User talk:Enfcer

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

concern[change source]

Are you in the area where Hurricane Michael may hit? The reason I ask is 'cause some Simple English Wikipedia and regular English Wikipedia editors may be in the path of the oncoming hurricane. Some editors are in danger of having their computers, homes damaged by the storm.

Angela Maureen (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No I am not, but thanks for thinking about who might be. --Enfcer (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Point of information[change source]

"Mute" means unable to speak. "Moot" means Having no practical impact or relevance. But don't feel bad: many people get them confused. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback[change source]

When do you think would be an appropriate time to request for rollback again? IWI (chat) 21:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Instead of giving you a timeline, let me point out a couple of concerns, that will likely hold you back from getting the rights. If you work on these, this will help your chances, but I can not guarantee myself or other Admin's will grant them afterwards. You can apply for them again at anytime.
  • You make reverts, and inconsistently provide warnings, or other explanations, on a regular basis.
  • When making requests to VIP, its ok to give a rationale for the block, but do not suggest what that block should be.
    • A recent one of yours suggested an Indef. While the edits were close together, you had only given 1 warning. It is always best to give multiple warnings as some Admins prefer to see them. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated, I will keep them in mind in the future. IWI (chat) 13:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If I have reverted (obviously) good faith changes, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to not leave a warning? IWI (chat) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Good Faith Reverts should have some kind of comments in the summary explaining the revert. Otherwise it could lead them to add them back then you start getting into a 3RR situation. -- Enfcer (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That's what I thought. I see a lot of editors (not sure whether I saw it on this wiki) with an explanation of simply "reverted good faith edits by...", which I have always been against. In my recent revert, I explained it and this is something I usually try to do upon seeing good faith and will ensure I do in the future. Anyway, I won't use up any more of your time; thank you for taking interest in what I say; it shows that you are clearly a great admin/'crat :). IWI (chat) 17:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent block[change source]

In my opinion, the indef of Dalto SAUROUS was overkill. Their first edit was vandalism, but the others, if you look at them, could have been in good faith. IWI (chat) 00:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: The first edit was Vandalism within moments of the account being created and the next 2 were un-constructive. So they are clearly not here to contribute. If they would like to request an Unblock or if another admin would like to review it they can, but as of right now they haven't requested an Unblock and are likely one of our LTA's. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @ImprovedWikiImprovment: After reading this message, I took a moment to review this account's activity. While there will always be differing opinions, in this instance, I support the block. While the account made two edits that were not obvious vandalism, the edits were unconstructive at best. When you consider the account's activities as a whole, it becomes clear to me the account was NOTHERE to contribute, and likely an LTA. That being said, the editor behind the account can still request {{unblock}} and provide a justification or explanation for their actions. If they choose to do so, then we can cross that bridge. I truly thank you for being watchful and voicing your concerns. Keep up the great work! Operator873talkconnect 01:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought maybe it was too soon at that stage, although I didn't consider they were LTAs. IWI (chat) 01:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused.[change source]

Hi, just wondering what page this was? "Hello, Adammcgrogan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Sadly, one or more of the pages you started may not fit some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages and may soon be deleted. "

Adammcgrogan (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adammcgrogan: It was the page you created called Melancholyastronomer with the text only of hello. -- Enfcer (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Quick Question for you[change source]

When I tried to thank you it said error not logged in when I was hows that happened? TheHelpingHandMan (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, it could have been a system glitch, or something didn't get cached right -- Enfcer (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your note at User talk:86.156.47.172[change source]

I'm a little confused by what you said to this user and the reason you specified for blocking. The three-revert rule is invoked if an individual editor does three reverts to a page within 24 hours. It's not three reverts total, it's three by the same editor. This editor only did two. Am I missing something? We certainly have discretion to block anyway, but we can't say it's because of 3RR. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I may have mis-quoted the 3rr policy. But I looked at the users edits xwiki, and he was engaged in an edit war of sorts. On 3 separate wikis including ours, he was vandalising pages, and had reverted those changes. So while it doesn't meet the letter of the policy, it does meet the spirit of it. That is to stop behavior that is disruptive and or damaging. Should I have just blocked them for xwiki vandalism that they brought here, sure. End result would still be the same. A block to stop the disruption. -- Enfcer (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[change source]

...for exempting my bot account. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)