No I'm not, it's been one of the worse mornings I've ever seen for vandalism, I might shoot a blank here or there Mr. Cobra. Please correct it if you haven't already. :)
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The user didn't vandalize after my final warning. The warning was for the edits to Texas, which came after the edit to Patrick Thompson, and they appear to have stopped. In the case of on-going vandalism you should report vandals to
this page. Happy editing.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to revert vandalism to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent reverts, such as the one you made to
Keyshawn Johnson, was one I tried to make as well. Please use
the sandbox for any test reverts you would like to make, and take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about patrolling this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I tried to revert can be found here: link. If you believe you are just faster than I am, please contact me.
Someguy1221 (
talk)
20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes it was the latter, I typed my warning out by hand and my finger hit the "5" instead of the "4" it was aiming for. Thanks for pointing that out, I've corrected it.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk22:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Ahh my good sir, the Monotheism diff *gold* and Medieval warfare a close "silver". "the believe in sexy ancient beasts!" Oh man that's my new catch phrase for today.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I think the revert should stand for the time being as per my comment on the
MfD. Let the user log in if he wants to update his page, and he should leave the MfD tag intact. Regards.--
12 Noon03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You're very welcome! Yes, out of the last 50 edits to your userpage, 23 edits have been vandalism! Talk about being Mr. Popular! ;-) Happy editing and best wishes, Lradrama15:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
No, no, I'm just wondering why you are such a traitor!!!!!!! :-o You prefer New York style pizza over our very own deep dish, and you are a Yankee fan to boot?!? Oy vey, where is your Chi-Town pride man? 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha! Well actually, I was born in New York City, then moved to Chicago when I was 12. The New Yorker in me never left, though. ;) I do like deep dish, but I'm lactose intolerant, so all that cheese makes me sick without fail, unfortunately. Are you from Chicago too?
GlassCobra18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You're right, I've never read it, I apologize. And I saw your hidden message. :) I wasn't offended or anything, though, don't worry!
GlassCobra18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I am loved
Thank you very much for notifying me about that! Have you seen what was once posted under Article title Bobo192 in the past? That was just... the kind of thing that makes you consider drastic action... for that matter, you've had one deleted about yourself TWICE. I am not worthy!
Bobo.19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
On
User talk:Bobo192,
KnowledgeOfSelf said: Incidentally Jeffrey O. Gustafson has 20 deleted edits. Beats the hell out of my two.
I don't know if this it the proper way to do this. But, just so you know IP Address 170.185.214.19 messed with John Madden(American Football)'s page today. I saw that you warned that address for something else, I thought I would let you know. Thanks. Sorry if this is the wrong way to do this. I didn't think it would help to warn an anonymous user from an IP address. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.197.127.141 (
talk)
19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi, thanks for your message, I'll warn the user further. In the future you can report on-going vandals to
WP:AIAV but only after they have vandalized past a "last warning". See
this page for a list of warnings and when to use them. It is 100% appropriate for you to warn vandals regardless of you editing anonymously. BTW, have you considered
signing up?
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk19:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I remember reading about the ability to do that. I can't remember for the life of me where, probably from the signpost. If you could point me along in that direction I'll read it again.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk20:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking of filing an
abuse report against that IP user who vandalized the main page and your page with penis pics the other day because he like a dedicated vandal (using misleading edit summaries and everything) but I don't know if this would work since he edited from a dynamic IP. Do you think this is a good idea?--
Miss Pussy Galore (
talk)
15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Ahh yes well—two days ago I was the only admin on RC patrol for about 5 hours, I ended up doing 1800+ edits in those 5 hours. New personal best for myself, but I'd have taken a few more admins that would have reduced that load to about 1000. I swear that was the worse morning I've ever seen for vandalism.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
User:KnowledgeOfSelf-pleasuring
I don't want to block the above new user, as it may be an alternate account of yours. If it is impersonation, feel free to block of course.
Fram (
talk)
15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Heh thanks for the message, but I already blocked it.
[4] I saw it while on IRC, and dropped the ban hammer faster than you could say "Bob's your uncle Bob's your aunt." Thanks again for the message, I appreciate it.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Why are you telling me? I've made one edit to the article and that was to undo a redirect that was placed there without comment by an other user. I have no thoughts or opinion on the article.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk18:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Charles had already notified the intital editor of the page and you made an edit to the page within 50 edits (49th I believe) of its creation, I'm guessing Charles was, as usual, just making sure the bases were covered.--
Alfmelmac18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Thankyou...
