User talk:Erc/Archive 2

Please do not vandalize
It was not vandalize but mistake. Hevesli 20:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ichigo
I'll just outline some of the major things. "After Ichigo's spiritual power is unlocked, many other characters begin to develop spiritual powers as a consequence. This is because Ichigo produces so much spiritual power that he is unable to contain it in his body, which causes it to constantly spill out. Constant exposure to Ichigo's energy causes several of his classmates to become spiritually aware, and some even develop their own powers as a result." This seems rather important to me, and it's pointed out a lot.

"Normally, when going to the human world, captain and vice-captain-ranked shinigami have a limit placed on their power so they will not cause 'unnecessary influence.' Because he is not a ranked officer, Ichigo possesses no such limit. What exactly this 'unnecessary influence' refers to is unclear." Again, I would see this difference as important.

"The title page of chapter 220 depicts the inner hollow with the mirror writing of Ichigo's name." Now, while not necessarily important, it is relevant to the hollow. No reason to remove it.

"His mother has been implied to have an abnormal amount of spiritual power while his father was eventually revealed to be of a captain-level shinigami who gave up his powers twenty years prior to the main storyline." Does that first part have a ref? I don't remember anything to that effect. As I remember it, Fisher was merely distracted by her when trying to kill Ichigo.

I don't see why you'd remove all this. As for your thing about it needing refs, the hollow mask refs itself, and one and two are noted enough that they are general character facts. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with some of that, which is why I moved the line. I do have to correct you on one point, though. Referring to a chapter is not a self-reference. it's the same prinicipal as saying a magazine printed something in its December issue. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your counter-vandalism tactics
Hey, I was just doing some RC patrol and for quite a few pages that I went to revert, you had already reverted them. Bravo, you are an asset to the wikipedia community with your quick action.

However, I do have to question your methods of using one warning then a final warning tag. In some sense, this may constitute biting the newbies. I scanned through your talk and your message above, in which you believe that placing more warnings won't help the situation. I realize that wikipedia warnings don't have a 100% guideline and they can be placed at the discretion of other users. However, I think it's far too harsh to give users two warnings. Some of these people truly ARE experimenting. For example, on one user he edited 3 times, you reverted, and he edited right after you; you gave him one standard and one final warning. Don't you think he was just experimenting to see if anyone would notice and see how fast it would get reverted back? And don't you think he didn't have TIME to notice his warnings?

You have to realize that warnings are there for constructive purposes as well. If he hasn't seen your first warning, then placing a final warning is unnecessarily harsh and does not help the situation at all! I'm not telling you what to do, I just hope that you can assume good faith with these newbies. After all, many are IP users and if they are on public machines, you don't want innocent users slapped with a bright yellow bar telling them they might be banned! Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This point can certainly be argued; however, where do you draw the line? Are you going to give them three warnings, four warnings, five warnings, six warnings...? If I think the edit is a good-faith one, I don't leave a warning at all. And it's not as if I'm blocking the users myself; if I report them to AIV and the reviewing administrator doesn't think a block is warranted, that's fine. Though I have noticed that leaving a "last warning" the second time they vandalise significantly reduces the number of times I do have to report them to AIV, because it discourages them from vandalising again. This saves more reverts, more warnings and unnecessary blocks, which can only be a good thing. Given that the delay between reverting and leaving a warning is about 2-4 seconds, if a user hasn't seen my first warning when they recieve the final one, it means that the moment I reverted their edit, they went straight back to make it again. This suggests bad faith. Also, the more warnings you place, the less attention users pay to them. By the time you've left three or four warnings, if they're still vandalising, it's clear that they've started ignoring them. As I said, if I think the edit is good faith, I won't leave a warning at all — unless they persist in making the same edit after I've reverted it, at which point I will start warning them – Qxz 05:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, have it your way. I've added another "warning level" (ugh. I hate that phrase) to the list. Don't expect me to actually use it on blatant vandals, though – Qxz 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning

 * Hi, I would like to know your reasons for removing the abuse section from the article Bayview Glen. It has been a reoccurring issue with that article, and I'm starting to grow doubtful that the situation will ever change. I placed that section up to arouse awareness to the issue in the hopes that both parties would discontinue their abuse. And I've just read your response, bit slow sorry. ArtisticReview Tuesday, 2007-02-06 T 06:04 UTC
 * Thank you for your message and I appreciate and agree with your reasoning. I pose a question to you: How do you propose to prevent this on going war from continuing. I have no doubt that the information currently on the article will be removed by a member of the staff, and shortly afterwards be replaced with malicious material from the students in retaliation. How can an article escape such persistant molestation? 06:04 UTC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArtisticReview (talk • contribs).

Re: CSD Tags
I guess I didn't realize that all of the CSD tags got listed at the same place; I thought that depending on the tag used, it was listed differently. Thanks for letting me know. Soltak | Talk 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit to Akatsuki (Naruto)
Looks fine to me. I happily accept the change. Active makes it sound like he's 100% OK, and really he is anything but, if he's even still alive. Treima 02:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds bad, though. It implies that his fate is just ignored or left in the open. In a week's time we get a confirmation, so it's fine to list him as active. He still technically is, after all. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll agree with unconfirmed as a middle ground. Possibly dead sounds like guessing. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Middle ground looks good. Treima 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Hobbeslover! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  03:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

IFD of Image:CIMG51582.jpg
Hi. I saw your note that you're new to IFD so I thought I would give you some feedback. This image doesn't have a source or license tag, so nominating it for deletion through IFD isn't the best method. Just marking as "no source" and "no license" would have been better, since those are CSD criteria for images. You can use for no source and  for no license. If you plan to start doing a lot more image work, I strongly recommend this tool: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js. Thanks and good luck! -- MECU ≈ talk 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't withdraw the IFD. IFD is actually faster than CSD (5 days vs 7 days) and since you're new and a one-time thing it's not a big deal. Good luck! -- MECU ≈ talk 13:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof
I noticed. I removed my tag that we both added to a AfD page.--CWY2190TC 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your revert at Sean Lennon
In view of my edit summary, was there a good reason why you reverted my edit ? WjBscribe 05:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind I see you changed it back and are new to the VP software. Do try and be more careful in future though... WjBscribe 05:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)