User talk:Darth Molo

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy
Hi Darth. I think my fellow founder of the CVUA was a little premature in inviting you to the academy. While our standards are pretty lax, I would like to see some more editing, before you are approved, which I have no doubt will happen. Dan653 (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's Sith Lord to you sir. :D The Phantom Menace, Darth Molo (talk)
 * So just to back up what Dan is saying, a few Instructors had a little talk page discussion and we like the work you're doing and we think you'd be a prime candidate for the Academy. The only issue is that The Academy requires a working understanding of using Wikipedia and Wiki-markup. If you keep working at the clip you've been, I'm sure it'll only be a few days before you meet our standards. A week or two, at the most. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Removed on Jassian
Hi, just letting you know I removed your speedy deletion template from Jassian for A1, as the subject of the article actually was identifiable... Jassian, the village. Again, just letting you know, thanks for contributing! Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. :D  Theopolisme  TALK 04:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

please check article history before tagging for deletion
G'day, you tagged Michael Warren (footballer) for speedy deletion, but if you'd spent 10 seconds looking at the article history you would have seen that the weird text was added in the previous edit. Hence undoing that edit would have been the correct anti-vandalism action to take, not deletion. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA
Hi Darth, Regretfully your instructor doesn't seem to be working with you and we are looking into this problem. Expect to here back from us within 16 hours. Sorry, Dan653 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We will replace your instructor with a new instructor within a week. Please acknowledge this message within three days, so we do not mark you as inactive. Dan653 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Dark lord is not inactive.--The Phantom Menace, Darth Molo (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ... but Mrlittleirish apparently is. Hello Darth Molo, looks like I'm your new CVUA instructor. Nice to meet you. I've just taken a very quick look at your anti-vandalism edits and like what I see; I notice that you're also looking to use igloo, which is a personal favourite of mine. Unless I'm missing something, your edit count for reversions is still quite slim, so I'm not convinced your current request for rollback is going to be granted - we can soon bring you up to speed, though! Keep doing what you're doing, and drop me a talkpage note (here or at my own page) if you need any help. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Darth Molo. Thank you for your continued work in reverting vandalism this morning. However, I've noticed that you don't seem to be notifying the editors your reverting of your changes. It's important to let them know that you've reverted their edits, for several reasons: You have Twinkle enabled, which allows you to add warnings very easily - if you use Twinkle to perform a revert, the user's talkpage should open automatically (in a new window or a new tab, depending on your preferences). Just select "Warn" from the Twinkle menu and choose the appropriate message. Feel free to ask if you've got any questions. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It alerts them to Wikipedia's policy on vandalism.
 * It can discourage them from repeating their behaviour.
 * It lets other editors see what has been done.
 * It allows them to justify their edits if they believe they were valid.
 * You still need to focus on the "warn" part of "Identify, Revert, Warn, Report"... I can see a couple of instances in the last two days when you didn't slap a warning template on an editor you reverted (this guy, for example). There's also case for concern over this reversion, where you reinserted a whole bunch of speculative original research which Chaheel Riens was totally right to remove. It's fine to make mistakes like that - I do it sometimes myself, especially when using an automated system like Igloo - but you need to be able to identify when you've made an error and go back to self-revert ASAP (I have undone your edit for you, so no need to worry about this one). To get rollback rights, you need to clearly demonstrate that you can distinguish between vandalism and genuine edits, and that's not what I'm seeing generally. That said, this was a very good use of the uw-test template (a uw-vandal would have been inappropriate, given that the edit you reverted was not actual vandalism), so I'm glad to see you're using the correct templates when you do warn other users. Keep going, and as always, ping me if you need a hand. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may add a comment here - an easy way to really establish vandalism or not is to spend a minute checking the editors contribution history - whilst this won't help with drive-by vandalism, it often gives a clue or impression if you're unsure of a particular edit.
 * Of course, if it really is vandalism, then checking the contributor history may well show up other vandalism or questionable edits that may need action as well. To use my own edit as an example, I had previously edited Gun on Ice Planet Zero hence it was in my watchlist.  For reasons I forget, I came back to it and noticed the OR additions.  I checked the page history which showed that the additions had been made by a single editor - and also that similar style edits had been made to almost all of the series 1 episodes of Battlestar Galactica.  I removed them all under the same premise.  I wouldn't call these edits vandalism - another Editor invented the word fandalism which I think is more appropriate, and use whenever possible.  These Battlestar Galactica additions fall under that heading - a diehard fan may consider them essential to the article, but for a general encyclopedia, they're not important, but neither are they vandalising any article.  Finally, just for awareness' sake I left a message on the WikiProject Battlestar Galactica talk page, which although "semi-active" is a good place for such future watching and preventative action to be carried out.  It seems that the last person to join was the same editor who added all the OR segments.
 * Anyhoo, good luck with your patrolling, and choose and use your tools wisely - I personally don't use any tools as I think they encourage shortcuts, and prefer to manually revert & investigate, as it lessens the chance of errors - rollback notwithstanding. My opinions only, of course.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Inactive?
Hi Darth Molo. Since you haven't edited for over a month, I've listed you as inactive on the CVUA page. If you are in fact still around but keeping a low profile, let me know. Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

About "GeronimoStiltonNetwork International"
Hi Darth Molo! Though there definitely is Geronimo Stilton and Geronimo Stilton (TV series), I don't think this "International network" exists at all. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your "review" of Whimsical Records
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlatform_Records&diff=524879829&oldid=524813755 This] is not the proper type of comment to leave. That should have been immediately been deleted as a G11 and G12. Legoktm (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "edit" of Elsie Roy Elementary School
I have no idea where are you from, but I'm from Vancouver, live in Elsie Roy's catchment area. The fact that Elsie Roy is an overcrowded school is well known in Vancouver, I reverted back my edit and added 3 references, hope that will be enough. I think that you are way too fast in qualifying edits as vandalisms. You didn't ask for a reference or anything else, instead of that you decided on your own what is a vandalism and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.9.245 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with the IP. Whilst it would have been better if they'd provided their sources straight away, and as such there was nothing wrong with the actual reversion of the edit, there was also no reason to jump straight in with a template on the talk page - remember to assume good faith.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2013 (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) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)