User talk:Excirial/Archive 1

	Userpage	Talk	Awards	E-Mail	Dashboard	Programs	Sandbox	Sketchbook	Blocknote

This page 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ratio, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kubanczyk 06:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Apologies for that. I was reverting a vandal edit in this page (Content replaced by swears). I have no idea what went wrong with this rollback, as the history of the page shows no vandalisation that i could have reverted. I guess i reverted an incorrect page here.

--Excirial 06:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem then, happy editing. --Kubanczyk 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What an idiot -rolls eyes- what kind of person vandalizes a page less than 5 minutes after they have been warned about it lmao - was about to warn him/her but I guess you get there first =)Kenjoshii ^[chat] 10:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC) mann I sure need a break from welcoming

• Absolutely true, but the numbers that do surprise me. Since this morning i have send out about 300 warnings, and asked for about 20 user bans, of which all seem to be granted. I guess some people simply dont get the concept of "Intelligence" :)

--Excirial 10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hut 8.5 11:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For patrolling the 'pedia and cutting out the crap. James086Talk | Email 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point, it's not even important really, but on Wikipedia there's a difference between blocking and banning. Blocking is prevention of editing, like with vandals while banning is more serious, it means that the user is not welcome at all (they are usually blocked as well). Their edits are usually characteristic (they are interested in a particular topic) and they are persitently disruptive. Nonetheless, you have definitely earned a barnstar for your anti-vandalism. Keep it up! James086^{Talk | Email} 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have been patrolling for just two days, so im really honoured by already receiving this award. I understood the difference between "Banning" and "Blocking" alreay, buy i generally confuse the terms when writing them down. I tend to use "Banning" when refering to infinite blocks for users, and "Blocking" for everything else. Still, thanks for the clarification of the terms, and again a huge thanks for the barnstar, which will make its way to my user page at once :)

--Excirial 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I also find it easier to reply on other's talk pages but I'm flexible. Hah! You've made more edits in these past 2 days than my first few months! See you round, James086^{Talk | Email} 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked into WP:TWINKLE? I think you'd find it very useful. --Dweller 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the advice. Currently i am using Lupin, but its always worthwhile to have a look at the other tools theere are to stop the vandals around here. I will have a look at it as soon as i get home from my job :) --Excirial 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For reverting my userpage. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• It was my pleasure. i love rolling back vandals :) --Excirial 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excirial,

Check you bot please. It just tagged me for Vandalism. For the record, I removed vandalism in that article, and in fact, just now tagged it for deletion as there's nothing in there but a bunch of attack pages, one right after the other. I just removed your message on my usersite. Thanks ! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, looks like that article was just plain nonsense. The origional longer article was just one big attack, and the edit that almost cleared the page was of the same caliber. Guess we just ended up ping-pong reverting the two vandalism articles. I marked it for deletion now should be removed shortly :) --Excirial 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• I left a reply on your own talk page. Besides, im not a bot, im manually operated :) --Excirial 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Coolipop says they eat tigers, and I'm wrong to revert such nonsense? Philip Trueman 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your revert got a previously vandalized line back in, saying "David is gay". Im currently reverting at high speed, so that line was enough to call it a vandalism for me :) --Excirial 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! OK, fair enough. I'd be grateful if you'd read WP:DTTR though. It's only an essay, not policy, but all the same ... Philip Trueman 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh? What's your point with this revert? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bah, looks like i didn't cancel that one in time after all. I was reverting a different page at that time, and hit the wrong rollback button in Lupin, causing a wrong page to re-roll. I expected that i canceled this edit in time, but seems i have been mistaken. Sorry for the inconvenience! --Excirial 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

From Eternalsleeper talk page:

I just reverted you changes to Nahr_al-Bared. In my opinion the word terrorist should be used with care, as it labels a group of people with a negative criticism that might not be supported by all the readers of wikipedia. For example, calling hippies "Weirdo's" might be true for most people, but there are also people who dont share that belief :) --Excirial 06:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are aware, but comparing a hippie to weirdo is not similar to calling Fatah al Islam resistance. Fatah al Islam is an Al Qaida inspired organization which targeted and murdered hundreds of Lebanese civilians. Can you explain to me how you consider this resistance, and can you explain why the US State Dept. has added them to their terror list and why they are all either dead or in prison awaiting trial in Lebanon right now for their involvement in terrorism?

Please look at Fatah al-Islam The United States Department of State classified the group as a terrorist organization on August 9, 2007[5] --Eternalsleeper 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The opinion of the united states is not an absolute truth opinion. Many countries in the middle east will see Fatah Al Islam as a resistance group. If you seriously want to use the word terrorist, at least keep a neutral point of view by adding a reference. You could also think about changing the line to something that denoted that there is a specific group claiming that the group is terrorist. Dont get me wrong, i personally agree with you, but opinions don't matter on encyclopaedic content. --Excirial 06:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• What countries are you talking about, even Hezbollah considers them a terrorist organization??? The only ones who would consider them resistance are the enemies of Lebanon. I've never heard of a country supporting Fatah al Islam or calling them a legitimate resistance movement. They targetted Lebanese civilians. They were foreign fighters coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia, with Palestinians as well but who are they resisting and how do you figure people assume this of them, are you talking about Al Qaida? Please research them further and let me know which countries consider them a legitimate resistance movement, I've never heard of this. --Eternalsleeper 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, i guess you are right. I was indeed referring to the enemies of Lebanon when i made my previous post. In all due honesty i expected that this was a mindless alteration without sources, as i see rather regular. Im not sure if its already done, but please add the link you provided to me as a reference next to the word terrorist, so that it remains a NPov article :) --Excirial 06:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• ok thanks for looking into the matter and nature of fatah al islam.

