User talk:Joshii/July 2007

Manchester
Just out of curiosity, why this edit? G1  gg  y  !  04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't realise that you contributed to that article. Thanks for clearing that up.  G1  gg  y  !  04:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption?
I noticed you seek adoption, and I'd like to offer my services. What do you say? G1 gg  y  !  23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, ! I see that you have expressed an interest in being adopted by an experienced editor. I accept your request, being an experienced editor myself. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the one you can talk to - just leave a message on my talk page. Good luck with Wikipedia!


 * You have new email. G1  gg  y  !  03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I figure I should be more proactive in your adoption.....
So I've written up some adoption tasks. And here's your first: Vandal Fighting

Because of Wikipedia’s immense popularity, there are a lot of people, and I mean a LOT of people, who think it’s fun to vandalise it. If you aren’t sure what vandalism is, I suggest you read the Wikipedia page on it, here.

Now, we’re going to do a bit of vandal fighting. Basically, this is undoing, or removing, the work of vandals. And the easiest way to do it is to follow these instructions:
 * 1) Click on the recent changes link that appears on the sidebar of a Wikipedia page.
 * 2) A page with the last 50 edits to the encyclopaedia will show up. Towards the top will be some options.  Click the link that hides logged in edits, since the vast majority of vandalism is done by anonymous users.
 * 3) A new page will load, showing the last 50 edits (you can change this number by clicking the relevant links) made by anonymous users (who are identified by their IP address).
 * 4) Each edit will contain a link to the “diff”, “hist” (history of the article), the article itself, the IP address the made the edit. It will also contain a number, either in green or red, and the edit summary (if any).  The number is what you’re concerned with.
 * 5) Scroll through the list, and try to find a number that is large, either positive or negative. Numbers larger then +300 or smaller then -500 are good signs to look for, but you can also look for edit summaries which contain swearing, or don’t seem to be constructive.
 * 6) When you find one of these edits, click the link to the diff.
 * 7) A comparison between the anonymous edit, and the previous version (a diff) will load. If the edit on the RIGHT (the most recent) appears to be vandalised (compared to the edit on the LEFT), then click the link that says “Undo” (next to the edit date).
 * 8) The next page that loads will contain the edit window, but it will be slightly modified. Firstly, at the top, there will be another diff; the same diff from the previous page, but reversed.  This indicates what the page will look like when the vandalism is undone.  Another different thing is that the edit summary field will be filled in for you, and it will mention that you undone the edits by a user, and reverted to the edits by a previous user.  With all this in mind, save the page.
 * 9) Now that you’ve reverted vandalism, the next step is to warn the vandal. To do this, click the history tab at the top of the article, and find the second last version (as in, the one before your undo).  Next to the date and time will be the vandal’s IP address, and next to that will be a link to his/her talk page.  Open that link in a new window/tab (you want to leave the history open so you can get a diff later).
 * 10) The vandal’s talk page will open. Chances are an edit box will open, meaning that there was no page until now (you’re creating it).  If an edit box doesn’t appear, click the edit link at the top of the page.
 * 11) Visit this page (in a new window/tab), and look through the many options for warning messages. You don’t need to memorise all of them (hence the page!), you just need to know which one is appropriate.  Pick an appropriate one for the vandalism you just undid (  and  are the most common, but if the vandal has been warned before, you’ll need to use a different number (with 4 being the harshest)).
 * 12) Having chosen your warning message, copy the code for it (Ctrl + C), and paste this into the edit box for the vandal’s talk page (Ctrl + V). Insert an edit summary that mentions your warning the vandal, and save the page.

Advanced note: You can include a link to the page that was vandalised by changing (or equivalent) to Article Name (or equivalent). Be sure to preview the page before saving, though.

Having undone the vandalism, and warned the vandal, you’re done! Get the diff for the vandalism you reverted, and for your warning, and send them to my talk page the same way you did in task one (by starting a new thread using the “+” at the top), so I can check out your work in keeping Wikipedia vandal free! G1 gg  y  !  Review me! 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The revert itself is fine, but you shouldn't tag the vandal with a level 4 warning for their first (or second) offense. In this case, a level one would be appropriate, since the vandalism was only minor.  Have another go, and keep in mind which warning level you use. -  G  1  ggy  Talk Contribs 23:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Task Trois (3)
- G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 23:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Task 4, sorry about the wait
- G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 02:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Task 5
G 1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, no problems here. Now, that's all the tasks I have set out to help you learn the ropes. If you like, there is a quiz just to test how much you've learnt about the ways of the wiki, before you graduate. The quiz is optional, of course, and instructions on completing it are included on that page I linked you to.  Good luck, and congratulations!  G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 08:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support
You have my fullest support on this issue of second city - the sources that these two (one?) are using are outdated, foreign, insignificant, secondary sources in breach of WP:RS. They do not claim consensus and discuss the size of the Greater Manchester Urban Area and not the cultural status of the city proper. You could raise this at WikiProject Greater Manchester. Jza84 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also wish to pass comment here Jza84 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I recieved a warning off the anon, and he's created some single purpose accounts. I've asked for admin intervention here at the admin noticeboard, as I feel this is becoming a little targetted against me and that article. You may wish to pass your feelings as I know you've also engaged (or tried) with this user. Thanks again, Jza84 18:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Second city of UK
Hi - I'm not part of the debate going on at Second city of the United Kingdom, but I notice that you and User:TharkunColl are currently engaged in an edit war and both are in breach of WP:3RR. I understand that TharkunColl has been reverting to reinsert his edits as an anonymous IP, and thus he has so far reverted four times in the past 24 hrs.; however, you seem to have reverted five times. Take it from my recent personal experience: don't allow yourself to end up drawing repercussions for Thark's uncompromising nature. Cheers. --G2bambino 18:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Request at AIV
Hiya. I've removed your request for a block of User:TharkunColl from AIV since it is not a vandalism issue. If you feel this user has violated the three revert rule you can report him at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, otherwise, look at the instructions on Resolving disputes. Good luck.  Citi Cat   ♫ 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly suggest you read Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism before using AIV. This user may well have been incorrect in his actions, but you did not follow policy in attempting to correct the problem.  Citi Cat   ♫ 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference
Just for clarification, were you referring to me on this page or the IP user in question? Thanks. R_O (Talk) 15:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Reference
Ok! Thanks :) R_O (Talk) 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Second city of the United Kingdom - Request for Rational Debate
As a recent, and possibly significant, contributor to the Second city of the United Kingdom article, I'd like to direct your attention to this edit on the Talk Page regarding a Request for Rational Debate on the subject of the article. All the best. Sprigot 15:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Manchester
Hiya, I saw that you have submitted the article Manchester to peer review. I personally think that its not an appropriate time with the current round of warring over second city. See WP:GACR, I'd hate to have the article slapped down because of all the recent silliness. Did you submit it off your own steam or has it been discussed on the GM Wikiproject? I really think we should have waited a few weeks until all this had gone away. Kind regards, Mike33 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin
Hello And-Rew. I apologize for placing the user warning-vandalism2 template on your talk page - you (I think) mistakenly reverted Alec Baldwin to a version that had vandalism in it, and so I thought you had been the vandal. The fault is mine and, again, I apologize. bwowen talk•contribs• review me please! 03:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it. Thanks for your good work against vandals. bwowen talk•contribs• review me please! 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, And-Rew, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)