User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 38

RfA votes
Please don't !vote at RfAs without giving a good, solid constructive reason. It wastes your time, your vote gets ignored and it annoys a bunch of people unnecessarily. Advice for RfA voters has further information. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not
Why can it not be undone, the man doesn't want that out in the ounlic eye, and as his friend would like to remove the legal issues at this point and time until they are actually brought to the table. Monkeycrabs (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Those charges are all sourced. If you are his friend, we usually would ask that you refrain from editing his article as that creates a WP:conflict of interest. CLCStudent (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty
Do not re-insert BLP violations and accuse the other party of vandalism - you will end up blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
There was nothing wrong with this edit - it was updating the link to the current version. Please be more careful in future when reverting others, especially if you are then going to warn them when they have done nothing wrong! Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the above thread, where CLCStudent was edit warring to restore this (which says the article's subject was "widely criticised on social media" and citing a Twitter post, as if that was ever an arbiter of a neutral and unbiased source!), and the boneheaded oppose !vote on Kevin's RfA, I think we may need an ANI thread on this chap before the month is out. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  00:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an ANI thread. I still don't agree with the situation with user:Thomas8678, but I do not want to cause any more trouble, so I am leaving things the way they are. I also do not understand all the drama with my oppose vote. I voted that way because I did not think that user was ready to be admin. I would appreciate it if we can just put the events of today and this past weekend behind us. CLCStudent (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're me?
diff Was that a glitch in Twinkle or something? &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see that glitch on my end. CLCStudent (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weird... no problem, just wanted to check in! &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just experienced this myself. Something's odd here... 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Same. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's being worked on. T203583.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleted my summary for what exactly
You deleted typos that I fixed for the betterment of the page which you made my six which it is actually spelled to 6ix which makes absolutely no sense if you could reply back with and arguement that is better stating then mine we will keep it the way it is but if not I will revert my changes

Sincerely, EditsAmazing Thank you for your cooperation EditsAmazing (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You rewrote "6ix" as "six" which was incorrect, and you broke up a quote. What you fixed were not typoes, and in the process, made the page a little worse.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Re recent vandal
I've added File:Stage I.JPG to the bad image list Ron h jones (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For talk page stalkers, the above image is not suitable for work - it's certainly not a picture of a Nord Stage 1. We've had ongoing problems with this sort of main page vandalism for some time; the last time I spotted it, the vandal just swapped to another image., so we ended up range blocking. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

revdel
Do you think you can revdel the 2 revisions made by 122.100.227.132 on User talk:122.100.227.132? The links link to an image not appropiate for school... Thanks! &#8209;&#8209;216.25.187.3 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ✔️. CLCStudent (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Differential Privacy
I am working on the differential privacy entry. Please do not edit it while I am doing so148.129.71.156 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I was mistaken. CLCStudent (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