--Eternalsleeper 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Excirial! Thanks for watching out for vandalism! I added Category:Gay villages to Lark Street specifically because it is a gay village. Take a look at the article and see if you don't agree. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I was already suspecting that there was something wrong when i posted that message on your talk page, as i could see your an established, quality editor. I still reverted it because i suspected this might have been flak (Copy paste) from a previous article. --Excirial 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What you say in this edit is true enough, but it's perhaps better not to say it. Your intended message was "You won't get anywhere; you'll be wasting your time; you might as well give up". However, it also implies "You are so worthy of my attention that I'm writing this message to you." (Recognition at last!) Also, the fool may take it as a challenge of some kind: he'll eventually be vanquished, of course, but the time wasted won't only be his. -- Hoary 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your right, adding that line was more of an impulse then a cleaver thought. I edited the line to be more appropriate. Thanks for the heads up, and of course thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. :) --Excirial 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen your message on my talk page. I strongly disagree with what you wrote. I've actually made numerous updates to that page, many of them reflecting changes that have happened since the page was protected. You may consider that the inclusion of the link to SAYNOTO0870.COM to be advertising - have you seen the discussion on the talk page regarding this link? While a consensus may not have been reached yet, I believe that a reference to the search page was warranted - it isn't as obvious as a full link, but the site offers genuine discussion regarding non-geographic numbers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Already reverted. The large number of links made me think it was an advertising run. Also, "Virginmedia" somehow striked me as being a porno website, which caused the immediate wp-vand4im warning. I already corrected my mistake, apologies for it. --Excirial 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• No worries :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

With reference to your previous revert I feel the information contained in my edit is constructive. Perhaps you were put off by the nature of the language but that is the tone of this particular show. I have contributed to the article before and thus should feel no inclination whatsoever to purposefully vandalise my own work. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct that the revert was based upon the tone of the edit. Normally i would have reverted the rollback after consulting the user page of the user in question, but at this time i seem to have forgotten to do so. My apologies. --Excirial 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) • Lawrence Cohen 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... It's usually a good idea to actually look at the edit made before labelling it vandalism, even if it is a huge number of characters removed. If you didn't notice, what I removed here was nothing better than a bunch of nonsense previously added twice by an IP who, I'm guessing, is named Jeremy and who wants to make himself feel special. -Bbik^★ 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ludricous amount of vandalism at this time. Porn star automatically triggered a rollback in my mind. Will be more carefull. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that you are doing a very good job with your anti-vandal efforts, you have not been here long and already left an impression. Ever consider using WP:VP? Tiptoety 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Did you really mean WP:VP, or did that have to be WP:VPRF? Regardless, both are usefull links, that i will certainly read top to bottom. Also, thanks a lot for your compliment. Im glad that im being usefull around here :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

oops. My bad, yes i meant WP:VPRF, but WP:VP is a good page to read up on as well. And you are welcome, keep up the good work! Tiptoety —Preceding comment was added at 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The content i added to the 'video game contreversy' article was FACT. How is that not constructive when those were her words on the video game industry?? --70.155.220.5

• First of, please place comments on my talk page, and not on my user page, thank you in advance for that :). Second, dont write swears in all caps, as that immediatly triggers a vandalism alert not only in me, but also in the anti vandalism bots. Last, i really doubt that dropping the words PENIS MONKEY without explanation isnt vandalism. At least provide some context in which they were said, and provide a reference (This is a must: Otherwise i will revert them as covered swears) Kind regards, --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I didnt put any swear words nor did i type the words PENIS MONKEY. I dont know where that came from but it wasnt from me. All i posted was a quote from Hillary about FF7 and the video game industry.

Edit: I just added her quote again on 10/30/07 @ 12:20 pm with NO swear words or any other form of vandalism. Just her quote and thats all.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.155.220.5 (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just patrolling the recent changes, and I must say you are doing a fine job with reverting the vandalism. =) SlightlyMad^{wanna si-ign?} 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the compliment! :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks a bunch for reverting my edits and I had messed it up and jusrt sorting it out and you reverted it. Please check before destroying all my work. Deben Dave 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Cant really see why i reverted that. In case you want to revert my revert, open the GPO Telephonie page, and select the "History" tab on top of that page. This will show all the previous versions of the page. Just select your correct version and save it again. This will overwrite my rollback. Sorry for the incorrect vandalism rollback. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK you are forgiven. I am not sure whether I am supposed to put this here as I am fairly new to this editing bit but I just love wiki and making ebery effort to commit stuff that I think will be useful to it.

Deben Dave 21:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For cleaning up all the penis stuff on my page, I, -Goodshoped, hereby due the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! -Goodshoped 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks! And glad i could help :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not vandalising the Christopher Geidt article, there was just an unfounded claim the "commoners can't use the post-nominals "PC" or title "Right Honourable", I wished to seek why this was, and couldn't see any other method other than resorting to writing in a hidden comment my grievance with the aforementioned claim.... so if YOU can help, then please feel free to.... PoliceChief 00:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And please do not proceed in trying to patronize me, I have been a wikipedia member for some time and know what I'm entitled to do, although you may find it and unwarranted and inappropriate method of doing so.. it was not a defamatory remark or phrase so do not please take offence.... PoliceChief 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your new userpage looks nice. --Sodaplayer ^{talk contrib ^_^} 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Its only problem though on the talk, is that when a user hits the + section, the message will be outside of the table. Maybe you should put a message on top of the page to instead of hitting the +, hit edit this page and manually add a new section within the table. --Sodaplayer ^{talk contrib ^_^} 03:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, The same user has vandalized Sister Roma and Hot House (where she works) in the same manner. Benjiboi 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the warning. Ill be watching her. I think we should consider that kind of vandalism as a vand4im.... I sure hope the admins check the page history before deleting Oo --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

At it again

Please see Sister Roma and Hot House Entertainment, and Sister Boom-Boom. Benjiboi 11:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Will do, monitoring pages. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And again

Please see Hot House Entertainment. Benjiboi 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And Sister Roma again. Benjiboi 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE Your comments: No worries, I figured as such :-) --Pumpmeup 09:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't your warning to 72.76.14.66 a bit harsh? --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Intentionally replacing a page with a vandalised version and then tagging it for speedy deletion is in my eyes pure vandalism. Also, im worried that an admin might not check the history of the page, and delete it without second though. I think a vand4im is the only fitting response for this kind of vandalism. But please, tell me if im wrong with my thoughts here :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Obviously they're an experienced vandal! ;) --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 10:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, he didn't tag it for speedy deletion. {{notability}} and {{db-notability}} (speedy deletion) aren't the same thing. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• User seems to be on a floating IP address. Other IP addresses in that range replaced pages and tagged them for deletion. Regardless, changing a oage and then tagging is vandalism in my opinion. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Added for clarities sake) Carefull with the "Alex" and "Cole" articles, as There are two IPs vandalising them. Your current reverts just get a vandalised version back up. Just leave those two to me, ill keep monitoring them and revert them by hand, till they received the blocks i requested. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I only figured that out after I hit rollback (I don't think, whatever I wrote in the second block message, that they were deliberately doing it to frustrate the rollback ... vandals who do that are usually more subtle). But blocking them took first priority, and I have now sent both of them to the penalty box for the usual day. Daniel Case 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now watchlisted them, and will revert as necessary to stop the anon vandalism. Jeffpw 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I did likewise, hope there isnt more vandalism though --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have them on a subpage, just haven't gotten around to putting them all there yet. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your welcome, and dont forget to link that page, i used to forget that with my subpage ^^ --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you revert my Brand Extention edits? Lex94

