<font size=+8>Please leave new notes at the ''bottom'' of the talk page. Thank you.</font>
''For earlier messages [[User talk:Gabriel Webber/Pre November 2004|click here]].''
==Template:Facts==
I agree that you should use the official test message. This template is worded perhaps more strongly than you realize. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 07:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==[[The Adventures of Tintin]]==
Welcome to the wonderful world of the cartoon vandal. Sigh. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 07:55, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
This guy has been around for months, mostly working on cartoon articles. He puts in false information, creates entirely false articles, and will not discuss his edits. He has NEVER responded to anybody's comments on his various Talk pages. He repeatedly re-adds edits which other people have modified. I have blocked him over and over again, and he just keeps coming back with different IDs. I just blocked him for reverting a bad edit on [[Jim Henson]] which, as usual, he refused to discuss. If you want to keep an eye on him, please do so. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 08:03, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
He's been blocked for 14 days -- as I've blocked him, I've been adding one day at a time, so now he's up to 14. He has about 6 or 7 IDs he uses, I'm not sure if all of them are blocked right now or not. He may show up soon, or maybe not. Normally, such providers as AOL will you give you a different ID every time you log in, but this guy seems to rotate through the same batch of them. I'm not sure how. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 08:07, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
==Rubbish on Talk page==
Good question. I've never looked into this in detail. My impression is that some people feel free to delete posts to their own Talk pages that they consider vandalism, or flaming, or otherwise completely worthless; but that other people are uneasy about such behavior. One policy page says, "Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism." ([[Wikipedia:User page#What can I have on my user talk page?]]) That suggests that if you're deleting something not "merely" because it's criticism, but because it's also rubbish, you're on firmer ground. I see you've chosen to archive anyway, though, which is certainly an option. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Re: Tony Blair==
Hi; yes, it's serious, but we get so much of it that marking reversions of vandalism as minor is acceptable in practice. Reason being, if it's clearly vandalism there wouldn't be any dispute as to the appropriateness of the revert, and it'll keep RC that much less cluttered for those users who choose to disregard minor edits (I don't know who actually does that, but there you are). Reverting vandals is tough grunt work, and IMHO should be done "in the background" when possible, so as not to clutter peoples' watch lists and the like with edits they don't need to check; this is why vandalbots and mass-spammings are usually reverted after botting the IP (which also hides the admin's reverts). It should be noted that the admin-only rollback automatically marks the revert as minor, along with filling the edit summary with the text "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y". I would have used the rollback if it were possible, but because another IP had edited the page after the first vandal, I had to revert manually. On the other hand, it's not a bad idea to forgo marking vandal reverts as minor if you're a new user, since other users not familiar with you will probably check your edit regardless. If that makes any sense. :) Anyway, thanks for doing your part in the fight against vandalism, and happy editing! -- [[User:Hadal|Hadal]] 18:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=="Vandalism" to [[Matt Gonzalez]]?==
I'm really unsure why you noted "rv vandalism by 64.229.33.254" to your changes to an article on [[Matt Gonzalez]]? The changes made by 64.229.33.254 were actually factual (or, to be more precise, a tense shift and so on... far from vandalism). You need to be very careful about calling someone a vandal. It is a strong term, and completely inappropriate for this situation. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 18:01, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:When did I say you made changes because they altered your version. I said you called that user's changes "vandalism" for no apparent reason. I never said that user was changing your version. "Your changes" to the article refers to your reversion, which you marked as a correction of vandalism. Just be more careful about referring to users as vandals; vandalism is something very specific and nothing like what the changes 64.229.33.254 made to that article. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 19:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
==64.255.245.220==
Hi! This is an IP I use at work. I'm sure the comment regarding vandalism wasn't directed at me but I'm the one who just got your message. :^) Believe me, I hate vandals. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 21:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LOL! No problem. Just so you know that I wasn't the one behind the vandalism. :^) - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 17:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Sandbox==
You're welcome. My pleasure. When the vandalism isn't something that will seriously disrupt things, I've found that they'll usually stop if you allow it to stay for a while, then revert after they've stopped paying attention. Still, once you find someone who is just absolutely determined to vandalize, you've gotta do what you've gotta do. Thank '''you'''. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 08:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm going to contact the developers to see if the sandbox header can be somehow permanently protected whilst allowing the rest of the page to be edited. -- [[User:FirstPrinciples|FirstPrinciples]] 08:52, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