RfA
Hey! You probably don't recognize me, but I've definitely run into you a lot on Wikipedia, especially WRT vandalism reversion. I saw you've been here a good long while and you definitely contribute a serious net positive around here... You ever think about making a go for the mop? I myself am not an admin, but I've been around close to a decade and you would definitely have my !vote. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think I am ready, I would love to be nominated. CLCStudent (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin yet myself, and I think they're usually a lot more receptive to administrators nominating, but if you know of an admin who would nominate you, I would gladly co-nominate! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not taken a hard look at your editing history but I have run into you a lot and my impressions from our interactions have always been positive. If you are interested in RfA I suggest you take a walk over to WP:OCRP as a first step. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asked about this by Ad Orientem. I have to say I would be leaning towards !voting oppose at RfA, or at least asking a question about the incident in Gemma O'Doherty where CLCStudent falsely accused an IP of vandalism and continually restored BLP violations - I was close to blocking them. However, I am not amenable to changing my mind, and the easiest way you can get me to switch to support is write more in mainspace and use Twinkle less. That's pretty much it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose I might as well provide my input here - I will say that the community is quite picky nowadays. I'm not an admin myself, nor am I the most experienced user ever, but I have observed multiple RfAs and what happens to them. I suspect that the mistakes with accusing editors of vandalism when they weren't actually vandalizing will cause concern among the community. In addition, although everyone has their primary focus, the community would likely prefer to see some more NPP, content creation, copy-editing, or something similar, rather than almost just vandalism fighting. Either way, I wish you good luck if you do still decide to go for the mop. Cheers, -- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and that's not counting the criticisms from two admins of, what, about a fortnight ago? Including BLPVIOs? I don't think that will bode particularly well, to say the least. Sorry: but good luck in twelve months. —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, what I want is whatever position that would be best for me to help the community. I only want admin if everybody else wants me as admin. Otherwise, I will just stay where I am. CLCStudent (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would certainly support your RfA, but I strongly suggest you go to WP:ORCP before and get a good RfA nominator like . <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 15:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock
CLCStudent (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it shows somebody saying the contest is likely to be cancelled (possibly trying to PROD / AfD it), going the wrong way about it, and wondering why the content he removed "isn't working" because you kept reverting him, the pair of you violating 3RR in the process. Assume good faith. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Likely" is a suggestive term. We want to have the information there unless we are sure it no longer applies. CLCStudent (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The last edit by the IP shows them attempting to add a source instead of just removing the content. Again, it was a blog, but we're not expecting them to be writing a FA! In any case, I don't see anything in WP:3RRNO that exempts you from edit warring, and I had no confidence you would stop, so a block became inevitable. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I will stop editing on this issue now, so if I could be unblocked and be able to revert actual vandalism and hopefullt talk this issue out with this other user, that would be great CLCStudent (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support unblock - If CLCStudent said they will stop, I'm sure they will. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have had time to reflect. I realize I should not have just jumped to the conclusion that he was a vandal. In the future, I will respond to these debatable situations by asking the editor why they are doing what they are doing instead of just reverting them. CLCStudent (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For what you take my opinion as worth, CLCS is a good editor and contributes to the encyclopedia constructively. We all "FU" from time to time.  I would endorse an unblock. John from Idegon (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it was a good block, but I’m also think first offense edit warring blocks should normally be lifted after discussion when the person understands what is going on. That’s been demonstrated here. If doesn’t respond to this by the morning when I’m up, I’d be willing to unblock on my own (in large part because it’s a short block, but also because I’ve worked with Ritchie on unblocks like this in the past and I don’t think he’d mind if it was clear this won’t be an issue going forward.) That being said, I very much believe in giving the blocking admin the chance to discuss the unblock and wouldn’t feel comfortable doing so unless he’s had a reasonable chance of lifting it himself. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ve unblocked, but to clarify - I generally don’t mind short blocks like these being undone by another admin, as I trust their judgement the disruption has stopped. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No srsly
I'm sorry for adding poo poo to here. Please don't get on my bad side and I won't get on yours. I won't be bad so you can't block me. I'm the good guy remember. Deal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.181.170 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Friendly fire
Why did you revert my edits twice on this article? I was deleting vandalism. Check to see. Anonymuss User (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No, you also reinstated some vandalism. Just leave it alone please. CLCStudent (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I am highly against vandalism, and I by no means meant to reinstate it on the page. At your request I will stop editing that page. Anonymuss User (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Re-added Frinkonium to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles why exactly
"This list contains fictional chemical elements, materials, isotopes or subatomic particles that either a) play a major role in a notable work of fiction, b) are common to several unrelated works, or c) are discussed in detail by independent sources." -List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles

REDsEngineer (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed my question to Doniago why exactly
REDsEngineer (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed my response to my own talk section why exactly
REDsEngineer (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed my response to Doniago why exactly
REDsEngineer (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * All fixed now. CLCStudent (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My response to Doniago on Talk:List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDsEngineer (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you didn't respond to me asking why you adding Frinkonium back to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles. It's not major or anything.
 * It actually is major. Even if it wasn't, it should be included. CLCStudent (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then why can't elements like Crytacoo (from The Sims 4), which is impossible to shape, be on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by REDsEngineer (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, http://listen.hatnote.com/ is cool in my opinion. REDsEngineer (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC) REDsEngineer (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC) REDsEngineer (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, what makes Frinkonium major? REDsEngineer (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Hey, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. I was offline at the time and missed what happened, but I'm assuming it was the same vandal who's been attacking the ref desk in the past few days. Thanks again, --Viennese Waltz 18:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

System testing
Your help is needed. Will you help steer the direction of this article that you have contributed to? See discussion at Talk:System_testing Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Title
Sorry I just wanted to see what "rollback" does since I account now thank you! Christmasghostsalt (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the sanbox I will try that okay Christmasghostsalt (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s not letting me edit anything on pageant titleholder lists. Whatever you or what that other user that was deleting things did, please allow me to edit things like this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:91DD:2782:A806:7E51:9DDD:4993 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia talk:Sandbox seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox
Huh?


