User talk:John254/Archive 2

71.107.251.78
This IP is currently blocked for a month. I suggest ignoring the vandalism to the user talk page, until they get bored, and then reverting it back. If it becomes a real problem (e.g. posting of personal attacks), it might be worth requesting page protection at WP:RFPP. Cheers TigerShark 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on my userpage and talk page :). Fabricationary 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
I recently got a message saying I was trolling and that I should contribute to the work of others not destroy it. I believe it was on comments on the Fabio Grosso page. I am interested in what trolling is, becuase I usually edit articles, never go on the pages, however my emotions got the best of me and I typed what was on my mind and the minds of at least 20 million others. Grosso will not step foot on aussie soil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.49.85 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 9 July 2006
 * Comments such as this are highly inflammatory and wholly irrelevant to the discussion what content should be in the article. While in practice there is substantial leeway in the use of talk pages for temperate discussion of personal opinions and other matters not directly related to content decisions, this comment goes far beyond the customary limits of discourse on these pages. John254 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My alleged vandalism of History of the World Part 1
I would first of all like to say I am pleased and surprised how quickly you act, after reading people boast about alterations they have made to articles to include insults, I was not sure how good the service was.

Secondly, I don't believe I vandalised a page, nor gave incorrect information, and was merely trying to add to a page. In History of the World Part 1, as the cavemen rise and the music from 2001 plays, they begin beating their chests, then they beat a little lower, repeatedly, until a groan is heard and they start lying down. Now maybe I misinterpreted the scene, they may have been collapsing after hitting themselves below the belt, but I did not intend to cause any vandalism.

If any actual offence was caused I apologise, but I meant no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.201.221 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 July 2006


 * You wrote "...an obvious parody of the opening sequence of 2001: A Space Odyssey wherein the first men immediately discover masturbation." Syntactically, "wherein the first men immediately discover masturbation" modifies "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- you are claiming, essentially, that "2001: A Space Odyssey" includes depictions of masturbation. "2001: A Space Odyssey" is a G rated film, and, having previously viewed it myself, I can state with great confidence that no acts of masturbation are depicted in it. The correctness of this literal construction of your edit is further suggested by the fact that events that actually are depicted in "History of the World, Part I" are described in a subsequent sentence: "Memorable scenes include depictions of inventing fire, the first marriage, the first artist (which in turn gives rise to the first critic), and early attempts at comedy and music." John254 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj's comments on Talk:Vulva, npa warnings, etc
I like your picture :-) I'm here because I noticed your recent issue with Nigelj. I have found in the past that he is happy to listen to debate and look at things on the basis of evidence eg here. I hope you can work together in future. Stephen B Streater 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nigelj has recently engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies. In his comments on Talk:Vulva, the statement "about which he apparently knows so little" is clearly a personal attack.  After I placed a legitimate npa-2 warning on his talk page, Nigelj removed the warning without comment, then proceeded to make a personal attack on Reisio in an edit summary.  When Paul Cyr restored the initial npa-2 warning, Nigelj removed it without comment again.  Nigelj's removals of legitimate warnings from his talk page constitute talk page vandalism.  Given the fact that Nigelj has recently engaged in two personal attacks, and two acts of vandalism, I believe that it is of vital importance that he avoid such misconduct in the future. John254 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi John254 - why don't you go and have a read of the discussion at User talk:Paul Cyr? I hope that, in time, you'll find that it really is possible for us all to rub along here together without too many sparks, and without too much formality (and degrees of violation and series of templates and levels of warning etc etc).  Even if things didn't get off to the best of starts, then hey, times can only get better :-) --Nigelj 07:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * n.b. I am removing the warnings I placed on User talk:Nigelj as it appears that the policy violations were inadvertent and unlikely to be repeated. John254 14:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc
Hi John, I noticed that several times you have reverted an IP who keeps blanking the plot section of the The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc page. They continue to blank this section without any explanation beyond an edit summary stating their reason has been "given several times." I was wondering if you know what is going on there? I have reverted them several times over the last few days as section blanking without explanation always looks, at least superficially, like vandalism, but I have not seen this film and don't know anything about it, so I do not know if there is a legitimate reason for removing the section. I would appreciate your opinion. Cheers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah. I have generally treated the removal of large amounts of apparently legitimate text without explanation, or with a frivolous explanation, as vandalism -- especially when this is done by a new user, or by an unregistered user with a dynamic IP address, who need not worry about developing a reputation for contentious editing, and to whom the 3RR can't effectively be applied.  The only reasons given by En1, 152.163.101.11, 64.12.117.11, and 205.188.117.11 (presumably all the same person) for removing the plot section are:


 * (a) "Previous editor had inadvertently, despite good intentions, restored a garbled addition."


 * (b) "Rv undiscussed changes"


 * (c) "If you want to add all this, please first clean it up for accuracy, language, etc."


 * (d) "The reasons for restoring the original version have been given several times. Please state a reason for adding this."


