User talk:Volanaro

Hello, Volanaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style (formatting questions)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, add a question to the Village pump, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Your recent edits
I have noticed that some of your recent edits have been undoing what you regard as vandalism, using the Undo function; particularly edits from unidentified IP addresses where no edit summary has been left. Unfortunately a number of the edits you have undone have been constructive ones made in good faith. For example:


 * This one was a piece of nonsense correctly removed by an anonymous IP, which your edit restored;
 * This one was the restoration of an image which had been deleted by the person who uploaded and described it, and was probably thus done for a good reason, and
 * This one was a case of a user blanking his/her own talkpage, which is not actually prohibited on Wikipedia (see WP:TALKPAGE).

May I suggest that you check out Vandalism, which describes the ins and out of reverting? Also take a look here, where you will find the templates that may be used on the talk pages of an author after you have reverted his/her deliberately unconstructive edit.

Rather than undoing edits each time, consider reverting them. An UNDO is basically an accusation of vandalism, implying that that the previous edit does not merit the courtesy of a considered revert. UNDO is a good tool for quickly dealing with obvious bad-faith edits, but where an edit is unexplained, it still merits consideration before undoing. It's true that edits lacking edit summaries, especially from anonymous IPs, are more likely to be vandalism than properly authored and sourced ones, but it's not a given!

Please don't be offended by my comments, and please don't be deterred from editing. It's obvious that you are a good-faith user who is interested in defending Wikipedia content against vandalism, and your help will be warmly welcomed. If I can be of any assistance, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. In the meantime, welcome again and happy editing. -- Ka renjc 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, those reverts were mostly based on past experience, as i said I'm a mentor over at uesp and I'm still used to doing things in the style we do them over there. I'm just cautious about anonymous ip's as they tend to be vandals more often than registered users. --Volanaro (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs. The majority of your calls have been spot on, anyway:)  Just remember to warn deliberate vandals with an appropriate template on their talkpage after you have spotted and reverted them.  Vandalising after 4 warnings is a blockable offence, so getting the warnings in place as the vandalism happens makes it much easier to deal quickly with pests. Cheers.  --  Ka renjc 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remember that, the main reason i chose not to is since I only just joined this wiki a few days ago and to me it seems a bit out of place for a newly registered user to be issuing warnings, also I'm not certain about how warnings work a round here or were the templates are, (got a rough idea but not certain) I'll probably pick it up eventually though. --Volanaro (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for catching that. Shem(talk) 17:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my talk page. You did it before I even got to my page! Hah, thanks. --jnivekk (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)