• My mistake, in Lupin it looked like you erased an entire section, and then replaced it with an empty table. Normally i do a full page diff in such cases, but this time i decided to be a little lazy, and that immediately payed off i see. Apologies for the mistake though, wont happen again :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up on Kut U Up. I removed your speedy tag because the article doesn't meet the definition of patent nonsense. (Hoaxes and deliberate false info aren't speediable, nor is poorly written content). Feel free to prod the article if it needs to go, but I was able to verify that the group was in the movie. Perhaps some sources and copyediting will improve this article enough that it doesn't sound so silly?--Fabrictramp 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The main reason i was doubting this one was because of the rather silly layout, and also because (In my local language) part of the words were swears. I kind of assumed this page was created by a vandal, and hadn't been detected because it didn't contain any swears or likewise. Thanks for the heads up though, as i was not completely sure if it was nonsense or valid information :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was undoing vandalism and warned that vandal. Wut did I do wrong? Stupid2 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• [This] is what i meant. I guess you automatically reverted the article? It looks like it got replaced with a vandalised version, saying that "John is gay". Since that was the first edit you made on it (You corrected that line in the second edit) it looked like vandalism, and caused this warning. Consider that warning void though, and welcome to the Counter Vandalism Unit by the way, always glad to see more people reverting junk :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 06:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, didnt see that the vandal had two edits and only undid one... thanks for replyin. Stupid2 06:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism off my userpage. Yep, looks like all the vandals want a piece of me. :) The Chronic 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Glad to help :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From my user page: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Indian Creek School, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Bond Head 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The History page clearly shows two vandal IPs causing the vandalism. The second IP caused by rollback to be blocked, leaving the majority of the swears in the next. Im not sure why you are warning me for it, as 209.60.233.98 is the active vandal, and 67.172.199.75 the blocking vandal. All my own edit did was removing the 209.60.233.98 vandalism, which left 67.172.199.75 vandalism in. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK. My mistake. When correcting vandalism, instead of deleting or changing inappropriate text, you may want to just roll the page back to the last good version. Best, Bond Head 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, im using Lupins non administrator rollback to revert vandalism. An advantage of this is that it reverts each and every edit of the vandalising IP, up to the edit of a different user. Its a lot faster then manually searching the last good revision, but when two IPs vandalise with no good version in between, it leaves the vandalism of the previous IP in the text. Pretty rare though, but annoying when it happends :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we had a little vandalism Ping Pong on the St_Ninian's_High_School article. Your revert got the swear vandalism out, and got the test vandalism back in, whereas mine got the test back out, and the swear back in. Thanks for fixing it, looks like you noticed the problem faster then me :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• No problem p

PS. Feel free to sign my guest book page

Cabe6403 (Talk•Please Sign my guest book!) 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oh my bad, sorry about that. Johnny542 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• (Responce to uw-npa1) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• What does that mean? Response to uw-npa1. Johnny542 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• The warning i left on your page is actually a template thats only differs on the page the warning is given for. uw-npa1 is short for: User Warning - No Personal Attacks (Level 1). In short, its a friendly notice to tell a user he made an unintentional personal attack(Good Faith), and that that edit has been removed. Personally i sync comment on my user page with comments i make on external pages, to prevent my page from becoming unreadable due to missing bits of information. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, I get it now. Johnny542 12:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! :D --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. It's always good to come across people like you who do so much to keep Wikipedia nice for us all!! Gwinva 09:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Glad that i could help :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. It's always good to come across people like you who do so much to keep Wikipedia nice for us all!! Gwinva 09:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Glad that i could help :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs, you will be blocked from editing. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What on earth? Did you bother to read the page? Did you bother to assume good faith? No,you saw me using the word 'scumbag' and you went into vandal fighting mode. I'm an experienced wikipedian working on a serious project to do with legal issues and biographies, please alway read the context of additions before assuming vanalism. You are acting like a bot.--Doc^g 13:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• First: Due to using Lupin to revert and compare, Im only getting partial diffs, meaning that most of the page context is

lost when checking for vandalism. What i noticed was that you used the word "Scumbag", and that you misspelled the word "Too" as "Tioo". Thats enough for me to assume vandalism, especially since it was an user page you were editing.
Second: You are right that i should have assumed good faith here, especially since it was your "Vandalistic" edit. However, seeing that it was an user page i decided to add a bad faith edit here, as virtually all user page vandalisms occur due to earlier vandalisation (For which there wasnt any warning). Also, most user page vandals are persistent when vandalising.
Third: No matter what, calling a person a "scumbag" is vandalism. granted, i could have used an uw-npa1 template here, but the generic vandalism template allows for much faster reversion, even if the information it provides it a little less informative.

