Krellis (Talk) 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
USAF Article
Hello, I noticed that you reverted an edit I made to the info boxes on the USAF page. For some time now there has been issues with people reverting edits regarding the info boxes on that page. Could you please visit the USAF talk page to discuss this situation? Thank you. Bburton 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you mean. I reverted this edit, by an anonymous IP contributor, which had nothing to do with the infobox. It was an unsourced claim that the USAF is the "...2nd most technologically advanced (after the RAF)air force...". That said, I question whether that statement violates neutral point-of-view either before or after my revert, since technological advancement is something that is difficult to quantify factually. I reverted it to the former statement of "most technologically advanced" because the nature of the edit looked like POV pushing, and there was no reference to that supposed fact in the RAF article. Regardless, I don't quite see how my revert has anything to do with the infobox discussion you referenced. If you could clarify what you mean, I'd be happy to try to address your concern. —Krellis (Talk) 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
sorry dude
you need to learn to take a joke. word of advice, i have access to over 1000 computers, and with IP-spoofing capabilities, so there's not much you can do to stop me or the others. take your lumps like a champ, smellis. i poke fun at myself all the time. :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.140.48 (talk)
- Lol, would you like me to semi protect your user page or talk page? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I gave you 10 days semi protection on your user page, that should be enough time for this fella to get bored. When these things really get out of hand you can semi-protect your talk page, and have a clear link to newcomer pointing to a sub page, like User_talk:HighInBC/unprotected_talk_page(which by the way has a history full vandalism). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I like how he says "IP spoofing" when I think he means proxies. As far as I know, if you spoof your IP for real it is outgoing only, because the return message goes to the spoofed IP. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Frankly, it struck me as kind of ludicrous. Over a 1000 computers? Someone's dreaming...either that or he is intentionally going out of his way to look stupid. I also like how he said "the others." If you trace that IP address, it goes back to USC, so he is probably some pimply-faced attention-whore in a computer lab with too much free time on his hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovdahl (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
User:Jjjjjjj7625iayhetrwqiuwb gss7663ggggggggh 9
User:Jjjjjjj7625iayhetrwqiuwb gss7663ggggggggh 9 was originally posted at WP:RFCN. I noticed that I couldn't see his block log by clicking on his contribs links and asked why that was. BigDT told me that the reason I couldn't see it was because the 9 wasn't supposed to be there (see here). Sorry for any problems I may have caused, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 01:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