Once again for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. It is much appreciated. :-) Lradrama
Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Looks like you blocked this one about a week ago, following a vandalism spree; they're saying the account was compromised, and requesting unblocking. Story seems to check out, at least at first glance. Thoughts/opinion? – Luna Santin (
talk)20:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Well it's not unheard of, I recently unblocked an account with a similar story
[5]. I don't mind if you unblock, but I'll keep an eye on his contribs and watch for more vandalism. Thanks for the message Mr. Santin.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk21:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The Sacrament of the Last Supper
I know it looked every bit like vandalism, but the section that was
deleted actually didn't have anything to do with the subject if you read it.
That would explain it. I use the RC list. *Makes note, sees that the WP to-do list is triple its intended size, doesn't make a note after all* --
Kizor (
talk)
00:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Seeing as you reverted IP edits to
Silver State Helicopters (and left a level 4 warning on the IP's talk), I thought you might want to know that the IP address is continuing to remove mass amounts of content from the page. Whether this was done in good or bad faith I can't really tell (read: I am too lazy to read it over and decide :p). Would you mind taking a quick break from stealing people's reverts to take a look at that :) Thanks, —
NovaDog — (
contribs)
00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I've been watching it too. I can't decide what is up with it - so I thought I'd let an other editor check further into it. I can't tell one way or the other. I initially reverted due to the fact that the anon wasn't using edit summaries. Tough one that is.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
To complicate things, the article needs cleanup - lol. At any rate, he is now simply using the same (or similar) edit summaries over and over again - almost as if he just wants to try a clever way to remove stuff from the page. But that would be bad faith on my side. (And political incorrectness.) —
NovaDog — (
contribs)
00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Things get murky in that regard. My initial instinct was to revert because the content appears to be referenced, and the anon was simply "undoing" other editors edits. As the anon hasn't appeared to offer proof of his claims of copyrighted material and "irrelevant" text, it really is a difficult matter to judge. The edit summaries help but they prove nothing. Besides 90% of all articles on Wikipedia need a clean-up. :P
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Good job!
I know you don't need much encouragement, as you've been doing this for way longer than me, but... well, I just felt like popping in to tell you that you're doing a fine job reverting vandalism on this inspiring project. I see your name pop up on my watchlist and recent changes feed all the time, so keep it up! Have a great Wikiday,
Master of PuppetsCare to share?01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I thank you, I don't necessarily need encouragement, but it never hurts, and is always welcome. I do try my best. Thanks once again I really appreciate it.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Could you dbl check your revert and perhaps remove the little goof from my talk page :D . I didn't know deleting copyvio was vandalism??? Geez... I stuck a polite edit summary in there in everything. :D . "Libs"
156.34.142.110 (
talk)
16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I find volumes of copyvio every now and then which requires a mass delete... I am usually on the alert for the inevitable rv from Cluebot because it trips the article size difference button when you have to rm huge chunks. When I saw it was you I got a great laugh out of it. You were faster on the draw then the cluebot... that ought to be worth a plate a sweets of some kind from Alf... if you ask me. :D.
156.34.142.110 (
talk)
16:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Can you eye/ear in on
this conversation on Sir Alf's page. It is hard for him to maintain his attempts to mediate the partisan parties when he isn't here to defend his defence. I think his brick wall approach is the right path since no one seems to want to give in. And Mr K's 2nd infobox addition was a POV add-in since it's one of the articles he "politely" violates
WP:OWN on... we all have those :D Cheers!
156.34.230.166 (
talk)
22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi--I've noticed your work on WP, so I know you know your way around and I respect your opinion, and I'm having a little issue I'd like to ask about. I'm currently in a conflict with
Indiecat (
talk·contribs) over the article
Last Exit (film) (
Edit history) and the dab page
Last Exit (
Edit history). I made some major edits to the film article--formatting it closer to
WP:MOS and removing POV and advert-like copy--and I'm trying to make the film's entry on the dab page conform to
MOS:DAB. But
Indiecat has her own agenda: She's the executive producer of the film in question (see:
Image:LastExit_Nigel.jpg and
my Talk page), so her edits are all
COI. I know how to handle blatant vandalism, and I know I can revert vandalism all day long without breaking any rules, but I'm not sure how to handle this situation. I already have
three reverts on
Last Exit, and two on
Last Exit (film). I'd appreciate any advice on how to proceed. --
ShelfSkewedTalk17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
P.S. Another editor/admin has advised me and intervened on the dab page issue, so it's only the film article I'm concerned about at the moment. Regards --
ShelfSkewedTalk17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, edit warring is bad so the first thing you should do is stop reverting each other. Take the issues to the talk page, and discuss the problems there. There does indeed seem to be a conflict of interest there with Indiecat.
