User talk:Shesaplumper/Archive1

Archive1

April 2019
Hello, I'm Graham87. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Graham 87 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Shesaplumper and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Folk religion, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings
Hi User;Shesaplumper. I am concerned that you are inappropriately warning users, then reporting them to WP:AIV. I have seen at least two examples today. The latest is your set of four warnings to 185.16.206.35. This user only made |one edit today and while that edit was vandalism it only merited one warning, not four warnings given in rapid succession then a report to AIV. Railfan23 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I second those concerns. I see that you warned User:5.151.0.111 three times and reported them to AIV, all in a span of 3 minutes. The user had not edited for 12 minutes before your first warning and has not edited since. The first warning was appropriate; the additional warnings and escalation to AIV were not. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was one warning per vandalism incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shesaplumper (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the additional warnings are only if they continue to vandalize after being warned. Also, you don't necessarily need to give all 4 warnings. If someone's done some really flagrant vandalism and has no good-faith edits, it's ok to only give them one warning (level 3 or 4) and report to AIV if they don't stop after that. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Shesaplumper, I don't think you quite understand what User:Scott Burley explained to you. When you revert someone's edits, you put a warning on their talk page. The purpose of the warning is to let them know what they're doing wrong. If the editor continues to make inappropriate edits, you escalate the warning levels. Or, if it's severe vandalism, you might go straight to level 4. But on User talk:Louisblack, you reverted the editor once but placed four warning templates on their Talk page. That's not how warnings work -- there was no time for the editor to respond to the first warning or correct their behavior before you'd already given them three more warnings. It's clear that you're eager to combat vandalism on Wikipedia, which is an important task. Have you considered Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy to help you learn the processes and tools to be most effective at it? Schazjmd (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

How do I apply to the counter vandalism unit academy and become an vandal fighter? Also, note that user was ultimately blocked.
 * Actually, you need 102 more edits to qualify for the academy. The instructions are on that page. In the meantime, you can learn more about fighting vandalism on Counter-Vandalism Unit. As for the block, it's possible that when the administrator User:Materialscientist reverted Louisblack's edit and went to that talk page to leave a warning, the admin saw that the editor had received four warnings already so blocked the editor, not noticing that all four warnings were from a single reversion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate username
I strongly advise you to change your username if you expect anybody to take you seriously here. It's borderline inappropriate.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand, there is no foul language in it.


 * It appears to be disparaging, or could be construed that way.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Dorothy Gale...
You removed several additions to the article Dorothy Gale with the edit summary of "Potential copyright issues". I fail to see how the added content (added in edits starting here until here) has any potential to violate copyright since 1) all of the images are in the public domain so 2)no copyright issues can exist. I reverted your change and wanted you to know why. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Further inappropriate warnings
I remain concerned about your editing and warning of users. This edit by User:86.18.9.178 is not an example of a user deliberately adding false information to an article. At worst it is a minor problem where a source would be preferable. It absolutely does not warrant the Level 4 warning you left on the users talk page. It appears that you do not understand how to appropriately evaluate issues and then warn users. While some of your warnings are okay, too many are not. Can I recommend you slow down, learn the rules and take in the good advice that you have been given here (including about your username). Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Altering your timestamps to make your warnings appear more spread out is not acceptable. You will be blocked if you do this again. I strongly suggest that you take a step back from vandalism patrolling until you have a better handle on the rules. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought that’s what the problem was, that the vandals couldn’t be blocked because it didn’t look like they were properly warned. I was just trying to make it look like they were properly warned so I could get them blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shesaplumper (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:86.18.9.178 was not a vandal though. Putting inappropriate warnings on user's pages and faking timestamps to frame people who are not vandalizing articles is absolutely not appropriate. I really urge you to stop this and thoroughly rethink your approach. Railfan23 (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Test edits
Please, please do not make test edits to actual articles, as you did here. Not only is it inappropriate to make test edits to real articles (use the sandbox instead) but the edit you attempted was politically-motivated vandalism. It was highly inappropriate, even if you self-reverted. You really need to stop your activity until you are capable of making constructive edits. Railfan23 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Small edits after vandalism
You seem to have made a number of very small edits just after a page has been vandalized:


 * On William Wilberforce, which had not been edited for seven days, you added a single space to the article just after a vandal edit . Then the vandal came along again   and you added another space.


 * Zahran Alloush had not been edited for seven months and was then vandalized . You added a single space within a minute of that edit.


 * On Nusrat Jahan you added a pair of quotation marks after vandalism by 47.11.209.183  and then added a single space  after another vandal edit by 47.11.209.183


 * On Chad (name) you added a wikilink to "name" just after this vandalism

If this is accidental you seem to be somewhat unlucky with the pages you are editing. If it is deliberate you should stop right now. Ttwaring (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)