In short, i still say your edit was vandalism, no matter how you turn it around. I don't care what or who the person is you are talking about, a personal attack is a personal attack. Feel free to disagree with me, but that's just the way it is, or rather, thats the way i think about it. After all, An encyclopaedia is supposed to be neutral, and not biased by someone's personal opinions, including mine :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to see WP:DTTR. I really doubt he was vandalizing. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me ask you, why the heck did you put a test3 warning, without any prior warnings? Might want to look a bit closer, both at the circumstance, and the user. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 13:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I assessed most of your comments i already answered in my previous post. First thing first: WP:DTTR is an essay, not a guideline. I partly agree with its content, but there are two problems with it: First, there are about a dozen possible vandalism reports every 30 seconds. I dont have the time, nor the interest in checking what the post count of a certain contributor is. Hence, i got better things to do! Also, vandalism is vandalism, no matter how you turn it. If i vandalise a page, intentional or not, i would like the reverter to leave a warning he did so. A template is a fast way for doing so, and i don't have any problems with them. Check my user page, there are three (Incorrect) template warnings user there. Second, vandalism is vandalism, no matter how regular a user is. In this case the partial diff showed an edit that looked a lot like vandalism, so i reverted it and went on to the next vandal. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm, your getting rather personal here: (→Ulf Ekberg - piss off), (You are acting like a bot.). If you think im wrong please do tell, but when doing so, please keep it professional, and not personal. Doing so wont get either of us annoyed :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well when you falsely claimed he vandalized, ("Personal attack" is NOT equal to vandalism. Please read up on WP:VAND for what vandalism is and is not. Also please read about assuming good faith, tagging a contributor with a test3 without any prior warnings on soemthing that I'd say is not even vandalism is just offensive. He is within his rights to be pissed off. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should also note that the page is in userspace, and is being used as a launching point to remove slurs and other bad things (tm) from WP:BLP class articles. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• *Sighs* a personal attack is not equal to vandalism, i know, and i already knew. In this case i would like to note that lupin automatically places an uw-vand1 in the user page that i open when clicking vandalism. Generally taken i just modify the number shown to warn vandals, as the uw-vand is the most generic template. Please excuse me for using about 5 different templates, and not the about 30 available templates that would undoubtedly be more fitting in certain situations.
  
  Again, from my point of view he committed a vandalism. What i saw was the addition of the word "Scumbag" next to the name of a person, which caused a bad faith warning. Granted, i could/should have used a level one or two warning, but i didnt. Is that a reason to be pissed off like this? In my opinion it isnt. Simply asking "Why do you keep reverting me?" or saying "I think you are wrong here" would have worked just as well and would have been a lot more polite; It would actually have worked even better since at this time im being forced to defend my own actions, which is actually a waste of everyone's valuable time (In my opinion that is).
  
  Also, good luck with making the biographies wikipedia compliant. Biographies are most times heavily biased since they are mostly based upon the interpretation of a persons actions by third persons. Nice to see some people willing to sort them out :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  

You have to understand though, that accusing a good faith editor (You can't tell me that what doc is doing is not in good faith) of vandalism is not polite either. Its actually rather insulting. I just would hope that in the future you take the time to realize that its not the run of the mill vandal, and that perhaps taking the extra minute is in order. I don't understand how you can view his edit as "vandalism", he was simply stating that he finished a case, and though the guy was a scumbag we still have to have reliable sources. Could he have worded it better, sure, is it worthy of a revert and a:

Test 3 warning, I don't think so. I'm not really pissed as much as appalled that you would threaten a good faith editor with blocking. Do you see where I'm coming from? Yes its important to patrol for vandalism, and I thank you for doing so, but you have to be sensitive to those that are acting in good faith. Doc was obviously offended, and demonstrated it by his blanking of your warnings, and I emphasize with him, was his blanking the best thing? Probably not, but was threatening him with blocking the best thing to start with? If you have an issue with a long time contributor's edits, you should bring them up to them in a bit better fashion then threatening to have them blocked. This situation would never have occured had you merely raised the issue up with him on his talk page, (realizing he was making an edit to a list of BLPs that need cleaning up). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 17:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly don't doubt he is editing without good faith. Hence, i respect his work and commitment to wikipedia. However, you are underestimating the magnitude of vandalism, especially around that hour. Every thirty seconds there are about 20 possible vandalism cases, of which 12 or so are clearly vandalism, 6 that are no vandalism, and 2 that are discussable, or need further investigation. If i have to investigate each user thoroughly for possible reasons he isn't a vandal, it like trying to empty the sea with a teaspoon. In those cases its simply taking another look and judging if it should be left alone or reverted. And in this case the "Tioo" misspelling, the word "Scumbag" and the user page location were simple signals to count it as vandalism.
  
  In short, i made mistake while reverting vandalism, for which i of course apologize. However, i rather make 1-2% mistakes then letting 50% extra vandalism pass trough my line of defense, possibly to not be reverted. Im also not going to check how long a user has been around just to avoid, say 0.25% of my mistakes. Its still no excuse for the level 3 warning though, which, in retrospect, i cant explain. Im not even sure if i hit the right key on that one, as i never give above level 2 for first warnings, unless the edit is clearly severe or pure destructive vandalism(Which isnt the case). The second warning i apparently gave him was just based on the already existing, recent level 3 warning(Which happend to be mine). I can understand that receiving a "Block" warning is annoying, but i don't exactly have, or want to take the time to type a customized message each time. Even so, he could have rationalized that the warning was a standard, non personal template handed out in error. As you can see i also received multiple unjust warnings, but i don't care about them, since i can just contact the user to say he was wrong. Its nothing to get angry about really, as he personally knew he wasn't vandalizing. Hence, i would just shrug it of and tell the reverter to take another look. Certainly his edits are good faith, but don't forget mine are to, and we can both make unintentional mistakes. Is that a reason to be angry or appalled? I doubt it. At least, i wouldn't be. ^^ --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• (outdent) May I make some third party comments? Like Excirial, I do vandalism-reversion using Lupin's tool (slightly modified, in my case - be wary of copying, my JavaScript is still rubbish) and standard templates. Both are great tools but they're just that, tools, and they need to be used properly. Like many useful tools they make it easier and quicker to do the wrong thing - I've learned that the hard way. I would like to suggest to Excirial that he would do well to install popups and, before reverting a registered editor, to hover his mouse over the 'contribs' link and have it show him what else the editor has done recently. This has saved me from a few gaffes in the past. And I would ask his critics to cut Excirial some slack. His contributions so far, in a very short space of time, have been overwhelmingly positive, albeit in a very narrow field and despite a few regrettable errors. Philip Trueman 18:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thats actually an excellent suggestion Philip, Many thanks for the advice! In currently using lupins uw-vand button which immediately takes me to the edit screen. In there i have to read trough the "Spread out" templates to see if a user vandalized before, which is, due to the HTML nature, an annoying process. I have only used lupin, and a twinkle ARV module so far, but it sounds like this will solve this kind of registered problems, as well as my own "HTML Decode" annoyance. And by the way: Feel free to jump into whatever discussion on my user page that you want to. The more, the merrier (As long as it aren't vandals) :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just jumping in on the specific point about viewing a user's previous vandalism warning history. Yes, I hit that problem. One of the changes I made to my copy of Lupin's tool was to add a 'User talk history' link I can, again, hover the mouse over. Philip Trueman 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Doc^g 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• A little sidenote to this: According to my talk pages history, and the history of Eagle 101s talk page, the second template was issued before you posted here, meaning that i had no way of knowing that this edit wasnt classified as vandalism.

