User talk:Chip123456/Archive 5

Rollback for Dead or Alive
Hello. I noticed you did a rollback for the Dead or Alive film page after I edited out the "Plot" section. I know that I did not replace it with anything else, but I felt it was more important to quickly remove what I viewed as an offensive piece of vandalism rather than leaving a section of the article completely blank. I'm sorry if I did wrong, but I just don't see a reason to leave that kind of vandalism up on the site.


 * Hi, it wasn't a rollback, it is what I call a 'Twinkle' I only use my rollback for few circumstances! If it was vandalism I apologise, but I'm surprised it wasn't removed before as it would've been viewed by other users. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. I'm not used to the 'professional,' as I like to refer to it, Wikipedia editing, so I'm still learning all of the phrases. Anyway I guarantee that the page was vandalized, that was no real plot summary! I also wanted to get it off ASAP since it had some homophobic tones to it. I hope I acted properly and if not please let me know how to proceed in the future. Is there anyone I should run edits by in the future first?


 * DW, it was fine. Be bold, you don't need to consult anyone for every edit you do, but of course, if you need any help you know where I am! --Chip123456 (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chip, I'll keep you in mind if I need help with anything. Thanks again!


 * No problem, you know where I am. Also sign your messages with ~ . Good luck! --Chip123456 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, Duchess of York (again!)
Hi! I'm here to tell you that IPs remove the name of Sarah from Template:British Royal Family. I tried to stop them but I couldn't. Also they remove the names of James and Louise. I left a request for page protection. See what can you do. Keivan.f Talk 13:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, at this moment, there is nothing I can do. The admin (I think rightfully because of the edit war) changed the protection level to sysop only. The issue should be raised on the talk where a group consensus can be made. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Keivan.f  Talk 05:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Two things: please consider taking User: Scott Delaney under your wing, and second are you UTC-4 or +4? Dan653 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would happily! Sorry, I don't know why I out UTC? Not even my bloody time zone? I'm British summer time! --Chip123456 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Half the year UTC is my time zone (because UTC is same as GMT), so it will be your time zone too, during Oct-March. BST is UTC+1 -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know! It's not our timezone now though ATM because we are BST. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

IP
you are wrong. i m doing correct things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.107.149.82 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Started thread called IP. Removing editors user page edits aren't correct. You have not given a valid reason for your removal nor have you consulted them with your actions. --Chip123456 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA Re:
Regarding that message you put on my talk page, I am going to be Quite busy as well. So don't worry if i don't make as many Contributions that i have made this weekend.

P.S if i produce a false Positive just let me know Here. Cheers!--Scott Delaney (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Scott Delaney at WP:AN
I don't know if you're aware, but Scott Delaney is the subject of a thread at WP:AN for the misuse of automated tools surrounding his counter-vandalism efforts. You may want to post a statement asap, as the administrator is proposing an indefinite block on the basis of WP:CIR. -Cntras (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading your arguments on several pages, I'm a little confused about your actual stance on the situation. Could you please clarify? Keep in mind that as his instructor, your statements will probably have a bearing on Scott's response. You should think carefully about whether you really would endorse an indefinite block. -Cntras (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My place on the current situation is stay clear of a block at the moment. I think I've made that clear on AN. Ive also said that if the user does persist I would support the block, after I've given him a final warning. I'm being more tolerant than others....some wanted him out of the academy, indefinite block. --Chip123456 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted. Still awaiting a response from Scott. -Cntras (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

RFA Criteria
With regards to your RFA criteria - I'm not sure who would consider 'at least 10 with a 50% success rating' as a reasonable CSD record. A 50% record is quite appalling to be honest. Also, I'd be hard pressed to support anyone with more than one block, let alone five. -Cntras (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mmmmm, it all depends on what the block is for, as stated really. Your right about the CSD, give me one min. --Chip123456 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed CSD to 70%. Keeping blocks the same, I know of an admin who has been blocked 4 times. Do you have any criteria? --Chip123456 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So in what instance would five blocks be reasonable? -Cntras (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocks are always going to be deemed upon as a bad thing. They aren't reasonable. For instance, edit warring blocks, at least 3 months ago would be ok, maybe I might extend to 5 months to show the block has been acknowledged, would be acceptable. But vandalism wouldn't. --Chip123456 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are blocked multiple times for the same reason, then that shows that you do not learn from your mistakes. If you are blocked multiple times for multiple reasons, then that shows that you fail to understand a wide variety of policies on Wikipedia. -Cntras (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've brought it down to 4. I've based it on an admin I am aware of who has been blocked for personal attacks/being uncivil twice/ and edit warring three times, hence my criteria meets current admins record.--Chip123456 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that sometimes it may depend on the given circumstances surrounding the block, but as I explained above - it does require a good explanation. On an unrelated note, stop posting talkback templates. I'll watch your talk page :) -Cntras (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I only posted 1, I didn't know if you have had me watched! If the user has shown signs if the block reason being repeated, it probably would be an oppose. If it was 2 vandalism, I would probably oppose! some users have really strict guidelines/criteria, it's unbelievable reading through them. --Chip123456 (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those 'strict' guidelines are probably more widely held than you think. You might be in for a surprise. -Cntras (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any criteria? They have guidelines for a reason and even though they may come across as strict, they have a good point to what they are saying, and I support  what they say. --Chip123456 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Female, approximately 25 years old, 5’11” tall, with a slim build. Freckles. -Cntras (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What colour hair?--Chip123456 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I should emphasise that last point about the freckles. -Cntras (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I get it! --Chip123456 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)