User talk:2601:1C0:4401:F360:901C:10B8:EB70:E1DB

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (2601:1C0:4401:F360:28AA:8490:C872:4D54) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  03:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi there
Just saw you add a vandalism tag on an IP users page. Just out of interest, why is it that you don't have and account? Uamaol (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Uamaol, I've been a long-term anon. editor for quite some time now; I just haven't seen the need to get an account, but I'll probably end up getting one in the very near future, as I recently learned about anti-vandal features such as Twinkle that could greatly help me. Cheers! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:28AA:8490:C872:4D54 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply
I replied on my talk. - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!!!


Gluons12 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for removing vandalism on my Talk page. I greatly appreciate it.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

October 2016
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  00:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What are you doing? User talk:Yoyostorm23 had already been reverted and warned, and had made no new edits after the warning, so why did you give the account a final warning? It's not your place to come along and leave extra warnings ten minutes after he has already been reverted and warned. Stop doing this. Meters (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they made a total of 3 edits (or 3 attempts to vandalize). It's in order for the bot to warn them correctly if they vandalize further. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C849:59CD:AEDB:707F (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not your place. They were reverted and the editors who reverted them left the warnings they chose to leave. It makes no sense to give the editor a final warning when he was at level 2 and had made no more edits. Don't do this again or you will be the one getting the warning. I have removed your warning form the user's page. Meters (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And here's something else you should never do: Overwriting someone else's vandalism report with yours. You replaced the IP that another editor had listed at AIV with one you wanted to report, and left it looking like the other editor had made your report. If you don't know how to make an AIV report then I suggest that you don't use the board until you have more experience. Meters (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Original reporting editor here. While it's frustrating for experienced editors when new editors screw up, we all have to learn. Please don't let this experience dishearten you, but please do learn from it. ... richi (hello) 08:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss to figure out how/why your report to AIV was apparently deleted by me here. It was a good report and I have changed my password just in case my account may have been compromised. Apologies,   Aloha27   talk  23:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I assumed that it was an accident. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C849:59CD:AEDB:707F (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

26th of July Movement
Hi. When I reverted you, I provided an explanation. You chose not to extend me the same courtesy. Why? RunnyAmiga ※  talk 00:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I accidentally made that revert. My bad. :-/ 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C849:59CD:AEDB:707F (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Report to AIV
I know why you posted a note and I understand why you did it, I have nothing against you for doing that. It's just that I'm not sure what to do with this user, they don't listen to anything I say, I called for protection for the affected page but they managed to slip through the crack and make their edits despite being protected, they were subsequently reverted but I know they will be back to make those same edits again, which include removing sources, names of countries and calling me a racist. Aren't removing sources and information vandalism? (101.160.170.49 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi 101.160.170.49, their edits don't necessarily constitute as vandalism, but this editor is clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Also, not to mention that this account is clearly a single purpose account, which is also against Wikipedia policy. If I were you, the next step that I would take would be to take this to WP:AN/I, which is an administrative noticeboard that is used to report user conduct, and is usually dealt with more complicated situations than WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, which this would be perfect for. Please let me know if you need help in making a report at WP:AN/I. Hope this helps! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:C849:59CD:AEDB:707F (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the information and yes I won't hesitate to ask if I need help. Thanks again! Oh and I also wanted to say that my IP address always changes for some reason but I'm still the same person. (120.144.46.179 (talk) 08:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC))

A kitten for you!
You seem to be doing great with anti-vandalism, and I have a great suggestion for you: Twinke. It's a program to help you automatically revert vandalism, and warn/report vandals. However, in order to use it, you need to make an account. All you need is a pseudonym and password.