(Responce transcluded from users take page, where it was removed in [This ] revision)

• I have not got the time or patience for this nonsense. While working on a serious project to reduce libels on this encyclopedia, on a user's talk page, I happened to express my subjective opinion that a neo-nazi was a scumbag. Well yes, I think neo-nazis are scumbags. I think Le Pen is an idiot. I think Nick Griffin is positively evil - a prat, a dangerous lunatic. Are you going to call that vandalism. Now go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time.--Doc^g 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit made to Mein Kampf was vandalism. I know the person who did it. Make sure you be less lenient with this IP in the future. —out^boxing (work • yada) 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Will do. Im currently exercising extra caution with warning levels when reverting user edits due to a recent heated discussion about an to high first warning i gave out (The topic on my user page above this post). --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

You reverted the edits I'm making on the WikiProject Cell Signaling page. I am still in the process of updating the entire Project. I believe you reverted erroneously. Biochemza 14:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what might have caused this, as there is no offensive content whatsoever in the edit you made. I guess i simply misclicked in Lupin, causing me to revert the wrong page. My apologies for this, and good luck with updating the project! --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem at all. Apologies for accidentally breaking your layout. I simply clicked on the "plus" symbol (Add a section) at the top of the page, which doesn't show your layout notice. Biochemza 14:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• No problem at all :). I still haven't gotten around to adding a warning on the top. And even so, about 90% of the people who leave a message break the layout. Just have a look at the history count of my "Removing to Move" comments ^^--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Excirial,

I have been blocking a lot of editors which you have reported to WP:AIV recently. Just wanted to thank you for your efforts, and give some tips on increasing your effectiveness. I noticed that a number of your reports include the reason "vandalism directly after release of block", but that this has often not been the case. For [1]. While these have in fact most often been legitimate cases of vandalism, the level of vandalism has not always warranted a report to AIV. In the example above, the vandalism did not take place right after the release of the block, but in fact a number of days had passed. I have seen a few other examples where the period of time was weeks, or months. In a few instances I have not blocked because there had not been much current vandalism (which is not to say a block might not happen eventually), and the fact that an IP has been blocked before, does not mean that they should automatically be on a short leash. In the case of an IP with an established history of vandalism and blocks, feel free to circumvent the normal four warning process, but do at least try to issue a few warnings, and verify that vandalism is still in progress when you report to WP:AIV. A lot of admins are unlikely to block an account that stopped editing hours before being reported, or did not make any edits following a final warning. The process can be a little annoying, but following it more routinely will make the blocking process go more smoothly. The less detective work and admin has to do to make sure warning are in place, vandalism is recurrent, and that actions reported are accurate, the quicker we can put a stop to vandalism. Hope this helps, and keep up the good work! Hiberniantears 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Many thanks for brining this to my attention! Lupin, which i use to revert vandalism, has a checkbox that states "Vandalism after recent release of block". Personally i have been interpreting this as a two week period, as edits prior to that date are to long ago to call them recent. But it seems like lupin reports this as "vandalism DIRECTLY after a block release", which is certainly not the case.
  
  Most times i use that option in conjunction with a "vandalism after final warning" to emphasize that the vandal is a second time offender. But recently i started to use these alone for schools which received long term block. Guess id better lay of that checkbox use a bit, as its not entirely doing what i suspected it would. :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured this was the case, since all your reports have in fact included actual vandals. I concur with your reasoning on the two week period... we should see about getting a check box for that option! :-) Your response reminded me of one other thing. If someone previously received a final warning on their talk page, and was either blocked following that warning, or did not vandalise again for a period of time (let's go -arbitrarily- with two days), start the warning process over again. I think with a long term vandal it is OK to skip warnings 1 and 2, but if someone has only received one set of warnings before, start over from 1. This just covers us against the "I'm not the same person who was using this IP before" argument. Hiberniantears 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, two days is very short i think, as a lot of the vandals i see around vandalize with 2-3 day intervals, but are still the same persons (Such at the "I LIKE PIE!!!" guy). Personally i am on an IP that hasn't changed since last year (Quite funny to see those old edits again!). Perhaps the warning period should match the warning history of two weeks. It might be a little long, but lets be honest: No one gets instant blocked. Everyone gets at least two warnings before getting reported, and you wont receive a vandalism warning if you didn't vandalize :). --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to suggest a quick fix. Why not just take the ending bits out? i.e. all </div>, </span>, </anything>'s you've got at the bottom? Then the template will carry on indefinitely even when people add new comments. Although that purple bit may be a problem, I don't know. BTW, lovely userspace setup you've got going here :-) Cheers, --Pumpmeup 19:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea, thanks! Normally not closing HTML tags can cause a code break, meaning that nothing at all will get rendered . But looks like simply leaving them open works just fine. The purple thingy: Well, i like it, but this moving around isn't exactly the most interesting activity to do as it got rather tiresome by now. And thanks for the compliment about my user pages looks, im glad that im not the only one who likes it :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads up! The IP 151.188.105.161 is actually a school IP- Fairfax County Public Schools, to be exact. I just happen to be a wiki-telligent user/employee here, and caught the message when I wasn't logged in. I'm not sure what the protocol is for this sort of thing, but I thought another FCPS public IP had been permablocked- User_talk:151.188.0.238. Some quick research shows it isn't, or I'm looking in the wrong places. Cymbalta 21:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the easiest way to check if an IP is being blocked is the "Blocked IP adresses and Usernames" page, which van be found [here] From the looks of it the IP you noted has never been blocked for vandalism, nor did it recieve any prior reports (Based on the user talk history) that could have lead to blocking. In short, i guess its clean as a whistle :)
  
  Now, im also not entirely certain what the procedure for blocking is, as im not an administrator. However, i believe IPs arent blocked in a cascading fashion if one of the IPs vandalizes. The school block warning just signals that a block would cause a lot of computers inside that network (That use the blocked PC as a gateway) to be unable to edit wikipedia. Its also a signal for administrators that a long block is allowed (up to a year) since school IPs tend to generate quite a bit of vandalism.
  
