User talk:Mauler90/Archives/2010/06

AfD nomination of Deontez Lockett
An article that you have been involved in editing, Deontez Lockett, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste: talk 03:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit
That's bullshit dude, people really DO call her "Das Führer." She has accepted this to be her name and has her own placcard and parking spot made to reflect such name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that info from a reliable source? Can we verify it?  Thanks!    — Jeff G. ツ 06:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly what Jegg G. said. We can't just call people "Das fuher", especially given the negative image that presents in addition to it possibly being libel if incorrect.  Provide areliable source and you will be fine.   Mauler90  talk 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of bullshit: thanks for removing that futile warning from my talk page! As for the Fuhrer thing: that is of course pure vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. And yeah, the above argument wasn't quite convincing enough.  Mauler90  talk 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ILLINOIS STATE LOTTERY
I have made an entry to this article with an information about the Lottery which is not an obscenity. The draw I speak of is documented in the Lottery website itself. That is the first point you spoke about, the second point you raise is vandalism. Seeing this is obscenity, it is not vandalism so, even less.

Thank you for not deleting these entries. I'll refer to this the higher moderation if it repeats. Thank you for editing. 88.139.25.54 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC).

Never said it was an obscenity. However, an unsourced claim that 24 hours after Obama was elected the lottery drew 666 is vandalism. Add a source first, then whether or not it even belongs in Wikipedia can be decided. If you have any concerns feel free to ask me or any other editor or admin (I am not an admin FYI). Mauler90 talk 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just delete my changes to Kim Couture's Page?
I am her assistant and have been told to make changes; I spent several hours on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.232.101 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact same reason the bot did (see your talk page under the June 2010 header). We do not want external links to facebook/myspace/twitter etc.  And if took you several hours to add that one link...I would be very surprised.  Also you may want to check out our stance on what a conflict of interest is, and what links should be avoided (specifically #10).   Mauler90  talk 07:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a heck of a lot more I spent time on than just that. Everything was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.232.101 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This diff says differently. All that was deleted from the Wiki page was a facebook link.   Mauler90  talk 07:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
We don't censor the word "fucking"? I'm sure 9 and 10 year olds might have a reason to research something on Wikipedia nowadays the way things are going, and I saw the link you gave in the edit summary, but wouldn't parents be objectionable to their children, reviewing the disaster out of interest or for some kind of school project, and being subjected to that language? CycloneGU (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:Profanity is that we are either to leave it in unaltered or remove it all together but never use asterisks etc. Personally?  I would rather not have it in there either, however; the community consensus appears to be to leave it in.  I am by no means infallible though, if I have read this policy wrong feel free to point me to the relevant link or policy etc.   Mauler90  talk 06:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this surprises me myself. I might bring up the subject soon at that talk page, as there are just some things that kids shouldn't see.  And since Wikipedia is quickly becoming as good as, maybe to many even better than Encyclopedia Brittanica (see external article), more and more kids are going to reject the CD - or waiting their turn with it - and instead head here to find information, especially since a quick Internet search for "volcano" actually lists us first, and, coincidentally, so does "chicken"...and wow, so does Deepwater Horizon explosion...we're regarded by Google as the #1 source of information, so we really need to rethink our policy regarding vulgar language and make sure we're kid-friendly!


 * I may copy this post to start the discussion sometime. CycloneGU (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than outright censoring maybe an option that filters out profanity, shouldn't be too hard to do. If you do copy the discussion shoot me a link.   Mauler90  talk 06:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SeKtoR 7
Hi there Mauler. Thanks for your work patrolling new pages :). Just a note that when tagging under A3 or A1, it can be a good idea to wait 15 minutes or so to see the the creator is going to add anything. At SeKtoR 7 the creator may have been planning to add more to the page, but could have got put of by the deletion nomination. Anyway, keep up the good work :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I do, it was just on that page it seemed like that it was just an obvious spam page (just one youtube link) and A3 seemed the best bet. I could have used G3 I guess, but I prefer to only use that when its actual blatant vandalism (just so it hopefully gets seen sooner).   Mauler90  talk 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem then :). It's fine to make a judgement call that the article isn't going to turn into anything useful, just making sure you're aware that sometimes these little articles can develop into a good article if given time :). Best, - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)