 * The claim that the plot section is "garbled" appears to be entirely frivolous. The objection to "undiscussed changes" per se might be relevant to a policy page, where changes can't be made without prior consensus, but it is wholly irrelevant to an ordinary article.  The claimed need to "clean... up" the plot section for "language"  appears to be a repetition of the "garbled" claim.  As for the aspersions cast upon the "accuracy" of the plot section, I would note that the supposed inaccuracies have never been specifically identified.


 * Without any satisfactory explanation of why the removal of the plot section is a legitimate edit, I would see the continued removal of this section as vandalism, and revert it on sight. Since the unconstructive edits have been made from various AOL proxies, warning and blocking the offending IP is not really an option.  I have watchlisted this article myself, and requested that the article be semi-protected on WP:RFPP.  Thanks for your help in restoring the plot section. John254 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, John. That was my view as well, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Cheers for your quick and informative reply. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of transwiki link to Prayer (Runescape)
I linked to the article that I just transferred from Wikipedia to the Runescape Wiki after Prayer (Runescape) on Wikipedia was blanked and redirected. If we can't have Prayer (Runescape) on Wikipedia, then why can't we link to the article on a wiki where such an article is permissible? John254 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with linking to the RSWiki's prayer article is that this causes irregularity. If we link to prayer, shouldn't we also link to crafting, smithing, and all the other skills. And if we link to skills, why not also link to other articles Wikipedia doesn't allow like locations, spells, or character types? Where would we draw the line? Template:RuneScape should not be a directory of RSWiki articles. Hyenaste (tell) 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would "draw the line" at linking only to articles on the RuneScape Wiki that were formerly Wikipedia articles, but had to be transwikified. If we don't link to the articles that are moved to the RuneScape Wiki, we may find that, with RuneScape articles being nominated for deletion every week, Template:RuneScape will slowly be shrinking. John254 21:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with drawing the line at deleted articles only. What makes deleted articles more special than articles that were never created? Why list seven skills and ignore the other twenty? What about articles that were deleted a long time ago, like fishing (RuneScape) or mining (RuneScape)? And it doesn't matter too much if the template becomes sparser and sparser; if an article is gone it shouldn't be linked in another form in another wiki. Hyenaste (tell) 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Was my argument that effective? o_O Hyenaste (tell) 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

