User talk:Crasstun/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Protection[change source]

I've protected your user page from changes by unregistered users. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you. My userpage has been a target for vandalism from IPs for a long time and I think protecting it is the best move.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Answer[change source]

Yeah... Thank you. I only have one question: is there any template to put in an article under development? --Rosa del desierto (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You could use the {{Template:Under construction}} tag but the one you put on the page will be fine.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Oki, Thnaks a lot. --Rosa del desierto (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Baland iqbal[change source]

I saw that you put several tags on this page, including {{hoax}}. I agree that the article is a mess, but what part do you think is a hoax, and why do you think so? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops I must have miss-clicked on that one. I was too busy tagging it with other issues to notice I did that.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming new users[change source]

You've been cautioned in the past about welcoming new users before they've shown they're going to be helpful here. I haven't checked all your recent welcomings, but you welcomed Toma646 before he/she had made any edits at all. You need to wait to be sure that new users are making good edits before welcoming them. Please be careful about that in the future. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was someone else who welcomed Toma I just responded to a question.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Kennedy quote[change source]

Those vandals are persistent, aren't they? The next time they add that text back, do you think we should just fix the quote instead of deleting it? I suppose it's possible they don't know they're getting it wrong. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

We could fix the quote but it said something like "his most famous quote is..." How can we judge someone's most famous quote? Presidents will have a lot of famous quotes so I believe it should be removed if re-added.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be easily fixed, too -- "One of his most famous quotes is..." --Auntof6 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess so. I think he said that during his inauguration so perhaps it should go on Inauguration of John F. Kennedy page.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[change source]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Changes to Articles/Request for Information Howto:[change source]

OK. So I attempt to follow what appears to be the natural progression of Simple.wikipedia.org, and start attempting to change an article that was vandalised. The Auto-Bots detect a change that spans 2 previous editors from two numeric IPs, and gives a warning. I put a request for assistance, on SimpleWikipedia.org/Request for Premissions/Request for Rollbacks, since the request is for a rollback of a previous deletion. So instead of addressing the issue of the original vandalisim on the article 'Linux', my request gets entirely obliterated by a Wizard, who is more familiar than I. The comment that appears in my talk page is to create the request somewhere else. (Simple:Talk). But that only refers to the article 'talk'. OK. So where do reports of Vandalisim of articles go to?Richard416282 (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you need to report vandalism you can put it on the Administrators noticeboard. The requst for rollback page is to request user rights and not a place to report vandalism. Thank you --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank You. User:Mr Wiki Pro. This is then a change to the original, Simple:Talk direction that was provided earlier. I checked the page for Administrators, but it only says that the Rollback page is for rollbacks. (emoticon for rolling eyes) You can see why I am a bit bewildered by the conflicting information. Thanks Richard416282 (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Dont worry about it - I know it can be confusing when your new to Wikipedia. And thank you for helping us spot vandalism as well.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


The Signpost: 06 August 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Welcome back[change source]

Welcome back Mr Wiki Pro! George.Edward.C (talk) (contribs) 17:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@George.Edward.C: Thank you!--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

User:Umafiy/Jason Momoa[change source]

Please move this article. Thanks! --Umafiy (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Not quite yet -- see my reply on my talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I was seconds away from moving it before I saw your reply. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeless Bird[change source]

I think you've been a bit harsh tagging the changes to the above page as 'Vandalism', and including a vandalism-1 template on the user's talk page. Although I agree with the reversion, the changes seemed to be relevant to the article and it is most likely a new user who is unfamiliar with how things work and is just trying to help. An 'Undo' with edit summary would have been more appropriate, alongside a more personal welcome message highlighting what was wrong. Please do be careful when using Twinkle. Thanks, Goblin 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

I have him a vandalism warning because he changed the "reference" section to say "poopy references". In my eyes that is blatant vandalism.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies; I missed that bit whilst checking the reversion. You are quite correct. Carry on! :-) Goblin 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!
Don't worry about it. It was sneaky and I nearly missed it as well.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[change source]

Seen it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress[change source]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is to report users for blocking. Except for cases of cyberbullying and serious personal attack, if a user hasn't been warned enough, they are not going to be blocked and you waste the admins' time reporting there. Insufficient warnings includes not being warned at all, not progressing through enough warning levels, and starting with a warning level that is too high for the offense. Even if a user is being very irritating you cannot let that affect how you warn them.

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress is not for reporting suspected sockpuppets. Use Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for that. Just make sure you have good evidence: policy requires there to be a good reason for the checkuser right to be used. Besides all that, if you don't have hard evidence (which I don't think you would, since you don't have the checkuser right), it is not appropriate to accuse someone of block evasion. Just make the checkuser request and it will be investigated. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

But for cases like this I don't think Checkuser is needed. In the accounts very first edit they practically admitted being a sock of indeff blocked User:MRivera25, who has been disrupting this project for sometime and vandalised my talk page as recently as 4 days ago under the username User:ComeAtMeBroGuy.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But it would be needed. Unless a checkuser is done and it confirms that two users are the same, we do not assume that they are no matter what the similarities are. We have to have the hard evidence before we can block. If you believe these users are the same and you think they should be blocked, make a request for checkuser. Otherwise, stop accusing users of being sockpuppets. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
But suspect socks can blocked without Checkuser per the Duck test. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
They can be blocked, just as anyone could be, but not as a sockpuppet. To identify a user as a sockpuppet requires checkuser. We have to be sure, and there's just no other way to be sure. The "duck test" page you linked to is an essay, not a policy or guideline, so using it as a justification for blocking is at the discretion of the admins. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is serious enough that permanent action requires due diligence. The "duck test" is not due diligence.
Understand, I also get frustrated at this kind of thing, and I suspect other admins and 'crats do, too. I'm not saying we can't tell when a user is a likely sockpuppet, just that we can't offcially call them that without enough evidence. The only sufficient evidence comes from checkuser action. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok i understand. A Checkuser request won't be necessary since all the accounts in question have been blocked. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Long time no see man[change source]

Hey Mr Wiki Pro, it's been a while ;) --Goldenburg111 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it has been sometime since the last time we spoke. And I must say, it's good to see you editing here :) --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks man :-) Apologies for abandoning the Science Wiki, I'll probably start editing the wiki soon. How is the other guy at the Science Wiki doing? Matty? --Goldenburg111 (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well I have, regrettably, had little time for editing any Wikia project so I would also like to return to it soon.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm back on the Science Wiki myself, take a look at my account: http://sciences.wikia.com/wiki/User:MonLaMonte%27AsK and the proposal of Collaboration here: http://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Vikidia:Request_for_administrators/2014_11#Collaboration_with_Science_Wikia_Proposal --Goldenburg111 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

.[change source]

Mr.WiKI PRO do you speek jermen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilingpinkamena (talkcontribs)

Yes I can speak some German.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)