This user may have left Wikipedia. D has not edited Wikipedia since 20 August 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Cheers,Lights (♣ • ♦)02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
maybe later when i have some tools. doing that manually takes more time than it's worth, imho. i better revert more vandal edits instead. -- ∂06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Tiptoety05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know, i do not know why WP:Vandal Proof did that, it makes no sense, i am going to report a bug in the software, i apologize for the un-necessary warn. Happy Editing! Tiptoety18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ich will mir die motivation erhalten, meine eigene monobook zu testen und evtl. anzupassen. und ja, der CSS-schipsel funktioniert wunderbar. -- ∂09:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i undid 3 changes of the editor before me which i mistook ([4]?) as vandalism; in fact he just left some entrenched vandalism. i removed that in the next edit. for some reason the undo-button does not create an autosummary when you undo more than one edit at a time. -- ∂20:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something must be funny on the differences view. Perhaps there is a bug. It seemed very strange, but look at the difference view between your first edit and the vandal's last edit. Perhaps there is a bug somewhere. After viewing your homepage, I thought it was strange and at first thought someone had hijacked your account. VirginiaProp20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Wiktionary (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. For future editing tests use the sandbox. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot00:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I note that you reverted what well may be vandalism in the removal of the 'popular culture" section in the Battle of the Little Big Horn page. A check of the user page for the editor who removed it suggests strongly that someone at the Minneapolis Public Library is using their computers to do just that.
However - if you look at the Talk Page for that article, I suggested that that section be amended or deleted because it's an eclectic, unsourced, idiosyncratic, disorganized mess. I think the article would be better off without it, but respecting the place that such sections have in Wiki, I had planned on some major revisions, ones that I haven't had time to make yet. If and when I do, I will certainly post a rationale on the talk page, as I have for another recent section removal ("Custer Died In Victory?").
Sensei4821:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for telling me. i hope the anonymous editor meant to vandalise and i didn't anger her or him needlessly. -- ∂21:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. If you are going to RC patrol, please put a warning template on the user's talk page when you revert the vandalism. If you don't do this, very often they keep on vandalizing. Thanks. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
imho templating someone is an insult. i do it occasionally, but i try not to. in my experience talking to vandals seldomly works, but if i feel it could, i write a short personal message. in all other cases i just keep on reverting: there are too many other unreverted vandalisms here, and sooner or later even the most stupid vandal will realize he's not successful. -- ∂00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning users about vandalism is essential when it is obvious what they are doing. At WP:AIV, the administrators often expect a warning of at least level 3 on the talk page before they move to block a disruptive user. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i know. my theory is this kind of bureaucracy is one of the reasons i have to check the page history for entrenched vandalisms after every single revert :/ -- ∂00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your vandal fighting. But at least warn the most obvious ones when you can if you don't mind. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Take care. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i guess there are reasons for insisting on a number of warnings before blocking someone. can you tell me how this point of view developed here on en.wp? -- ∂03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know the true origin behind the "waiting for several warnings before blocking". My view - This project must not just be built, but maintained as well. RC patrol must be very effective as possible by the volunteers who participate here on the English WP as it gets hit the most. That is why warning a disruptive user ASAP about the consequences of vandalism is important. My thoughts anyway. Cheers! JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out: 15 intermediate revisions not shown[5]. See, post a level 4 warning (after the previous warnings for the day), report them at WP:ANI, and no more from this user for a while. That's the route I would have gone... ;-) JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image on your user page
I just removed the image you had on your user page. Displaying an image of genitalia in that manner, without context or warning, is clearly intended to shock or offend. Please don't do that again. Thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞)20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked nicely. Replacing that image on your userpage was disruption. You know that some users will find it offensive. This is trolling pure and simple and has no place on wikipedia. I have deleted the page. You may be unblocked if you indicate that you will play nice. Do not replace it, or anything similar when the block expires, or you will be reblocked for longer. --Docg02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did notice this was not a photo but a piece of art, right? (check the image description on commons to see that it is located in a museum) effeietsanders12:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And in article context the image is perfectly fine. On a userpage it is not - as the user was informed. "Art" is no defence for deliberate provocative disruption.--Docg13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was his user page was deleted? It is in the google cache (as retrieved on Dec 22, 2007 15:00:07 GMT).
i did not intend to shock or offend, just to irritate vandals looking at my user page a little bit. in my experience this works quite well.
