User talk:Vermont/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

Please comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rodrigo Duterte. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Clinton Foundation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Again with the warnings.

I find this very troubling that you are still warning editors way after the fact for edits they have already been warned for. The latest one I see is at 20:51, 6 November 2016 you gave AManInWikipedia an only warning for vandalism. There is no indication in the warning what edit you are warning them about and I can not figure it out. He was blocked for 31 hours at 20:26, 1 November 2016 for making Personal attacks or harassment, so he shouldn't need a warning for anything that occurred prior to the block. Since the block has expired he has made 1 edit and that still stands, no one reverted it, so that shouldn't be what you warned him about. What did you warn him for? I have reverted the warning, if you can justify what the warning is for and that he needs the warning you can reinstate the warning. -- GB fan 11:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the warning, as I'm always welcome to editors who wish to remove my warnings to help make Wikipedia better. Though, the edit I'm referring to is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Brittain (entrepreneur), on the third, after his block, which was vandalism. Unfortunately there are no post-block warnings, so thanks for removing it. Sorry for any troubles this has caused. Also, his vandalism edit was made after he was unblocked, which was vandalism. I do personally believe my warning was okay, but if you don't, feel free to change it. _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that this edit, the only edit he made after his block, is vandalism? -- GB fan 16:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When I saw it, yes, it looked like vandalism due to the tone he used while writing. Though I see that I should have used the disruptive editing notice, or none at all, since it was on an AfD page. Also, I really need rollback for STiki, and only a small amount of my anti-vandalism edits are contested, and usually slightly, like this one. It's no reason to deny my rollback request. This warning of an editor seems to be just, as it's a personal attack against other editors. You say I need to slow down and learn how and when to warn, and I really do. Everyone has some errors, and this was one of mine that you've thankfully removed. Snuggle is becoming unreliable, as a few days ago it shutdown for a bit, and STiki is really useful. Please, have another administrator take a look at my rollback request, as I really need rollback. You also said you see problems with my judgement. I, personally, think you just hate me for some reason, though I hope I'm wrong. Sorry for any problems. _{Adotchar| reply here} 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Two users, responded to the edit. If either one of them thought the edit was vandalism, they would have removed it. You don't even seem to understand the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. That edit is no where near vandalism. This isn't the first time I have asked you about warning messages that you have left for editors. This is actually the third time. You have never given satisfactory answers as to why you are leaving these messages. I don't hate you, I don't know you. I don't think you are ready for more advanced tools until you can show that you understand what vandalism is and that you can properly warn editors. -- GB fan 16:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to like using the "only warning" level of the messages. I found where you gave another editor an "only warning", Aliya776. In this case she has made two edits, both were quickly reverted by Cluebot with warnings. Then without another edit you came in and gave an "only warning" Neither of the two edits were that bad that they needed an "only warning." The first one they made, might not even be vandalism, it might be an accurate assessment of the plot. The second one is just a little note left for the main character, not worthy of an "only warning". "Only warnings" should only be given out if there is blatant and serious vandalism to articles. You should really go back and read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Jumping to an "only warning" for edits like these is biting the newcomers. We need to see how they react to the lower level warnings. I don't think you should be going behind and looking at edits that have already been reverted and warning editors for them. If you revert an edit, warn the editor if you feel it is appropriate, but if someone else reverts the edit, don't warn them. -- GB fan 17:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I used the only warning, as this person was reverted twice by bots and I wanted to make it clear that actual users were paying attention to this user. I've re-read the policy, and thanks for your help. Constructive criticism will help me get from here to, eventually in my career here (i expect 8 years of activity, 20 of semi-activity after that) to having the rollback permission. I'll reapply February 1st if I believe I've significantly improved. Thanks for your help. Sorry if I came across annoyed in my last reply, as I was a bit. Sorry. _{Adotchar| reply here} 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hey there. I honestly don't know how to add rollback - I've been inactive a lot for the last couple of years, and mostly have just popped in to do some RC patrol when I've got some time to fill. I'd suggest continuing to do good work at vandal fighting for another little while and then request again. GB Fan made some good points in his comments to you, I thought; keep in mind that there's often some nuance when it comes to what counts as vandalism and not, and you'll get there in time. Sorry I can't be more of a help! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am at a loss on how to explain this to you. I don't dislike you, I can't dislike you as I don't know you. I have been evaluating your edits not you. I don't believe you have the experience to have more advanced permissions yet. You told Tony that the edits I am talking about are fine. You are warning editors that you shouldn't be warning. You are calling edits vandalism that are not vandalism. These are important things to know when you are fighting vandalism and I do not believe you have a good grasp of them. That is my opinion. -- GB fan 23:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then. Sorry. I'm now taking more time on edits, and there were only a few contested which could be argued for. The vast majority of my edits are fine, and I meet the requirements for rollback. I'll formally reapply in a few weeks, if you think I'm better. Please keep taking a look at my contributions, and evaluate me. I'm just trying to eventually get STiki, and help Wikipedia have less vandalism. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:28, 11 November 2016

(UTC)

Oh, by the way, on the warning for the user AManInWikipedia, which you contested, he has just been blocked indefinitely, after being banned for 31 hours for making personal attacks to other editors, which is what I warned him for and you contested it. If you read my comments in a mean tone, please don't. I don't intend it to be read that way. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't warn AManInWikipedia for making personal attacks, you told me you warned him for vandalism, but the edit you warned him for wasn't vandalism, that is what I said was inappropriate. AManInWikipedia is not banned, he is blocked as a sock puppet. I don't read tone into what people write. The next time you apply for rollback, I will not accept or decline it. I will leave that up to someone else. -- GB fan 01:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Have a nice day! _{Adotchar| reply here} 01:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)