RedPanda25 20:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 
 * Thank you for the Twinkle advice! I recently got an account, but it is currently going through Usurpation, so I'll be editing with IP's for a couple more days until that's all said and done... :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism report
Thanks for your report at Administrator intervention against vandalism about the editor "Spike2960". You were, of course, perfectly right, and I have blocked the account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, I see there are a couple of messages above about getting an account. If you had an account it would have saved me quite a bit of trouble, because I wasted some time checking editing history of IP addresses in this range, to see if you had now moved to another one, so that I could post the above message on the right talk page. Even after that, I can't tell whether you will ever see these messages, because I don't know whether you have now moved to another one. Apart from the possible advantages to yourself, having an account also helps other editors who want to communicate with you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Whenever I get assigned a new IP address, I always copy/paste my messages from my old IP to my new IP, so I would see the message regardless of which one that you post the message(s) to... Though, with IPv6, IP addresses change almost every single time I re-connect to my wi-fi network, so yes, it is very annoying to me too... :-/ I sincerely apologize that I put you through the trouble of having to find the specific address(es) within this IP range, and for the record, I see that you also posted this message at the 2607:FB90 IP address, which is the range that I use from my smartphone... Anyhow, about my account. I have had one for a little bit, but it is currently going through Usurpation, so I will be editing with IP addresses until that matter settles down... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. It's clear that you are in fact aware of the problems of communication with an IP address (particularly an IPv6 one), and are dealing with them, but most IP editors don't, so it may not be clear to other editors. If it's of any interest to you, I started as an IP editor, and didn't see any point in getting an account, until one day when I tried to edit from the local library, and found it was blocked. I created an account, originally intending to use it only for editing if and when I found I was on a blocked IP address again, but after a while I took to using it regularly. I do find it is better to have a recognisable identity with a name, for various reasons, including the fact that many editors don't take IP editors as seriously as they take editors with an account. That is totally irrational, but it's a fact we have to live with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Account
Hi! Please register an account; it makes checking edits like this one much easier! Have a nice day and thanks in advance, &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this revert, much appreciated. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:57 on October 23, 2016 (UTC)

Editing others' comments on talk pages
Hello, 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E136:8F9E:9ACF:27BB. In the future, please refrain from editing others' talk page comments without their permission, as you did here. I have not reverted your edits because I am fine with it being a cautionary note rather than a warning. Please take a look at WP:TPO to avoid any future problems, thank you! &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 00:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Skyllfully, Oops, I didn't mean to remove your warning, I must have accidentally overlapped it instead of placing it underneath yours. that was definitely an accident on my part, sorry about that! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:58CB:1D7:CB4:B9FC (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for letting me know! I completely understand, I've made mistakes like this before… &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 03:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism; overly harsh warnings
Hello! I see that you often mark your edit summaries "rvv". But many of these do not seem to be vandalism at all, but rather a good faith mistake. It is very important that editors here assume that others' mistakes are made in good faith. Instead of "rvv", how about "reverted unreferenced addition", or "reverted error". Then, I saw you give a very, very harsh level 3 warning to a person who had merely noted that a new version of an album was available at Sia Furler. Don't worry, I replaced it with a kinder level 2 warning. Please be more careful. Such a harsh warning could discourage a promising new editor from participating in the Wikipedia project. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV issues again
Hi. In this edit you said you were withdrawing reports, yet you left a report for 203.100.6.222 there, while removing the comment from User:Jayron32 declining the report. This has the appearance of admin shopping, as you seem to be aware that there are some admins that will block school IPs more aggressively than other admins will. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's another "oops" I see. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that IP was not even supposed to be reported yet (I have a lot of tabs open, and put in the wrong one), so I was trying to remove it completely but ended up missing part of it. 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand the problems of multiple tabs open! But to be clear: I should assume I'm mistaken when I see a pattern that you (and other IPs, not sure if you are all the same person of course) are not re-adding declined reports to see if User:Materialscientist will do a long block when another admin does not? Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Paul Erik, that was definitely not my intent, and I apologize for leading you to believe that. Though, from what I can understand, it does seem like there should be some sort of consistency in regards to how admins block users, protect articles, etc. Obviously, everyone sees it differently, and they're probably isn't anything that can be done about that, but having some sort of middle ground in which admins can agree on what types of blocks/protections can be performed would only make things fair. But heck, who am I to talk... I'm not an administrator, yet alone the fact that I'm not even using an account... :-/ 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism here. I do wish you would register an account, but that's not a requirement of course. The guidance at IPBLENGTH provides little to guide us when it comes to school IPs, and this might be worth a wider discussion at WT:AIV or at Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses, maybe building on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking IP addresses or other times this might have been brought up. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha ha, thanks! :-) 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandal:AJSBOJB
Thanks for the message. I think I reverted his latest blanking and that no previous blankings had removed any active reports. Unfortunately, I think he will keep popping up at AIV or elsewhere until he is blocked. Donner60 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Materialscientist just reverted him too, so he should be blocked soon enough... 2601:1C0:4401:F360:4057:B87:4A96:758B (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. Donner60 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing User talk pages of public IP addresses
Hello,

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia talk pages belonging to public IP addresses, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:27.99.68.124&oldid=746890541&diff=cur. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and target random members of the public who do not edit Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 27.99.68.124 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)