  Last thing: I added a schoolzone information block to the IP you signaled, since it wasnt tagged yet. Thanks for the info regarding that :). Also, i hope my little writeup answered your question, and with kind regards: --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This warning, on me as an IP when I could not log in for making this edit makes no sense. There was nothing non constructive or sandbox about it. In fact, what you reverted to was such a horrible mess of an article-with broken links and incorrect and improper cites-compared to the changes I made I wonder if you even read it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I expected the edit to be one of those dual edits, where an IP adds vandalism to a page, and then edits it another time causing the diff to show only a big mess of edits. In all due honesty, i did not read it, and i rarely do when reverting an article. I mainly scan for vandalism signals (Which, most times, are quite obvious). In this case the entire page looked lite a full vandalism, causing me to issue an (incorrect) revert.
  
  Sorry for this though, as i should have given the article a better look afterwards. Its something i tend to forget every now and them, and as you can see its something that sometimes plays up a little bit. For what its worth: I restored your last version, removed the IP level warning, and ill promise you ill be even more carefull in the future :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

HEEEEEY. You cool, but man i was just experimenting yo. Please don't hate, sorry if I be disruptin', I was jist tryna do my thang, ya know what I'm sayin'?

Anyway why's you use smileys, they rotten and smell of a bad thingl yteah also reply on my talk page so i can wsee that i have new messages. Cool? --Hotgunzzz 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• (Grins) Hehe, those warnings i left around are actually standard templates to inform a user that hes making a lil mistake (Well, there are templates to signal more severe warnings but...). Also, whats wrong with smilies? I like using them! [:) ^^ ;) :P :D :>] See? --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the headers were indeed thieved from you ;-). Original attribution is on my sandbox's history - forgot to include it. I was going to ask you where you wanted a note put in, and have put in a mention on my user page. Cheers, --Pumpmeup 04:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just use the little template
  thats on my user page, and put it somewhere at the bottom of your user/talk page :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not commit any kind of vandalism on the page of Wild Hogs John C McGinley really does play a gay highway patrolman and it plays an essential part in the movie. - Dorkules 12:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, your right. Just looked that one up. I see you already reverted my edit to the article, and also removed the warning. Guess there is nothing left to do but to say thanks for doing so, and apologize for the inconvenience caused :)

Hi,

I have removed two edits by this IP address at the Australia Post page, after your warning. Perhaps you can block them. I (and other legitimate users) appreciate your efforts to minimise the effect of vandalism. That was the first time I have edited a Wikipedia page, so you'll notice that my first edit had double quotation marks around the comment.

Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.52 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I added another warning to his account, which was beyond the maximum warning level allowed. He has been reported to the administrator team, and i believe he will be blocked from editing within a few minutes
  Thanks for brining this to my attention! :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait what?

I was in the process of making subheaders for that particular topic namely, Equinox Fitness so people could pick and choose a particular aspect of the company they know about and edit the page!

Those comments were there temporarily (since I just created the page)

• Yes, i noticed, but when you commit sections that are comments, that does unfortunately qualify as vandalism(Although i should have marked them a tests, and not as pure vandalism). It qualifies as vandalism as it adds non quality information to the articles. What would happen if you stopped editing now? Then articles would still contain the useless headers. Just use the preview or sandbox for creating those sections, but don't commit them to the final article unless they are quality :). --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• lol ok
  you must be bored bored bored, my friend --Lamdk 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, im just on vandalism patrol right now. Not bored at all, but i can understand that it must be tiresome every now and then for people who make good faith edits(Like you). --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Refering to: | This warning

Chris, have a good look at the users history and the page history before blocking this user. He added a line that would pass quality requirements, yet was reverted by the reporter of the "Vandalism". After that, there was a short discussion where the origional editor was not involved. The line was removed again, then added, and then removed again. Zhugs546 didn't receive ANY notice that there was a discussion, so he could not have been aware this was discussed.

Im all for blocking vandals quickly, but this is not vandalism. From my point of view Zhugs546 qualified this as "Back stabbing negotiations" to get a line out and made a rather annoyed personal attack at the person who kept reversing it. However, i don't think this warrants handing an NPA4-im since this is certainly not clear and persistent vandalism, especially considering his clean history. I would rather see this go to mediation, or get discussed again, this time with inclusion of Zhugs546, who added the line after all.
--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's the personal attack is worrying me, I thought that was quite offensive and there is no situation that I think any user should say such things to another user no matter what the circumstances, I under stand that there is something going on between these two editor, but I think the user made a bad decision going and doing that and if he does that again I am quite happy to administer a block, however I will also investigate the circumstances which cause that outburst and take other necessary action. --Chris 09:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, in all due honesty, i don't think this attack was all that serious. The only offending line i saw was "Fuck this and that and you". Don't get me wrong, i don't think the edit was good, but i have seen much, MUCH worse then that when patrolling for vandalism. Have a look at my own user page for an example. I have been called a "self-righteous twiddle", and have been advised to "go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time" by an established editor.
  
  I have no doubt that you can handle this correctly, but please do take into account that this is a clean account, which probably made a bad slip. Clear vandals get four warnings before getting blocked, so please be a little lenient on this one. :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why you reverted my edits at [2]? I was in the middle of editing a few sections and noticed that you reverted my edits, then backed out your revert. Yngvarr 11:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nicely spotted, i really hoped i reverted it back fast enough to avoid hindrance :)
  In short, the TV serie chowder is not broadcasted around here, which means im rather unfamiliar with the subject. The text "a could of stink who follows Chowder around" kinda rang a vandalism warning bell in my head. The previous edit you made contained "Fart Cloud" so i assumed that you were a persistent vandal who attacked the page multiple times.
  