calling one of the finest pieces of art ever "an image of genitalia" is quite impertinent.
personally, never met anybody who could be shocked with this painting. it has been highly controversial... nearly 150 years ago!
i'm sure there are some pathological prudes reading wikipedia, but it's quite unlikely they look at the userpage of a humble vandalfighter. and if they do, it's their problem, not mine.
i was not asked nicely. my userpage has been vandalized and i've been ordered to leave it in this state.
i don't think it's justified to block any user except when he's causing serious damage to the project. obviously this was not the case.
what i'm really angry about: it's not ok to annoy a few small minds a bit, but it's all right to enrage one of the too-few vandalfighters here by blocking him without a single warning for a whole day, deleting his userpage and threatening him with another block? for god's sake, even vandals are thoroughly warned and templated again and again before someone finally blocks them.
I guess this classifies as "talking", but I must say, I think the blocking of you here is really weird, undeserved, and unwikipedish. BTW, I support those who think we should try to put warnings to the vandals as "often as possible", well almost. I do tend to notice the frequency they get warned when I check out their edits. Also, I don't agree warnings don't work- many vandals stop when they get a warning. And you have that "user hasn't been warned" type of admin out there, also. Greswik (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oops? [6] certainly looks like vandalism.. what i actually did was a replying to [7]. any idea why i could save after your edit [8] without an edit conflict?? -- ∂ (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Wildfire: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please also reiterate the above request that you do add warnings? The recent reverts to Jefferson Airplane went unwarned (now been warned by someone else for further abuse). This means that this vandal will go on longer before they get a block put in place. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the vandal's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). is a policy, too. much more important, but seldomly followed. at least in comparison to templating the vandal: in nearly all cases i looked at the talkpage of a vandal there already have been multiple warnings, so i doesn't make much sense to add another one. -- ∂ (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I can say that I always look at their recent edits - frequently have I reverted something that others have missed. I've done this as a matter of course, even before I realised it was policy. Secondly, if there are multiple warnings, it is because they are needed - and the sooner they pass the final warning, the sooner they can be blocked, and the sooner they can be blocked from editing. This will save everyone else from messing around reverting their edits.
Looking at your talk page, I can see a number of different people's posts, all requesting you do add the warnings. These people have all seen that you do the reversions, and felt frustrated enough that you haven't added the warning to come to this page and request that you do. I'm not asking you to bow under peer pressure (well, ok, maybe I am...), but please, please, PLEASE re-read through all our requests, and ask yourself why in a critical manner what should be done?
If you find adding warnings a hassle, could I suggest you use Twinkle (WP:TW)? This tool, I understand, will autoimatically add the warning for you, and even report serial offenders. Gotta be worth a look, at the very least. It will also stop you taking off time from reverting vandals to justify yourself frequently as to why you aren't warning vandals, and will stop everyone else from taking time off reverting vandals and adding comments here requesting you do what most other people are doing. Cheers. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still on the topic of vandalism warnings - how long will you be willing to carry on reverting the edits of the above user? You must have done 8 or 9 so far. I notice that the user has only had 1 warning. With the warnings, they would have been reported by now, probably even blocked. At the moment, they cannot, as they have had insufficient warnings. Well, it is up to you what you wish to do. Good luck! StephenBuxton (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hey, i know you've already been asked, but i just thought i'd remind you; if you could warn vandals after reverting their edits it's a way of indicating to them what they're doing is wrong just in case they dont know; more importantly it also allows us to ban IP's or users vandalising things if they have appropriate warnings beforehand.
A page you created, Bath mousse, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it serves only to attack some entity. Please do not continue to create attack pages, as you will be blocked from editing.
i did not create this page. i'm quite sure i've never seen it at all. there's not much to be seen in [12] so could you please tell me why you think i did? -- ∂ (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, D. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1305 words and 29 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk)20:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, D. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1305 words and 29 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk)22:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Katherine Y. Qiu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
LOL. It appears to be a script error as a template was updated; I apologize. Your name happens to be the same as one of the template params. Yuck, ordered params, by the way; it'd've been much better if it used named params. (Speaks a lot about doing fully automated tasks; with semi-automated tools this would have been avoidable.) --Gryllida (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, D. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, D. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, D. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa was:
Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nekolim and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, D!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! jlwoodwa (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