This comes to mind in that regard. If you can't work the issues out after a while on the article's talk page, then you should take the issue through
the dispute resolution process. If you like, you can ask Indiecat the go through a mediation process which I will create and mediate, with the use of one of my sub-pages. That will only work if you both agree to it. There is an official
mediation committee that you can go through too, but that takes time, and again you would both have to agree to it.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Vandalism on Bonnie and Clyde article
Greetings! I am not on wikipedia much - thus no account - but don't like vandals. Can you do something to end the constant vandalism on the Bonnie and Clyde page? it appears to be the same people, over and over. Thanks for your efforts!
167.102.231.211 (
talk)
18:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi there, I can add the Bonnie and Clyde article to my watchlist to keep an extra eye on it. There isn't enough on-going vandalism to justify blocking the users who are vandalizing, or protecting the article. Thanks for your message.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Knowledge, I might need some advice. What do you do when you indefinitely block a user and then that user emails you, claiming their brother compromised the account and is really sorry about it?
Spellcast (
talk)
21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
There are multiple concerns you should contemplate when dealing with a request like that. The main thing I look at is past contributions. Is there a a good amount of constructive—or at least good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia? Or is it all just a mixture of trolling, vandalism, and bad faith edits? An other thing is to read "tone" of the user, do you get the impression that they are being sincere?
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, it was helpful. Eventhough his first edit was replacing
Sicko with "MICHAEL MOORE IS FAT!@#$%^&", there were some constructive edits. I'll be keeping an eye on his edits though.
Spellcast (
talk)
23:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm glad to hear it, and that's a great idea too, I meant to mention it, keep an eye on future contribs. You may notice a few typos in my comment—I was fighting a ton of vandals, and was trying to sneak a few words in to that reply in between reverts. :)
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
You gave a VERY mild warning to
User:Will daniel after he had been issued repeated warnings, including a level 4 "Last warning." He should be blocked, not warned, especially after blanking with the message, "fuck you i'll change it if i want."
Mr Which???14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
What I mean is.... how fast are you at clicking???? I keep going to undo vandalism, checking the history, and see that you've beaten me to it! (grin)
StephenBuxton14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I thought as much as well. I've made nearly 10,000 edits this month and have shot a few blanks with my reverts. I wasn't too keen to get trigger happy over something that wasn't obvious vandalism. I appreciate your looking into the matter.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I can't tell if this from some actual discussion, or if the user's just pissed off. Either, as a new account, you guys are correct in thinking that this is quite POINTy.
GlassCobra15:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I gave one of the accounts a final warning. They decided to continue, so they have all been blocked, for abusive sockpuppetry, and for disrupting Wikipedia.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk15:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Isn't that guy a sockpuppet? I'm pretty sure there was another vandal that created lots of socks to replace pages with Bible verses.
GlassCobra15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I was going to add a message warning about vandalism when i saw am message at the top of the page saying that this user wasn't registered. Also there is no message saying that it is a user page. Is this allowed?
Eddie670517:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Whoa, that script you showed me is AMAZING! You rule. I plan to make you bitterly regret it! It's ON now! >:) But seriously, thanks so much.
delldottalk18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Hey KnowledgeOfSelf! Thanks for helping fend off the censors at
Dawoodi Bohra. I tried to get semi-protection for the page yesterday, but the request was denied and recent events were labeled as an "edit war" (which I think is ridiculous). I'm going to take a crack at re-writing the controversial sections so they have a more NPOV. Maybe that will stop the deletions and prosylatisms, but I'm doubtful. Thanks again,
AlphaEta18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Are you familiar with Facebook? Comparing it with my real profile I think I've done a pretty good job, though whether it's allowed or not we shall have to wait and see –
Gurch (
talk)
02:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Only that it gets vandalized every so often. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be allowed... I think it's brilliant either way. I'm very tempted to give you the "Userpage barnstar" but that'd break my somewhat silly personal rule of not handing out multiple barnstars to the same user within one week. (It feels like smothering if you ask me)
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Well, there's probably some copyright issues with duplicating another website's appearence right down to the last pixel. :) Though I did construct it myself, using my own profile as a guide, and I've added plenty of original content. Perhps I'll modify it a bit when I have time –
Gurch (
talk)
03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)reply
P.P.P.S Oh wait I think I may have found them - are you talking about my reverts
here,
there,
over here,
over there, and
finally here? Ummm those reverts were due to 2 reason. They were done to disrupt Wikipedia, and they were being done from multiple accounts in an abusive manner. All blockable offensives, and last I checked, we generally revert banned users. Thanks.
KnowledgeOfSelf |
talk14:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)reply