User talk:Fogherty V. Tatin

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- Jbamb 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Macintosh User 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

OH FUCK YOU ALL! WHY AM I BLOCKED? THIS IS THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fogherty V. Tatin (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Yes, it is so, but vandalism as the one you performed on the articles you "edited" is not permitted. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 00:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah alright, but despite the fact that this account is infinitely blocked I can return in just 24 hours to start a new account!


 * Yes, you can, but respectfully, it would be a waste of everybody's time. Are there articles here which interest you in particular? --HappyCamper 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was just bored and I wanted to see how far I could go in the alphabet for US states before getting blocked. I made it as far as Michigan. Pretty impressive, right? My friend who did the same trick got blocked right after Arizona.


 * Well, I wouldn't say it's "impressive", but rather sort of dumb...it's pretty easy for admins to remove the vandalism. If you're well meaning in the future, I would be more than happy to unblock. We're all just trying to write articles together, you know? So, what do you say? Don't vandalise, and I'll unblock you? --HappyCamper 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I suppose if this is one of those "throwaway accounts" it wouldn't really matter? :-) You know, what about computer games you're good at? Maybe you can add some tips and tricks of the trade to them? --HappyCamper 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Besides I have my own user account that I solely use for positive edits; in no way is my name actually Fogherty V. Tatin. But on many of the pages I vandalized, it actually took up to 8 minutes for the admins to revert them back... perhaps they don't care that much about US states. I know that for GW Bush, vandalism on that page is reverted on the average in 33 seconds.


 * We care about all the articles actually, but it's just that there are limited resources. There are a bunch of editors who keep a vigil on every single edit that comes through - of course, sometimes we have to pick and choose which articles to watch. --HappyCamper 02:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a "Headquarters", where it is the employees' jobs just to sit in front of computers all day watching Wikipedia articles?


 * Headquarters? Nope. There is no-one employed by Wikipedia, with the exception of 1 individual (I think) who makes sure all the software is running on a daily basis. This encyclopedia is entirely built up by volunteers - the great thing is that anyone can be a volunteer and help out. That's why it's amazing. Hmm...there is the Wikimedia Foundation for which Wikipedia is a part of, and that is based in Florida. But there really isn't a "headquarters" for Wikipedia itself. --HappyCamper 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyone can be a contributor - what you need is really an internet connection, an intention to edit positively, and that's more or less it. --HappyCamper 02:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How do people use the edit summary "Reverted edits by _______ to last version by _______"? Is there some trick for users to plug that in? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fogherty V. Tatin (talk &bull; contribs) 12:26, 21 December 2005.
 * You can put it into the edit summary manually. If you're an admin, using the "rollback" feature puts that information into the edit summary automatically. That's one of the reasons why it's so much easier to undo vandalism than it is to create vandalism. The person whose time is being wasted most is the vandal's. By the way, it is possible to perform checks to see what other accounts you are using. This is called "checkuser". Thus, if you're a persistent vandal it's likely that all of your accounts would eventually be blocked. Just contribute positively, ok? We'd heartily welcome the positive additions to the encyclopedia. --Durin 13:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good to know. They claim that they can undo vandalism within two mouse-clicks. But it appears now that the rollback feature has been updated to include a link to the vandal's talk page within such edit summaries; i.e. Reverted edits by ______ (talk) to last version by ______.

Well even though vandalism could be reverted within seconds, for each second a featured article is vandalized, an estimated 2,500 users will see the vandalism.


 * If that's the case, then at any given moment there are 2.2 billion people reading Wikipedia per second. This does not include all the people reading pages outside of the main namespace. I think your figures are just a tad bit off. :) Regardless, vandalism is wasteful and is easily undone. --Durin 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, true, but I hear that Wikipedia gets 800 million hits per day. Dividing that number by 86,400 would give you around 9,259 visitors at any given second, and I would estimate that 2,500 of those 9,259 would be reading the featured article. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fogherty V. Tatin (talk &bull; contribs).


 * The featured article, maybe. But, with more than 800,000 articles there's plenty of other material for people to be reading. --Durin 02:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)