  However, when i had a better look at the page, i saw it was a cartoon serie, and earlier edits also contained this bit of information. Also, your talk page indicated that you were not a vandalism account. When i noticed that i reverted my own revert, as it was clearly not vandalism. Sorry for the inconvenience though, if any :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• No worries. It's not the first time it's happened, and I figured as much, so I was just pinging you out of curiosity. For what it's worth, I was actually removing the "fart" reference. As a cartoon, some of the (probably) younger-aged fans are a little persistent in adding such text, but it periodically keeps getting added back. I'm sure you know what that's like. Thanks Yngvarr 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_India&action=history User:Himhifi is vandalizing the above page and I can't keep up with him anymore.. He's adding over 50 external links to the page and if I revert it back, he's accusing me of vandalism.. can u help me..? Mugunth 11:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• I see you already added a report about him to WP:AIAV. Im not an administrator so i cannot ban his account for vandalism. I can, however, add another warning to his account. I will also watch the article in question for you till an administrator reviews his account. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, you will get a lot more done when you stay calm and polite. Calling people idiots with flippin powers isnt really going to help you. Hence, it will rather work against you since they will be less likely to help. Just a thought. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thought, but just to let you know, I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem. I hate dealing with idiots. Now, dont get me wrong, I'm not calling our "wonderful" sysops and bureaucrats idiots, I'm just saying they aren't thinking things through. I'm being literally STALKED on MSN, MySpace and Wikipedia by some moron and all they can do is sit there and criticize me and prolong the process. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, i understand that, but still those "Wonderful" sysops are the ones that issue the name change. Dont forget that they are, just like you and me, common editors, but then with added privileges. Just give them a little while, and there will be a name change, im pretty sure of that. :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert of the vandalism on my user page!!  :-)
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Glad to help :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Was your reverting my latest edits to the Jenkem article made in error? Otherwise, could you explain? I am reverting back in the meanwhile. __meco 15:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• This was an incorrect revert it seems. The Diff that made me roll back only showed that you changed some text to "Butt Hash", which i, since i am not knowledgeable about this subject, mistook for vandalism. My apologies for the inconvenience :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie, I really did. You obviously spend way to much time on wikipedia.

• At least im doing that during work hours, and at least i dont waste my time vandalising it :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• What would your boss say! :O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.18.17 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing at all. I still do all the work im required to do, and as long as the quality of my research is good, he wont complain about activities such as monitoring wikipedia. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• oh ok... what kind of work do u do? just interested, not sucking up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.18.17 (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Currently im working on a project basis in a small to middle sized business. My current task is to analyse if a software revision control system would provide additional benefit to the developers within that company, and if so, compare and select the best systems (Usual most features, lowest costs :-) ) After that i need to convince the management to buy and implement it. In short, i think my current function would be a consultant :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 07:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

ah ok. sounds chilled. 121.209.18.17 08:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! NHRHS2010 talk 23:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Glad that i could take care of that! And thanks a lot for the barnstar :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job doing so. It seems there is a high volume of PoV and vandalism edits on this article. I will keep monitoring it for qualities sake.Lets try to prevent it from becoming the kind of junk it was before we edited it --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Have a good day! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome, no worries! Lradrama 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted vandalism on the roderick page, not wrote it. Are you sure you are not mistaken? because I reverted vandalism from an ip address.

Cf38 (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was alreayd a little suspicious when i posted that warning, since your account didnt strike me as a vandal account. After a closer look it seems that an IP already reverted the vandalism before you. When you reverted after that, it just got the vandalism back in.
  
  Warning reverted, and happy editing to you! :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indef as an obvious troll. See this edit - these misleading and disparaging links and most of all obvious disruption. There is an MfD for the for the deletion of the sub page. Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks KoS. Should have thought about trolling myself. I didn't check his user page/other contributions, but you are right. He clearly is a vandal. :)

• No problem, also real quick and it's not a big deal... but if you have a request for me that has already been taken care of, please don't remove it, especially this early in the morning. It tends to confuse the hell out of me until I remember to check the history. I also like to keep things like that for archival purposes :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Will do so. I tend to check the user \ WP:AIAV history to see which administrator(s) are currently handling the vandals. Based upon that i choose an administrator which i have seen before, and post a request on their user page. When i posted it on your page, i noticed that you had been gone 20 minutes, and assumed that you logged off for the day. So i removed it, and filed it to another admin. Sorry for the confusion about that :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ahhh makes sense. But alas I was just cooking breakfast and making coffee. Happy editing! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 12:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the page per the MFD and the fact that I was pretty much spam. --Chris 07:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted a nonsense edit which Jameshowe2k7 made to Mouse, and saw he had made other similar edits, so I reverted them as well. I went to his talk page and saw that you had left two messages for him. One of them had "Template:uw-vandalism1" in invisible text, and another had "Template:uw-vandalism3". Can you tell me how to use these templates? Thanks. Mr Tumnus (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure thing. These are the standard vandal warning templates, and can be used like any other Wikipedia template. For example, the vandalism1 template can be called trough {{uw-vand1}}. A list of all the available templates can be found here
  
  Before filing a warning template, make sure you check the users talk page for previous warnings. For example, if a user already has a recent level 2 warning (Recent is less then 1 week ago) you place a level 3 warning on the page. If the user didn't receive any warnings yet, then a level 1 template is placed.
  
  One exception is the "Last warning" template (level 4) Once a user has already received that you should add a second level warning, and report him at WP:AIAV. Instructions on how that's done is done can be found on the AIAV page. Is that enough information? If not, feel free to ask for more :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How so is this vandalism? All students listed actually attended Westchester Academy for International Studies, including myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.69.134.240 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lets see: We got WP-NN here, WP-Nonsense, WP-Attack and probably a lot of other guidelines that apply. In short, most of these persons are not well known enough to get an entry on wikipedia. Also, calling someone a "Resident pedophile" classifies as a personal attack on a living person, and i don't think i need to tell you that "Molly Taylor (Resident wannabe-failed drama queen)" doesn't classify as nonsense, do I? In short, this is plain vandalism if you ask me. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fare enough, let's say I remove those 2 names, all others names have been added by their own free choice. And at WAIS, according to said information by officals, are students are important, and since no harm is being done, why not just let the list stay?

• Simply because Wikipedia has its own set of guidelines regarding edits made to articles. For example, a backstreet band from a small town might also think that it deserves a wikipedia article, yet the wikipedia notability guideline forbids non notable entries on the encyclopaedia.
  
  The same thing applies here. They might have given consent, but that doesn't circumvent wikipedia notability, attack or nonsense policy. If those names were allowed to stay in the article, then the article (and all articles on wikipedia, giving the same guidelines) would slowly degrade into junk articles. Apart from the guidelines, i have to way to check if what you are saying is true. Not that it would matter really. Even if you have permission it would still not be allowed to stay.
  