further vandalism
User:82.43.34.242 continues to vandalise - this time the Milton Keynes article. Please block. --Concrete Cowboy 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haver reported to admins as he has left a trail of chaos. --Concrete Cowboy 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Louis Till
You tagged Louis Till for speedy deletion as an attack page. I removed the speedy deletion message because the allegations in the article are correct. The version of the article that you tagged did not include any references (I added some), so tagging it was a reasonable thing to do. I just wanted to let you know that sometimes something that looks like an attack page turns out to be the beginning of a good article. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fast
You are. 'was on my rounds to check, you already caught the typo. So I guess the others are at least mostly ok? --GoDot 03:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About Vandalism
Hi John. After finding several vandalism examples through the Wikipedia, I wish how can I ask for a blocking to an IP adress from a vandal and how to revert severe vandalism from a page (I mean when it's above two paragraphs length) Hope you answer me soon :) Fluence 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :D Fluence 23:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullet cluster
Our fair use rules are important. I trimmed the text. Please talk to me about it rather than engage in a revert war. I can work with you if you have further issues. WAS 4.250 23:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is useful to wait at least 24 hours after an article's creation to make judgements based on what the "entire article" consists of. WAS 4.250 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Poll
I request that you remove the sockpuppet reference from that poll. I request that you make the poll specific only to vandalism warnings and not other types of warnings.--Blue Tie 17:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings
Hi, I noticed that you've been quite interested in Removing warnings and the associated poll lately. Not sure whether this is because you find that people remove your own warnings a lot. If that is the case, you may find that people remove your warnings a lot less if you assume good faith and assume that the people whose edits you revert are either trying to be helpful or are simply experimenting, instead of (to take two examples at random) giving out a for a non-vandalism edit or giving out a for a page creation that would be best warned with test. RC patrolling is not about trying to get people to stop vandalising or block them as fast as possible; rather, RC patrollers perform a different yet very important task for Wikipedia. They are typically the first contact that new users have with experienced Wikipedians. It is very important that the first impression that new users have of the community is a positive one, so that they are encouraged to make positive contributions in the future. Hope this helps, JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that falsely describing Volkswagen as the personal creation of an infamous dictator who is widely regarded as a personification of evil does indeed constitute vandalism, and that I properly warned 24.91.23.109 for the edit. Furthermore, criticizing me for a warning I gave to the creator of a deleted attack page is unjustified, since non-administrators cannot view the deleted page to determine whether the warning was appropriate.  Please note that although the page was deleted as "blanked by the creator", to the best of my knowledge Airman266 created Jacob heaven as a vitriolic attack page that would obviously have been massively inappropriate for an encyclopedia even to someone completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's particular policies.  After I issued the test4im-n warning, Airman266 blanked Jacob heaven -- removing the speedy deletion notice in the process -- after which I re-tagged the page for speedy deletion as "blanked by the creator".  Additionally, most new users do not begin their interaction with Wikipedia by engaging in the creation of vitriolic attack pages, blatant vandalism, or other severe forms of misconduct.  I do not make a practice of issuing severe warnings to new users who violate policy in ways that suggest that they are attempting to make legitimate contributions, but are merely unaware of the applicable policies.  Finally, no one is perfect.  If the two situations described above are the worst examples that can be found of my countervandalism efforts in over 3500 edits, then I believe that I have done an excellent job. John254 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you took this as an attack on yourself, rather than an attempt to help you become a better RC patroller. While I could come up with other examples, that's not my point.  JYolkowski // talk 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have left the discussion regarding the removal of warnings. There are no representatives of other perspectives.  I am trying to represent those other views but I do not necessarily share them.  Solutions are being developed without the inclusion of people like yourself, who are in the RC Patrol.  Basically it is a discussion among those who are opposed to the current policy.  If RC Patrollers do not participate in the development of the solution, it would be wrong to show up at the last minute and throw a monkey wrench in the works later.  If you no longer have time or interest, perhaps you should ask someone else to represent the concerns of RC Patrollers.  I am not able to do it because I do not do that work.--Blue Tie 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism
To be honest, John, you and I are at such opposite ends of the spectrum on this that I'm waiting for someone else to weigh in before I make any more replies. You and I locking horns isn't going to do either of us, or the project, any good... -- nae'blis 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you might make more progress if you engaged in discussion on the talk page. Simply to insist you have consensus, in the past, I have seen this has not been effective in convincing other people. I don't think what you are doing is unreasonable (other than some of the details of your vote counting, but that's a side issue), just that it won't work. I understand that sitting on Special:Recentchanges all the time might perhaps give you a very dim view of people who don't log in, so you probably think I'm just talking out of my anonymous posterior, so I offer up WP:HCP for this vote, and WP:NBD for older votes, as reasons why I think the approach will fail to reach agreement (note I didn't say "consensus", as this word is so horribly abused). However, you may find your approach works. Things are certainly changing around here. I have said my peace, I think I shall move on. 192.75.48.150 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I was in process of nominating the Ian Ferguson (musician) article for deletion but it seems you decided it meets for the criteria to put in for speedy deletion. I will wait till later in the day for doing the 3rd and final step (posting in the deletion log) if an administrator really decides to speedy delete it. --65.141.24.187 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
You warned me once for defacing a page. Is there any way you can do the same for 71.109.118.24 Tybo09 05:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Urgent request" for protection
If it absolutely can't wait in WP:RFPP, try [{WP:AN]] or WP:AN/I. Good luck! Isopropyl 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
Since it appears that there's significant dispute as to whether the poll actually represents consensus or not, the best thing to do is to discuss it. With that in mind, I've created the above page and I'd welcome your comments there. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I have this wrong, but I believe that the only significant dispute is in the minds of the very few (18%) who "dispute" it.  While I do not agree with a draconian approach and I do not support a blind and strong approach to enforcing rules, I nevertheless believe rules must be in place and enforced.  I appreciate your efforts to keep the teeth in the warnings.  When they can be just ignored, they have no force. --Blue Tie 21:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

68.45.138.191
I am probably going to give a long block for continued sneaky vandalism, but as a final check could you please explain why this edit was sneaky vandalism (i.e. in what way was it wrong, with source if applicable). Thanks for your help. Petros471 21:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The closing date cannot possibly be earlier than the opening date, so adding "Closing Date (Theme): October 31, 1939" after "Grand opening: July 22, 1994" was clearly incorrect. Placing "Closing Date (Theme): October 31, 1939" in a section otherwise concerned with actual facts about the construction of the ride appears to state "October 31, 1939" as an actual closing date, rather than a thematic element. John254 07:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be a bad edit, but I'm not totally sure it was bad faith (as that date was the theme date of the ride, right?). I'll keep an eye on this IP, but won't block for now (especially as it has stopped for now). Petros471 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What Can I Do?
There's this user The Mekon who continues to vandalise pages. He has been warned and blocked before but seems to don't understand. I wonder if there's some way to expell him from the Wikipedia. He even offended an user with no reason. There's also someone who continues to vandalise the Tom Chaplin's talk page (the article is blocked actually) but maybe I'll need someone to block this one.Fluence 17:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Drini
Hey. I'm really sorry about the whole CVU-being-deleted thing, but we (a group of high-activity administrators) analysed the situation, and were regrettably forced to conclude that the CVU was...

Well. Look.

I know that the CVU was created with the best of intentions, and that you-the-collective-CVU-members did a lot of good work at reverting vandalism, at preserving the integrity of the articles. But it was the CVU's whole style, its... its psychological flavor, if you will, that actually drew vandals, spurring them to create shitloads of throwaway accounts, increasing their activity levels in the hopes of getting the Unit members up in arms.

It wasn't a good idea to keep it around. I'm sorry.

I hope this helps you to be less upset about Drini's actions; you can focus your energy on watching Recent Changes and Newpages instead.

Okay? DS 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)