User talk:Anderson/Archive1

Welcome!
Hello, Anderson9990, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Sarah (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)

CVU Academy
Dan653 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy
Hi there Anderson, I've been assigned your instructor at the Coutner Vandalism Unit Academy. I see that you already have rollback rights, which means that you have an understanding of anti-vandalism, and understand that you would like more support in using Twinkle. Is that right? Firstly, have you enabled Twinkle yet? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes.--Anderson9990 (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great. Is there anything particular you need assistance with, or do you want more general support? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just wish to expand my knowledge about different types of vandalism.--Anderson9990 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Dejan Lovren
Hi, I've undone your good-faith reversion of the article Dejan Lovren, because you inadvertently replaced a correct version with a vandalised version. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the mistake.--Anderson9990 (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No
That edit to WWE NXT was not vandalism. I was removing a useless template because Season 6 is not a competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.84.9 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is Section Blanking.--Anderson9990 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No whoever said it is a competition needs a source. It is an all new NXT and they have made no mention about a competition on Season 6. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and use your common sense WP:COMMON Socks 01 21:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kaan tasaner
Hello Anderson9990, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kaan tasaner, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: An actor being in a leading role is a credible assertion of importance. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sp:AL
A tag has been placed on Sp:AL, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

CVU Academy
Hi there, Anderson. As your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy instructor, I have created you an academy page at User:ItsZippy/CVUA/Anderson9990. Please read what is written there; the first section of your course, with a task to complete, is written there. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

NXT is not a competition any more
do you even watch it. it isn't. check wwe.com too. it used to be until half way through season 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.84.9 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that it is not a competition.--Anderson9990 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is like saying Raw or SmackDown is a competition and adding Superstar win loss records and poll results to the articles. Nonsense.

Season 6 is a new show with no competition mentioned at all. It features undercard performers and FCW athletes. Read other websites and the WWE NXT wikipedia article even states it. Socks 01 21:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

List_of_WWE_personnel. Quite a lot on the roster don't you think. NXT doesn't use the 8 or 6 rookie format anymore. It is now a show where upcomming superstars showcase there talent at full sail university.

"Possibly controversial statements about a living person"
I don't know who you are, or upon what basis you are authorized to delete entries without yourself doing even the most rudimentary work to determine whether the entries you delete are or are not verifiable.

You deleted the entirety of my entry concerning Judge Robert E. Blackburn on the basis that it contains "possibly controversial statements". It would seem to me more apporpriate that you delete only those portions you presumptuously deem controversial, rather than an entire entry, and notify the author of those requiring further substantiation.

Most of the entry was a simple recitation of undeniable, uncontroversial facts.

Most or all were reported in the "Westword" article cited.

I have personal knowledge of all of them.

Would you please bother to identify those portions you deem "controversial"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebcaux (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Information may not be Controversial, But it is possibly poorly Referenced.--Anderson9990 (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing your signature and such
I noticed your one says 2¢, so haw do you change that?--Anderson9990 (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Signatures can explain it better than I can, but it is done at your Preferences tag, in the Signature section. It isn't that hard, but it takes a little tweaking to get it the way you want. As for "talk boxes", I'm not sure what you mean and would need a bit more info.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:09, 26 June 2012
 * For my signature, I went to Prefernces, Signatures, checked the box that says Treat the above as wiki markup.  and entered this code :


 * Dennis Brown - 2&amp;cent;    &amp;copy;


 * The code for the cent mark is &amp;cent;, the code for the circle c is &amp;copy;


 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When you change the code, hit "save" at the bottom of the page, then go back up to the signature area, it will be updated to show you what the signature looks like now. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hi Anderson. Thank you and well done for completing your last task; there's now more for you to do at your academy page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa
If you could please moderate. One person claims a quote was taken out of context. I think I made an accurate edit in his bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.67.59 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. but you have violated the Three-revert rule--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 23:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually only reverted twice after creating that new section. I still want to add a note of the two articles I brought up in the talk page. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.87.180 (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, It was This IP who was Edit-Warring. Not You.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Lionel Richie
This is not vandalism. I'm removing a section which is unimportant, the Popular culture section don't you understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.46.44 (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided a reason for the removal of content, so it will be indentified as vandalism.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You have now Violated the 3 Revert Rule.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:VANDAL is pretty clear that just removing sections isn't vandalism. It might be disruptive, POV, against consensus or a number of other things, but if it is explained and has a good faith rationale, even one that isn't very good, that isn't vandalism.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What about the other users who have said in the warnings that it was vandalism? That makes it very confusing. He was actually Edit-Warring though.--Anderson9990 - Talk to me - False Positive? Report it! 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the other users were mistaken. Vandalism is only acts that the express intent to undermine Wikipedia.  If there is any chance that they would think "Hey, this really doesn't belong here" and they blank, then it isn't vandalism.  It might be a bad edit, but that isn't the same.  We don't threaten bad edits, we educate them.  As for edit warring, that is different.  And you will find that others often tag improperly as well, and when I catch them, I do the same thing: politely tell them to re-read WP:VANDAL again, and make sure you ONLY call it vandalism if it fits that exact criteria.  Being "almost vandalism" is not vandalism.  As editors, when we are "policing" the encyclopedia, it is very important that we use only the exact term that applies, and that we are 100% correct in our tagging.  You are the face of Wikipedia when you do this, so it is important to always be polite and correct.  Mistakes happen, but we try to educate ourselves and limit the mistakes.