 * I apologize for that. You are allowed to do tests there. I deleted the warning I gave you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks bro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.101.89.226 (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Batyr
Read Talk:Batyr and count first. Magnobot (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C5B0:9330:D8AA:AA30:E3D3:864A (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what kind of help do you need? CLCStudent (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding deleting the edit to the vitamin B12 page
The wikiepedia page contained factual errors, I corrected them. The factual errors are serious in nature as they may cause malnutrition. The linked research does not in fact support the claims on the the wikipedia article. The linked research does however support the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4647:C8E3:0:C5A4:E660:C895:DFA2 (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This edit [|here] is not constructive by any mean. CLCStudent (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is it not constructive? I realise the html may be off, but the factual correction is by all means very constructive.
 * We aren't allowed to say things like, "this may". We must be certain about everything we write. CLCStudent (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Well factual accuracy is the exact problem with the original claim. The test for vitamin B12 does not distinguish between pseudovitamin B12 and vitamin B12 in seaweed. The science is not complete and at best weak. Other algae sources of "vitamin B12" have indeed been shown to contain large amounts of psuedovitamin B12, so the original claim is dangerous and misleading. Second, the reference to fermented foods containing vitamin B12 is not supported by the linked study, it in fact states "The Vitamin B12 contents of soybeans are low or undetectable. However, a fermented soybean-based food called tempe contains a considerable amount of Vitamin B12 (0.7–8.0 μg/100 g) [40]. Bacterial contamination during tempe production may contribute to the increased Vitamin B12 content of tempe [41]. Other fermented soybean products contain minute amounts of Vitamin B12 [42,43]." So the detected vitamin B12 is due to a bacterial contamination and not a product of the fermentation. The way the original claim is made it looks like people can eat many types of seaweed and/or fermented soy products and get enough vitamin B12 in their diet, this is not only facutally incorrect, but also a dangerous claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4647:C8E3:0:C5A4:E660:C895:DFA2 (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Why
text = listen sanborn is important to me. i would like to include the summer of andy into sanborn's history given that it was a big deal and accomplishment for our local small town of sanborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdawg193 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

About my "not constructive" correction in Frank Loving
Here's how it originally was written (and what you changed it back to): "Allen shot and killed Loving from behind, shooting from a darkened area where Allen had hidden. Deputy Masterson and Town Marshal Lou Kreeger responded and arrested Allen, finding him hiding in the back of the store. Loving, upon seeing Masterson, stated, "Jim, I'm shot". Loving was treated for his wound, but died five days later." Note my deletion of the words "and killed", which would startle the reader two sentences later to discover the recently-killed man, on seeing the deputy, say the words "Jim, I'm shot", and then learn the man actually died five days later. I thought it would be better for the man to die sometime AFTER informing the deputy about being shot (which, if the story can be believed -- and I'm not convinced it can be, since it conflicts with another version of the same event elsewhere on Wikipedia -- was five days later.) So whatever the veracity of the story itself, which is out of my control, I was just trying to clean up INTERNAL inconsistencies within this particular version, by not having an already-dead man talking out of turn. (After all, there's that old saying, "dead men tell no tales.") 2601:C6:4100:7B:B931:D3DC:7C83:E9E (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No response? Okay, I guess I'll revert the edit, at least for now, and if you need to change it back, please just do so and then let me know why. 2601:C6:4100:7B:85CB:39BD:2730:DF07 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

your message
Ha! I was just working on it, doing exactly that. Thank you for your continued diligence. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Do not use rollback to revert edits that are not obvious vandalism, like you did at Special:Diff/867414390. Also I used to live in that area so I am aware of things that go on there, and Google Maps has indicated the road and bridge closed until Mid-January 2019. 98.118.32.140 (talk) — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 16:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ditto to this, as you made this edit on Survivor Series (2018) with no explanation given for your revert. -- JDC808  ♫  06:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Hi CCL, How are you? Thanks for countering vandalism and reverting vandal edits. I feel so bad when i revert wrong edits and find out that it has been already undone by someone else. It is quite funny too. I think i should request for rollback LOL. Happy editing friend. TheRedBox (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Same with mine! --IanDBeacon (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
May I ask why you placed a level 3 vandalism warning on 205.155.38.242 after their first offence? I am currently learning Wikipedia, and want to know if this was a mistake on your end or if there is something I am missing. Evan99m (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I do that to obvious bad faith editors. CLCStudent (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Gah, you beat me to it on the TFA antivandalism! Good work :)

 SITH   (talk)   21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

A cup of coffee for you!

