User talk:The Recycling Troll

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~ ~ ~. Four tildes (~ ~ ) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 00:55, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Yeti
I disagree. If they were relevant, they'd be in the article. As it stands, they can be found in other related articles in a more appropriate manner (such as "list of" articles), via the category system, or from the more general cryptozoology article. - UtherSRG 00:55, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Are you stalking me?
Why is it that when I go back to the pages I made edits to last night, you have come along right behind me and made just the tiniest of edits after mine? RickK 05:30, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

And why do you feel the need to "check" my edits? RickK 05:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

How does making minor edits to article I've just worked on contribute "friendly support and oversight"? RickK 22:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

At it again, I see. RickK 00:37, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

re: VfD votes
Good afternoon. I notice that you have been making a large number of one-word votes in the various deletion discussion threads. You should know that votes provided without explanation are likely to be given less weight by the deciding admin than votes which provide facts and rationale. Our long-standing rule is that you should explain your vote even if you think it is obvious.

Yes, there are many people who choose to continue to vote with only "keep" or "delete". For the most part, they do so with the knowledge that their vote may be discounted as a result. It is a constant balance between convenience and the need to verify that the vote was made in good faith. If you are joining a discussion late in the thread, it's acceptable to say "keep - agree with user:xyz". Thanks. Rossami (talk) 17:16, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, may I recommend that you consider changing your username? Many people in this community consider trolling to be very disruptive and unhelpful behavior and may be negatively prejudiced against your contributions because of it.  Rossami (talk)

Thanks for your message back. The reason that unadorned votes are sometimes discounted is that we've had an unfortunate history with attempts to bias VfD votes through sockpuppetry. One of the tactics the vandals used (and still occassionally try) was to create multiple accounts and vote repeatedly. Requiring an explanation adds friction to the process - it requires the vandal to spend more time on each attempt, especially after we learned to look for patterns of speech and thought. It's really quite difficult to impersonate multiple people if you have to come up with a different way to say "keep" or "delete" each time. VfD works (to the extent that it does work) because we are a community and we come to recognize each other.

To follow up on your username, I strongly agree that we need people who will challenge our thinking and to continue to push us toward those creative and innovative approaches. In that sense, "trolling" is beneficial. Unfortunately, in our community the word "troll" has taken on very strongly negative connotations. The word is now associated exclusively with users who are deliberately committing vandalism and sabotage. Among the most serious are the former contributors who ran afoul of the community's disciplinary process and vowed revenge. These are some of the most serious problems for Wikipedia because they know our systems and conventions and are actively twisting them against us. A fair number of those vandals have been so bold as to use "troll" or "sock" in their username and have stated their intent in various forums. (See here for an example.) I fear that you may now be suffering the stigma of their misdeeds. Your username is, of course, your choice. I merely wanted to make sure that you were making the choice with full knowledge of the implications. If you do stick with this username, you would do very well to put your explanation on your userpage for all to see. Thanks again. Have a good afternoon. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using the edit summary field
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Plek 20:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Why does not using it makes the edit looks like vandalism? Well, a number of people regularly check the recent changes list; they inspect all edits that look suspicious. Edits by anonymous IPs or by users with a questionable user names (and yours, I'd have to say, certainly qualifies) are treated as such, more so when no edit summary is given. Hence, not using the summary field will create more work for others; yes, it only takes one quick check to verify, but that time would be better spent dealing with "real" vandalism. I hope this clarifies things. --Plek 11:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unblock and advice
I have reversed the block you received. However, I think under the circumstances you could benefit from listening to some counsel. I saw your explanation of your choice of username to Rossami, and I'm willing to accept that you believe this approach is beneficial to the project of writing an encyclopedia. But if you wish to pursue this course, it will be difficult for you, and frankly I question whether it will be as effective as you may hope.

First of all, your username is a red flag to many people, and you should be conscious of the fact that you will be cut very little slack as a result. People will easily lose assumptions of good faith about you, and any complaints that you are being mistreated for innocent actions will often fall on deaf ears. I'm not going to force you to change the name, but many people will continue to press for it, and the community may ultimately decide to insist upon it.

Also, I would strongly recommend that you read the material at Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you do contemplate engaging in behavior that resembles breaching experiments, your actions will almost certainly be viewed in a negative light, and some people may feel offended or attacked. While this may not be "official policy", the line between formal rules and informal social expectations is blurry, and you can be penalized for not meeting the latter as well. Flouting those expectations and pleading ignorance is unlikely to avoid consequences in the future. Please consider whether your course of action is realistically bringing any benefit to Wikipedia, especially in proportion to the harm it may cause. --Michael Snow 20:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unblock again
I have unblocked you one more time. However, your username and your sometimes irritating comments will earn you very little support in the community. Your block was out of process, but that does not vindicate your behavior. -Rholton 15:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I also advice you to stop trying to provoke RickK. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schools on Votes for deletion
As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:


 * VfD: Canyon Crest Academy
 * VfD: Devonport High School for boys
 * VfD: Eyuboglu high school
 * VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School
 * VfD: Maha Jana High School
 * VfD: Robert Frost Middle School
 * VfD: Wood Green School

Thank you for your time. --GRider\talk

More schools on Votes for deletion
As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:


 * VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
 * VfD: Franklin High School
 * VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
 * VfD: Red Lake High School
 * VfD: The Sage School
 * VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

Image:1905 Advert in Le Rire for aberrant and deviant sex.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1905 Advert in Le Rire for aberrant and deviant sex.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)