User talk:Bishop Brennan

His Grace Experiments
Thank you for experimenting with the page Søren Kierkegaard on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —Cuivi é nen 15:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. -- Steel 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How dare you speak to His Grace like that! Apologise immediately! Father Jessup 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

= Nominating Pages for Speedy Deletion: Work and Complaints to His Grace =

Adding Images of Bishop Brennan When Adding Speedy Deletion Templates Might Be Vandalism says Windchaser
While I appreciate your effort in nominating pages for speedy deletion, please do not add unrelated images to the nominated page in the process. This can be considered a form of vandalism. // Windchaser 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A Statement of Denial by His Grace, With Wikipedia Vandalism Policies as Evidence

 * It isn't vandalism under the rules:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Adding the image does not change content in an attempt to "reduce the quality of the encylopedia" as obvious Speedy Deletion articles do not contain any "content" that are warranted for the quality of the encyclopedia. The edits would only be deemed to be breaking WP:VAND if there was a consensus given by more than one person that the addition is not needed. In that regard, I see no reason to stop as I don't break policy. Bishop Brennan 20:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Debate Continues

 * I would respectfully disagree. What may seem like an obvious speedy delete candidate at first can oftentimes be an interim page that is in the process of being edited and elaborated upon. The speedy deletion templates are designed not only to mark candidates for speedy deletion, but also to alert users to the proper processes for creating articles. Adding an extraneous image may make a user's (especially a new user's) work that much more difficult. Also, I would note that the section heading that you create over the image includes a word that is considered by some to be a profanity. Especially if the user is new to Wikipedia, this may be offensive, as well as hurtful if they do not understand the context of the quote (which, I am assuming, is a quote from the character portrayed in the image). However, I am but one member of the Wikipedia community, so I will leave further discussion on this issue to the community at large. // Windchaser 21:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've only added it to "obvious" SD candidates, as eluded too in my above comments. By obvious, I mean the very very obvious, and in cases where it is definitely not a user-test.


 * Secondly on profanity, Wikipedia is not censored so to argue that people will get offended holds no ground. If people get offended by an ambiguous word, then they'll certainly be offended by pictures of autofelliato and dodgy porn encyclopedia articles floating around. If someone was to get offended by it, it would be doing them a service, not a disservice.


 * Lastly, the comment is in quote marks, as you assumed yourself. Quoting someone and adding it in spam and insulting articles is fair gain when it doesn't break Civility rules in my opinion. Bishop Brennan 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ps - I'm also a new user.


 * Even pages under consideration for speedy deletion are not reasonable places to vandalise. Vandalism has no place on Wikipedia. Don't do it. (Furthermore, your edits to Søren Kierkegaard were clearly inappropriate in any case.) —Cuivi é nen 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave evidence from the Vandalism policy to back up my statement that adding pictures to content not supposed to be on Wikipedia is not vandalism. Saying "Vandalism has no place on Wikipedia." doesn't refute, that as it doesn't prove its vandalism under Wikipedia policy.


 * The "argumentum ad hominem" at the end of your comment doesn't add weight to what you're saying either. Bishop Brennan 22:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't want to make this a big deal. Your actions may not be in violation of the letter of the policy, but they are certainly in violation of the spirit. All I ask is that you don't do it again. Finally, I was not attacking you in my other comment, merely pointing out that, regardless of whether the disputed edit was vandalism, you have still brought upon yourself a vandalism warning. —Cuivi é nen 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But that warning is irrelevant to what is being discussed. You're basically saying I've brought a warning on myself, so I must be wrong.


 * You also should explain how I cannot break the policy, but that it somehow breaks it anyway because you say so. I gather the word on Wikipedia is Consensus. You saying "this is not the spirit, and so it breaks the policy somehow" is not using the policy in the way the consensus has agreed that it should be used for. Bishop Brennan 10:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Additions - Another Opinion and More Debate
Please stop adding anything beyond a tag for speedy deletion when nominating articles as such — the addition of unrelated images is inappropriate and vandalism, regardless of whether the page is to be deleted. Thanks.  Tijuana Brass E@ 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. See above. Bishop Brennan 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I have. Your bizarre attempt to justify vandalism isn't working for me, though — nor your defense of "I'm a new user" (you're not, regardless of the age of this username). If you can't add speedy tags while resisting the temptation to vandalize, please don't add them at all. Further additions will be considered vandalism.  Tijuana Brass E@ 18:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you people ever provide evidence to support what you say? I've clearly shown it isn't vandalism under Vandalism policies, so its up to you to prove and show me otherwise. You're tact of "Its vandalism, because I say so" is nothing new (Again, see above).


 * I've fully justified my edits using policy. If you can't do the same, I've got to real reason to take your threats seriously.


 * I also am a new user; I'm in fact a quick learner! Again, there is nothing to say otherwise. Bishop Brennan 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm hmm, cute. You've been warned. Should you feel the need to appeal your point of view, you're quite welcome to do so at the appropriate forums. Being a "quick learner", I'm sure you're already familiar with the process.  Tijuana Brass E@ 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I'll be able to find it, but perhaps you're being some what uncivil with that accusation of not being new to Wikipedia and with that "Mmm hmm, cute" sarcastic remark. I'll point you in the direction of some petty examples:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment: I mean responding to a request to point out what part of the Vandalism policies I've broken with a cheap-shot "cuteness" remark and a stern warning isn't really helpful to a new user, such as myself, in understanding the "dynamics of Wikipedia".....especially when I've justified my actions under policy, sir. Bishop Brennan 19:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rudeness
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
 * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
 * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel [Insinuated by your comments]. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)