 * She even had the nerve to make a nasty joke about me. Thank you for your work. CLCStudent (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Anytime. Good work in RTRC....The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 * I don't know if you're keeping track of that image vandalism, if anyone is, but you may have seen that I just indef-blocked a user, possibly a compromised account, with CU confirmation of earlier vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I saw your speedy nomination on Commons, for User:Qweqweq11. Is there anything else? Is there an LTA, an SPI? Please check my latest CU check to see if I missed anything--and see what you think about that weird account, possibly compromised. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hiya. I refer you here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

GN10Gaming3
This is the goatse vandal. Don't bother justifying them with warnings; WP:DENY is best. Home Lander (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Level 3 vandalism warning given to an IP with no edits for a month
Why did you leave a level-3 vandalism warning - or any warning at all, for that matter - at user talk:192.12.146.190, when that IP has made no edits for about a month? Warnings should only be given after recent edits, particularly to IPs. Jeh (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * And besides that, you seem to have...
 * given a Level-3 warning to registered user who had not edited before your warning (they then responded to you, though)
 * given a level-1 warning to an IP with no edit history at all
 * ...same with this one, only this time it was level 3!
 * given a level-3 warning to an IP whose last edit was in 2015
 * given a Level-3 warning to a registered user who has NO edit history
 * given a level-FOUR warning to someone who had already been warned for their SINGLE previous edit by ClueBot


 * This pattern looks to me like gross abuse of warning templates. For which, ironically, we do have a hierarchy of warning templates.


 * Although there is no absolute requirement to start with a level 1 warning, starting at level 3 or 4 after a single edit is generally considered excessive except in cases where there is just no way to assume good faith. (See WP:UWLEVELS) As for leaving warnings of any level for IPs who appear to have never edited at all... I cannot imagine any justification for that. Are you seeing histories of edits that are invisible to others?


 * You may wish to review WP:UW. And consider that even for first-time cases of actual vandalism, many editors prefer the WP:RBI approach. Many vandals will just go away if their attempts simply disappear without fanfare or threats. Jeh (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

My previous material here struck while I have a re-think. Jeh (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That IP address attempted to vandalize according to the filter log. CLCStudent (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I wrote in my edit sum, I'd figured that out.
 * I don't believe that leaving warning templates for edits blocked by edit filters is something that's commonly done, particularly to new editors. It seems to me that WP:BITE is applicable, at least mildly.
 * fwiw, when I revert first-time vandalism, I often leave what I call a "level 0" warning - i.e. no warning at all, following WP:RBI.
 * I believe that responding to struck-out comments is fairly unusual also. Semantically speaking you may consider such comments to be withdrawn. I struck them rather than simply deleting because it's a recommended thing to do on user talk pages, rather than simply deleting. Jeh (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey
Hi CLCStudent

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits?
Hello, I've noticed that you're recently warned users about a possible block when they have no contributions. Its there a reason for this? Links are here:    A 10 fireplane Imform me  17:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * They attempted vandalism according to the filter log. CLCStudent (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ahh ok thank you for explaining A 10 fireplane Imform me  01:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just in case you didn't know, Uw-attempt2 and its series exists, which might be useful for cases like these.-- SkyGazer 512 <span style="background: linear-gradient(aqua, #d580ff);">Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