 * If you aren't sure on one, don't tag it, and instead write a person note asking them about it, something like: "You blanked a lot of material and you didn't give a summary. I reverted because it looked odd to do that.  Please go to the talk page before reverting back, and help us understand the purpose of your blanking".  Keep in mind, you have to use some judgement on the blanking.  If it is a "trivia" or "in popular culture", I've been known to blank a few of those myself and sometimes there is a good reason, so we assume good faith and ask when we aren't 100% sure.  If they are blanking the lede or giant sections that are obviously good article, then it *might* be vandalism.  You have to stop and figure out their intent, and instead ask politely if you aren't sure.  Or get a more experienced editor's opinion first.  This is how we all learn, from each other. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  22:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked for a clarification of this point, as another admin has protected the Lionel Richie page for "persistent vandalism" in reference to the edits of that IP. See User talk:Dennis Brown. INeverCry   04:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, once he had reverted so many times, at that point it became disruptive as he was edit warring. My main point was that section blanking is not always "vandalism" by virtue of them removing chunks of article.  I trim with a butcher knife from time to time as well.  Keep in mind, some admins might consider this type of blanking vandalism, some won't.  That means that if you are reverting them, you are not immune to 3RR.  If you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, it puts you at risk of getting blocked yourself.  You were technically at 4RR INeverCry, a situation you want to avoid, as some admins will just come up and block without warning.  I'm not one of those admins, however. I avoid reverting more than twice and instead get another opinion from an editor, and leave a hand written polite but firm warning on their page, asking them to explain their edits else they "might be considered vandalism".  Usually, other editors or admins will see the vandalism in a bit, and pick up where you left off anyway.  If you have to revert a 4th time, don't, just take it to AIV even if it is premature, to put another pair of eyes on it.  It is a bad habit and will get you in trouble eventually.  Now, if it is OBVIOUS vandalism (no one could argue otherwise), then revert away.  Obvious meaning "U are teh suxs!"  or whole article blanking type edits.
 * As for the protection on the page, even if they protect "for vandalism", that doesn't mean it was for vandalism. We only have so many drop down menu options to choose from when protecting the page and vandalism is the default option and fastest, so if it a combination of edit warring from one IP, disruption from another, vandalism from one more, then they we typically just lump it as "Vandalism" since that is the first menu choice when protecting the page, and anyone could look at the history and see the problem.  When we protect the page, we aren't combing the actual edits as much as looking at the history of reverts and such, for the patterns.
 * I know I'm being nitpicky about the term vandalism, but it isn't because I'm disagreeing with you, but instead trying to get you to see how other admins might see it, and prevent you from getting dragged down to WP:AN3 and/or blocked, when you are only trying to do good things. I appreciate the good work you do, but we all have to be careful to define things carefully to avoid problems. I mean this only as a guide to help you, not to scold you. You might notice that the IP was blocked for edit warring, not for vandalism, so the blocking admin Drmies likely saw it that way as well.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  11:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Concur with everything Dennis says above. I was the protecting admin and semi-protected in response to a request from another user. I was conscious of being slightly lazy when choosing "vandalism" as the protection reason; perhaps "edit-warring" would have been a better description. As Dennis says, there were the blanking edits (not necessarily vandalism but certainly disruptive), the look-a-like edits (verging on vandalism and with a potential for BLP violation) and some outright vandalism to boot. I do appreciate the feedback though and will make an effort to leave a better protection reason next time. Thank you, --John (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the key is that when we tag an editor's page, we are doing so as an "authority", whether or not we are an admin, so we always err on the conservative side. If it "might" be vandalism but you aren't sure, you leave a personal note saying "Others might see this as vandalism" instead of declaring it outright.  Again, we all appreciate the efforts of those fighting vandalism and this isn't meant to punish or speak badly about your efforts, and is instead meant to be educational, to help you do your jobs more effectively and avoid confrontation.  We admins depend on other admins and non-admins alike to fight vandalism, we are on the same team, and we just need to be extra careful how we do it.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  16:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Thanks for your responses at your academy page. I've taken a look and given you a few more tasks to do (there's three this time, which might take a little more time). Hope you're ok and getting on well - do let me know if you have any problems. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your responses. I've given you new tasks to complete (sorry for taking a little while). I think we're nearly there now: once you've got through all of the lessons and tasks, I will give you 5 days in which I will monitor your progress and be around to answer questions. After that, I will set you a graduation test. If there are no major issues during the monitoring phase, and you do well on the test, you will graduate from the programme. At this point, if there is anything else you would like to be covered that has not, please let me know (there will be a brief section on page protection and speedy deletion after the current one). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"Reverted good faith edits..."
Greetings,

Regarding the "Peter Greenaway" section of the "List of film director and cinematographer collaborations", I added some entries about that director's collaborations with Reinier van Brummelen, the reliability of which is easy to verify. Yet you reverted them (as well as some other minor updates). I would like to know the reasons why. Thanks in advance !

Best regards,

171.16.208.3 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)