  In short, wikipedia should stay free from edits that contribute no worthwhile information to the article. It might be interesting for you as the students, but for people searching the school article for general information, its certainly not. I know, im being a spoilsport here, but in this case, the rules are just the rules :)--Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been with wiki for some time now over (2 years), and have contributed to several pages, notably wiki Blacon. I am a serious contributor and am making serious edits to the Chester Wiki. I was born in Chester and still live in the city. The walls around the city are medieval but built on a Roman plan. The edits to the name derivation and history of Chester are fully referenced, yet someone keeps removing them and replacing them with non referenced stuff about Danes!! I am using the Chester Coat of Arms with copyright permission from Steve Howe, yet this keeps disappearing too!!. The reference underneath the Coat of arms is for the benefit of Chester City Council who appear to think that people might assume that the Chester Wiki is endorsed by Chester City Council. - Perish the thought! Twinney12 (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• A little clarification from my side then: When i use a rollback, any edits made by the user being rolled back will be reverted till a previous users edit (EG, if you made 20 edits, all those 20 will be rolled back till someone else's edit). I originally rolled back due to the addition of an e-mail address, along with the somewhat weird text that ended up being a reference.
  
  Now about the reference: Is there any chance that you could just create a number reference without the preceding "Not endorsed" text? A disclaimer doesn't fit inside the article, so it might be better to move it to references altogether. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Twinney12

Hi, yes, I did that, it does look better I think. Someone seems to be buggering about with this site. Someone removed stuff about Duke of Westminster, and said it wasn't relevant - considering that he virtually owns the city, I would have thought it was!! Thanks for your suggestions Tony - Twinney12 (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it was me who removed the reference to the Duke. The information was out of place in the article about Chester, but would fit in the article about the Duke. I also have changed other things around which were not in conformance with guidelines (see WP:UKCITIES.) I have also removed the coat of arms that are badly placed and, with the strange disclaimer really does not fit in. I suggest that these kinds of major changes would be better discussed prior to them being made on either Talk:Chester or the Cheshire WikiProject. I left you a note about this.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep it up - just be careful not to burn out! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! don't worry, i'm not stressing myself. Just have a look at my contribution logs; Every now and then i take as 1-2 day short wiki break in which i do other things. And other then that, reverting vandals is just a fun break for me :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, second that barnstar. Your work is very helpful and appreciated. Side note, what is the second template here? The "you've been reported" one. ··coelacan 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the little notice! :) About the template: Its not a basic wikipedia template, but rather one that i made myself. Its not actually not even a template to be honest, its just a little HTML snippet that i cut and paste from my notepad after i give a final warning :) --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 12:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. I wondered because I thought we had banished these templates into the abyss. ;) You're not, eh, prohibited from using it. But I'd ask you to take a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 23#Template:Non-admin fwarn and reconsider it. My arguments there don't really apply to your usage, since you aren't making invalid AIV reports. But WJBscribe's and Wimt's arguments are still relevant, I think. ··coelacan 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, that comment was rather informative, even if it would not apply to me. I found the template on a long time vandals page, and modified it a little bit to fit my own needs. Personally i kept running into one particular problem: I tend to give a level 1 warning, then a level 3, a level 4 and after that i was kind of stuck. Most times i conclude with a Vand4IM along with a report, but i kept thinking this was rather idiotic, since telling them that this was their only warning wasn't really the message i wanted to get trough.
  
  Still WJs comments are (as you say) valid. However, they are not fully applicable in the case of an IP block. IP blocks are never infinite, so the reminder to behave is valid in this case. Also, i think that there is not much of a different between a report and a vand4im warning. If your not banned after your last warning you also wont take things seriously.
  
  The last thing i noted is that not every admin will place a blocked template on the user page. The level of my warning highly depends on previous warnings and blocks, so if those templates are not placed, i cant decide which level is appropriate. Actually this was one of the main reasons why i began to use this template, since i needed a reference to track long time vandals(Along with the fact that dual last warnings are just plain stupid :-) ). --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• As it happens, I'm one of the lazier admins, and I often don't leave a block template (the reason is that I can stick a block template in the comment section of the block log, and this is displayed every time the user tries to edit a page). Since you're telling me you take these into consideration when you're warning, I'll be more consistent about it. For your purposes, there's always the block log, reachable from a link at the top of Special:Contributions/69.67.95.164. But I know that's out of the way. If you find that an IP is currently blocked but an admin did not leave a block template, you are welcome to leave one. They are at {{uw-block}}. These templates include an invitation to shape up after the block expires; that might be preferable to asking the same thing right before they're blocked.
  I'm a bit cynical about vandals; media attention to Wikipedia has been widespread, so they already know that we take this project seriously, and I don't think their attitudes are shifted by a plea. If someone is willing to keep vandalizing after a v4 warning, nothing is going to stop them except for a block. So you don't need any other messages after a v4; just report them to AIV and wait. I have seen some vandals stop at a v4, but the ones that don't won't stop for anything. In my experience also, there is no further utility in third and fourth warnings. So what I used to do is give v1, then v4, then report at AIV. If they obviously know they're being jerks, instead I did v2, then v4, then AIV. In egregious cases, just a single v4, then AIV. I really think it's time poorly spent to cycle through more than two warnings. Those are just my observations from lots of vandal whacking. I hope they saves you some time! =) ··coelacan 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Excirial! You are of course free to copy my code and modify it in any way you wish, provided you acknowledge the source and don't delete any acknowledgements already there. Ought I to put a GFDL notice in a comment at the top? The report links are based on originals written by User:Gzkn, though I had to modify them to work with the current version of Lupin. I acknowledge that in the documentation, but perhaps there should be a credit in the code as well. Best wishes Philip Trueman (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just made a minor copyedit on your user page, perhaps it is not correct the new way, but no bad intention. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is a bit problematic. Your user subpages currently use "User:Excirial\Whatever" format. MediaWiki expects the subpages to be in "User:Excirial/Whatever" format. I'm not sure if there's any bigger immediately harmful problems with that (aside of the fact that it may confuse people and you don't get the automatic backlinks), but I'd recommend you to move the pages to forward-slash locations to avoid potential confusion. Just a hint! Have nice day =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What happens is that Mediawiki will treat User:Excirial\Content as the userpage of a user named "Excirial\Content", instead of a page named "Content" belonging to User:Excirial. ··coelacan 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)