How are my edits unconstructive?
I fixed a simple typo on Bernards Township, New Jersey, and you reverted it! Could you please change it back? I am a very good boy (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Following a web search, it is apparent to me that is right. What gave you the impression that he wasn't? Also, when you revert you should always give an indication why in an edit summary, except perhaps in the case of blatant vandalism (and even then it is best to give an edit summary stating at the very least that you are reverting vandalism).   The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Uncivil comment"
How is it uncivil when the person who manages the gothic metal page is completely out of touch with reality and pushes Evanescence and HIM into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.243.129 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Because we are supposed to be collaborating, not attacking each other. I saw some things in your comment that I did not like calling him an “incompetent fool”. CLCStudent (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to make the article closer to reality? I tried removing HIM and Evanescence from the article, but the moderator reverted the edits and called me clueless. I understand that some "big" journals have called these bands gothic metal, but is it really a reliable source? If BBC publishes an article that 2+2=5, should we add this into wikipedia just because it's BBC? No sane metal fan or critic (competent one) would ever call Evanescence or HIM gothic metal. I just feel like this moderator is trying to push his favourite bands despite them having nothing to do with the genre. 5.18.243.129 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed your comment per WP:DENY -- Thegooduser  Let's Chat  🍁 21:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Twiggy and titles
I did a sampling of Category:Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire and found that the use of the title "Dame" as a prefix in these articles is very common. I've restored the title, added a post nominal, and added the category. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels
Hi CLCStuent, Greetings to you. There is a proposal at Village pump(proposal) regarding Reduce number of vandalism warning levels which you might be interested to join the discussion. cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I want to be editer
In Wikipedia Sherani  09:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harish Kumar Sherani (talk • contribs)

Please could you review my suggested changes to a biography of a living person?
Hello, I work for Dona Bertarelli and in October I suggested some updates to her page including factual corrections with sources (in the talk page). As I'm new to Wikipedia editing I don't know how long it usually takes for a page to be reviewed, and had reached out to Sitush who had edited the page recently, however had no reply so far.

Please could you take a moment to review my suggestions and to give me a feedback, if I have respected the style and neutrality required for a biography?

Thank you very much indeed! MiaNorcaro (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

James Picard Wiki
Thank you for your message.

The James Picard page is a self-promotion page and is full of claims and lies. We are journalists who have uncovered those lies and instead of asking that the page be removed entirely, we thought we could change the statements of truth (which are in dispute) to making them claims. We have evidence of this on social media so we thought wiki would want that source.

Your tone to a first-time editor was harsh. We are trying to help keep wiki free of lies. How do you propose we do that? Unnamedsources8 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)unnamedsources8

About the edit you did on Mel B's page
Omg I just wanted to thank you for removing those words Generation next spice (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Dunmore East
Hello. With the greatest respect, and acknowledging that you were acting only in good faith, I think that you should (1) look very carefully at the edit history at Dunmore East; (2) make sure that you understand the nature of the content you were replacing and how it would fit with policy, in several aspects; and (3) consider going to User talk:78.16.222.195 and apologizing for reverting and templating them. Thanks and best wishes DBaK-photo (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for coming back re Barbeque sauce; I've protected it for a couple of days. You're very vigilant — I see you around a lot. I'll mention that your ping didn't work, though — you have to link my name (and Cambridge's name) and sign in the same edit, see WP:PING. IMO, this feature ought to be more strongly emphasized in the ping info. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC).

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Plaistow, Newham
I think that this was the edit which you had in mind when you warned the other editor. Now reverted. I'll leave you to warn this one if you see fit. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for requesting my page for protection! The vandalism is all because I got Charlotte Crosby protected, so they just want somewhere else to vandalise, eye roll. Thank you! – Joesimnett (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad Boys II
You think I'm a vandal when this whoever goes put a fake cast list for a remake that's never getting made 24.184.26.204 (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not doing the disruptive editing. 24.184.26.204 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What about my editing is disruptive? Please respond ASAP. I've been blocked before 24.184.26.204 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So you don't see this as vandalism? 24.184.26.204 (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ichthyosis
I have a typo in an edit so you revert the whole edit and send me a note? It is less work to fix the typo. 75.111.203.5 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Grayson County
Apparently, you need to take English as one of your classes. Acres is plural, so needs a plural verb (are). 75.111.203.5 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that, which is why I reverted that most recent edit I made and threw out those warnings I gave you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Kids' Choice Awards Vandelism
Why is there so much vandalism regarding the 2019 Kids' Choice Awards article I do ask? I typically don't even work on that article. That type of article is not one I would erg to edit. After seeing all the rapid massive editing violations, vandalization and destructiveness on the article. It caused me to make minor adjustments. I hope you and other users that are in charge of editing that article work together to stop and prevent random editors. Prevent random violators from making obscene edits that disrupt the article.--Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what is going on, but I already notified administration on WP:RFPP about this, and in the mean time, we will do whatever we can to stop the vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)