User talk:173.49.140.141/Archive 1

Welcome!

 * }

Re: Editing
Sorry, but there is no way to do this (see CHU). And please take any future questions to the help desk, rather than asking the founder (you'll get a quicker reply there). Cheers, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from PC Mall, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a  tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.  Allmightyduck   &#xF8FF;  What did I do wrong? 18:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create that page. What was this message for?
 * You may not have created the page, but you did remove the template. Allmightyduck   &#xF8FF;  What did I do wrong? 18:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the template myself. But later I Googled "PC Mall" and found it notable enough to remove.
 * OK, according to someone who helped me clarify, the user wanted it to redirect to PC Mall, Inc., which I did. Sorry! Allmightyduck   &#xF8FF;  What did I do wrong? 18:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies.
Sorry for getting confused over the earlier revert. I will check talk/user pages before warning/reverting in the future. M D Potter. Any comments? 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User:Perseus, Son of Zeus. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC). 20:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was still experimenting. Forgot about the sandbox. Also, please read above; I AM Perseus, Son of Zeus.
 * OK why have an account and edit as an IP? Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

I usually do my contributions outside of my account; I guess you could call me lazy for not even signing in. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Jason Grace, 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 read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Mechanical digger (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your edit that I reverted - I hadn't realised that it was a fictional character, I saw the changes in sections, the "... is his girlfriend" change and the history, which indicated odd changes, so decided to undo it. Sorry. One thing that would have helped is if you had used an edit summary, as per WP:EDITSUMMARY, to describe your changes. I note from your contributions that you never use them, but it is an important part of collaboration to explain to other editors what you are doing and why. You might be too lazy to sign-in, but it is not acceptable to be too lazy to fill in an edit summary. Mechanical digger (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it's my fault, not looking properly, sorry. Mechanical digger (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism
Thank you for your recent reports at Administrator intervention against vandalism. One of the reports was very helpful, and has resulted in a block. however, you also made two reports on IP addresses that have not edited for some time, in one case not for two and a half years. We do not block IP addresses unless the vandalism is currently going on, as it is entirely likely that the same user is not currently using the same IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was browsing through, , and thanks for the tip. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In follow up to James' comment above, I would encourage you to read the instructions in the green box at Administrator intervention against vandalism. The IPs that you are reporting do not need to be blocked.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply
According to policy, user may be reported at AIAV when they have been warned four times. When, or if that happens, I, or whoever reverts vandalism made by that IP the fifth time (this month), will report it. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not entirely true. It is common practice to start with a level one warning, then level two, and only after level five report to AIV, but this is not a policy requirement. Personally if I see an edit which is clearly deliberate malicious vandalism then I tend to skip straight to level 2, and reserve level 1 for things that look like someone being a bit silly, but not really malicious. Likewise I am frequently willing to jump from 1 to 3. In extreme cases it can even be justified to go straight to level 4, and just to prove that this is not against accepted Wikipedia practice I can point out that there are templates such as which are specifically intended for the purpose of an immediate level 4 warning without any previous warnings. However, that is for really serious cases, and generally speaking I would not be willing to take action unless a user had had at least a couple of warnings, including at least one which warned that blocking was a possibility (in other words a level 3 or 4). In the case of IPs it is also important that there is good reason to believe that it is the same user. In most cases this means, as I have already indicated, that the warnings have to be recent. How recent? There is no absolute rule. In cases where all the vandalism took place in a period of ten minutes which finished an hour ago I would tend to take the line "as far as I can see that vandal seems to have left", and regard the edits as stale past history. On the other hand in the case of edits which have continued over the course of a significant time, and where the character of the edits strongly suggests that it is the same person, I would accept warnings from a quite while ago. However, I would still require the vandalism to be currently ongoing, even if the warnings are not so new. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which an IP unless vandalism had been happening today. In the case of a registered user rather than an IP the same principals apply, but the time scale is not so critical, as the possibility of blocking being a completely user than the one who was warned is not a consideration. (I have also posted an answer to the query you made on my talk page). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. There are extreme cases, in which the vandals may be reported before the fourth warning, but in most cases, I still go on by warning four times before reporting. Maybe I'm sometimes too cautious, but that's better than acting too quickly and making mistakes, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. If in doubt be cautious, but sometimes there is no doubt. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have already read my reply to you on my talk page you may like to go back and read it again, because I have thought about it a bit more and changed it. On a completely different issue, your "You have new messages (last changes)" banner on this page is really not helpful, as it is likely to confuse and mislead people. I'm sure there is a guideline somewhere that mentions exactly this sort of thing, but without guidelines if you think about it you should be able to see that there is a potential problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:X!/RfX Report, 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 read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. ⅊™ 00:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * False alarm! Just a fix. 173.49.140.141 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I think the whole point is so the bot does it automatically... ⅊™ 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia Wikipedia
In case you didn't know, the Nostalgia Wikipedia is an archived version of Wikipedia, that has most of the old history dating back in 2001, but there are still missing edits (mainly the very earliest ones). Hey Mid  (contributions) 11:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit
Your recent edit to the page Portal:Speculative fiction/Upcoming appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. See this diff ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.