User talk:Johnbrownsbody/Archive 3

Tim LaHaye
I fail to see how my edit was unhelpful. You can see here the diff between the previous version and my edit. All I did was remove the "LIZETTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!" from the biography section. I did not add the "and is so gay" remark. Consequently I will be removing your comment from my user page. It's been a pleasure doing business. -- 72.11.118.26


 * My mistake. I added the tag to the wrong anonymous user.  Many apologies.  Johnbrownsbody 17:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- 72.11.118.26

Animal Rights
That edit was serious, not vandalism. The page needs a criticism section. I know the two sentences were crappy, but I'm not a good writer. Please change it back and put a stub there or something(I don't know how to use templates). --216.164.193.1 18:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You should take your concerns to the Talk page for Animal rights. You make a lot of blanket generalizations that violate NPOV and which need citation.  Thanks!  Johnbrownsbody 18:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky spam
You're not the first editor to sneak in spam between "minor grammar edits." Please don't do it. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Sneaky Spam?" Sorry, not me. If you don't like the link, then delete it. Just don't make assumptions about people or places you know nothing about. Thanks!!Johnbrownsbody 22:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Found some interesting coincidences: let's compare your contributions with this anon-users contributions: ; similar edit summaries, but then again, lots of folks use similar edit summaries. More interesting: compare this edit (yours) and this edit (anon), then compare this edit (yours) with this edit (anon). Draw your own conclusions. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I hope that you find more productive uses of your time. Cheers!  Johnbrownsbody 03:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Conner Prairie
I see you removed content about the Earlham College/Conner Prairie controversy, labeling it "rv v", which usually means revert - vandalism. As far as I can tell, the information you reverted is factual and accurate, and is certainly not vandalism. If you feel the information is inaccurate, please say so on talk:Conner Prairie --rogerd 20:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * == Rvv on Conner Prairie==

My mistake, Roger. I reverted after chasing around an anonymous user who was vandalizing pages, including Conner Prairie. I should have looked more closely at the subsequent revision that erased the vandalism. Johnbrownsbody 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I too have made those kind of errors when chasing vandals. --rogerd 20:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for me. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call my wikifying Nahnu Jund Allah Jund Al-watan "vandalism". I can understand how repeat vandals can drive someone crazy, but it shouldn't be taken out on established good-faith users. I also saw that you left a block notice at User talk:24.185.240.126, but I can't find any trace of a block in the block log. What's more, this IP has continued vandalizing after the block notice was posted. Aecis Apple knocker Flophouse 21:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry that your edit was erased, Aecis, but I did not label your edit as vandalism. I simply reverted to an earlier version of the article to erase the blatherings by the anonymous user.  The vandalism was clearly directed at the vandal, not you.  I will, in the future, look for the most recent clean version before reverting. Cheers!  Johnbrownsbody 21:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you there. Your edit was a return to the edit before me. My edit was this, your edit was this. There is no difference between Mindspillage's version of 19:03 and your version of 20:15. The only thing you removed is what I had added. And yes, you labelled it as vandalism. What else does "rvv" in your edit summary stand for? Perhaps it was directed against the vandal, but definitely not as "clearly" as you assume. Aecis Apple knocker Flophouse 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I was reverting to a version I thought was the cleanest to fix vandalism. I erred.  You have reverted back to a better version, so thank you. Johnbrownsbody 21:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record: I didn't revert to anything. I added an intro, edited the layout of the words (I find it a bit disrespectful to use the word "lyrics" for anthems), I added a stub tag and a category. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Re
You can't block a user just by placing a blocking notice on their talk page. Blocks must be performed by administrators. Non-administrator users generally report vandalism in progress at Administrator intervention against vandalism. John254 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John 254. Johnbrownsbody 21:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember to subst, please
When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:test&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Kyra~(talk) 03:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the reminder. Will do.  Johnbrownsbody 03:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:24.196.213.175
Hi, I noticed on the above talk page that you placed a test5 message. Did you mean to apply test4 instead? Regards, Accurizer 21:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

man meat?
I'm sure it's an accident, but twice now you have added the phrase 'man meat' back into the article on William Penn, while stating that you are reverting vandalism. Please check the versions more carefully. :) CB Droege 20:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that I reverted to the wrong version of William Penn. I think the latest revert is better.  Certainly "man meat" has no place in this article.  Johnbrownsbody 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Coalition of the stupid
I reverted to remove the prod template you restored. You may want to review WP:PROD. Unlike an AfD template which cannot be removed until the discussion is closed or a speedy template that cannot be removed by the article creator, a prod template can be removed by anyone for just about any reason (other than blanking and obvious vandalism). I certainly may pursue AfD on this topic now because my doubt about it remains, but that is really all that can be done now. Erechtheus 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: IP 195.195.219.3
I note that you gave the shared IP 195.195.219.3 a level 4 warning immediately after someone there resumed editing after a block. I might be misinterpreting, but I understood from the note 'The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., within the previous week)' at Administrator intervention against vandalism that it was common practice to reset the counter after a period of non-vandalism? I've reverted their latest nonsense addition, but because of the above concern, I've not placed any warning. Espresso Addict 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question! I am of the school that it is not necessary with a repeat, persistent vandal to start with level one warnings.  In my book, if a previously-blocked user starts right back with filling Wikipedia with nonsense, we do not need to exercise the same incremental approach to editing.  Johnbrownsbody 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For a registered user, I'd agree with not starting again at the earliest level, but this seems like a case where there might well be multiple users at the same IP. Not really sure of the protocol here, but they seem to have stopped the current run, anyway. Espresso Addict 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: iBurst
Sorry if there is any spamming, it is one of the guys in our marketing departmant 'bright idea' for the week. We've taken this up with him and are trying to get him to stop it. If he does it again would you be able to include a copy of what he writes in the message?

Re: Turpin High School
You removed this from the page...Why? This account is verifiable on many levels and neutral. See Anderson High School and blurb regarding Principal Hall tenure.

During the late 1980's, Forest Hills student drug usage skyrocketed prompting the Forest Hills School District to hire David Toma, a powerful anti-drug speaker to speak at Turpin in order to deal with the crisis. Due to the drug problem remaining high the following year, the School Board requested he return for a second speaking engagement. At the time, It was rare for David Toma to visit the same school twice.

David Toma


 * Reads like a plug for David Toma. Take it up on the talk page for Turpin High School.  Also, if this anecdote is verifiable, provide a citation.  Finally, should we be placing this entry on the Wiki page of every school Toma visited?  I don't think so.  Johnbrownsbody 01:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)