User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Teahouse
Did you report the edit you recently reverted to the emergency team? John from Idegon (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, I don't know which one you are even referring to. CLCStudent (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It seems doubtful that you would have reverted more than one edit at Teahouse recently. Not a place where a lot of vandalism normally occurs. Didn't want to leave a diff as so not to call any more attention to it. It was a suicide threat. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverts on Prime Asia Television
Hi there! I think your reverts there are perfectly reasonable (clearly COI, clearly PROMO). However, the edit summary and the talk page message left for the user don't provide any educational value for them. They've showed up at the IRC help channel and are very confused. I don't have a lot of patience with WP:PROMO, either, but would you be willing to at least link newbie editors to that policy (if applicable) in future? I'm sorry to sound critical, I'm just trying to avoid confusion for newbies. Thanks for your time, and sorry to have bothered you. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion on Layla Moran talk page
There is a rather spirited discussion currently ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran#Domestic Violence. Seeing as you are an experienced editor that recently edited the page, I would appreciate if you could chime in with your view, in the interests of finding a consensus one way or the other. Domeditrix (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Why?
I was trying to fix Aidan Gallagher and combat IP vandals but you keep reverting me. Why? – Flix11 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just realized my mistake. I already reinstated your edit. My apologies. CLCStudent (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
IP issue
Raised it here. Basically just ping me every time you see them and I will block the IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Notre-Dame de Paris fire
Hi CLCStudent. Why did you request SP on Notre-Dame de Paris fire? As far as I can see there was jut one instance of (minor) vandalism. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, there was a lot more than that before the protection. Obviously the admins agree with me. CLCStudent (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- There was precisely one edit that could constitute vandalism from the time the article was created to the time of protection, a mere 26 minutes later. Here is that edit [1]. I checked the entire edit history up to protection. Can I suggest that you request unprotection for this article. Thanks, Silas Stoat (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will not. CLCStudent (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why not? Silas Stoat (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will not. CLCStudent (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Illinois
Hey, I came across your userpage and noticed you're in Illinois. I'm organizing meetups and such in the Chicago area through the Wikimedians of Chicago User Group. Just wanted to let you know in case you were interested! Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI
I've blocked 2a00:23c5:4055:bd00:48c6:906c:93d0:ff48 and their range, 2a00:23c5:4055:bd00::/64, for two weeks — there was quite a bit of vandalism there. Thanks for your vigilance, and feel free to alert me if you should see more from the same range after the block expires. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC).
User sub-page
Thanks for your interest in my user sub-page but there's no need to erase anything there. I use it to show students how to use Wikipedia. And then we'll be using it all semester long. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. OberMegaTrans (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to add the template from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_transplantation on this page. 213.33.218.146 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Apologies
I did not mean to rollback your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It was a misclick. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Filter hits
You can confirm the timestamp variable (the second the edit was attempted) at the bottom of the filter hit details. It is exceedingly common to hit five or more filters in a single edit. The thing to look for is repeats of the same filter number in the filter hits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I actually learned something new today. CLCStudent (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Canadore College. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Files for upload
Since I am unable to post on your talk page on account of its semi-protection, I'll post here.
Message added 20:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your declined report at AIV and actions thereafter
Hello. As you know I declined your report of IamAFish45612 at WP:AIV saying the user was not sufficiently warned and further that they had not vandalized (nor in fact even edited wikipedia) since a the last warning (which was, to your admission the second warning they received). A diff showing the dialogue between us is here. The report was later archived by another admin @Reaper Eternal:. You later re-added it to AIV, but without my previous decline rationale. You also canvassed another admin @Fenix down: asking them to “Could you please block user:IamAFish45612 for me real quick. They appear to be a vandalism-only account.” This was after our discussion linked to above. I do not think it is good form to re-report a previously declined report without including that fact and then to solicit a block from another admin personally. I was clear on why it would have been innappropriate to block this user. The header at AIV is clear in points 1-3 the purpose of that forum. I declined the report, and while I of course would have been open to more dialogue and consider other opinions that did not happen, rather you re-reported and canvassed a block. I would not expect this to happen again and I do hope you understand my issue. NJA | talk 15:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @NJA: Well, I did not add your rational because that would be impersonating you. CLCStudent (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not accept it would be impersonating me, though if that was a concern you could have made a note showing the diff to alert others of the decline and discussion. It was disingenuous to make a duplicate report and withhold the fact it was declined. NJA | talk 15:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I have noticed a bit of a pattern with you declining blocks more than other admins. Maybe soliciting Fenix Brown was over the top, and if I knew I had your permission, I would have included your response to the original report in the new report. CLCStudent (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what you mean by this and how it is relevant at all to my concern about your actions? Do you believe your initial report today was correct and if so why? Do you also believe your actions of re-reporting a declined report without making at least a note about it and soliciting a block from an admin without also declaring this to them acceptable? NJA | talk 15:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I also want to let you know that account's edits had not been constructive thus far. If you see the edit filter, you might notice as well. CLCStudent (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I have noticed a bit of a pattern with you declining blocks more than other admins. Maybe soliciting Fenix Brown was over the top, and if I knew I had your permission, I would have included your response to the original report in the new report. CLCStudent (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not accept it would be impersonating me, though if that was a concern you could have made a note showing the diff to alert others of the decline and discussion. It was disingenuous to make a duplicate report and withhold the fact it was declined. NJA | talk 15:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I failed to see your other replies. Let me review and then reply. 15:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @NJA: Well, I did admit that soliciting another admin was probably over the top. I apologize for not disclosing your reason for your decline now that I realize that was important to you. The withholding of information was not intentional. It's just that the report got deleted and then I reposted my part. 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Now my question is what if I re-reported it to AIV WITH disclosure of your concerns? CLCStudent (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I re-added the report with the entire dialogue. CLCStudent (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- That’s been removed by another admin. It was declined and should not be added again. I am advising you to ensure you are only reporting vandals to AIV that fulfil the parameters clearly set out in the header of that page. It would be beneficial to consider answering my queries on why you think the report was good and how your actions thereafter (and indeed further actions of re-adding) are appropriate. NJA | talk 15:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I felt my actions of re-adding were beneficial so other admins can see it and assess the situation. I thought the second time was perfectly acceptable since I re-added your comments. We need to have a discussion with third parties about the issue. My initial actions were wrong, but my second re-adding to AIV would have been beneficial in my opinion. CLCStudent (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- And please do not say that I am not holding myself accountable for anything. I did hold myself accountable for a few things. CLCStudent (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I re-added the report with the entire dialogue. CLCStudent (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Now my question is what if I re-reported it to AIV WITH disclosure of your concerns? CLCStudent (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- @NJA: Well, I did admit that soliciting another admin was probably over the top. I apologize for not disclosing your reason for your decline now that I realize that was important to you. The withholding of information was not intentional. It's just that the report got deleted and then I reposted my part. 15:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies, I failed to see your other replies. Let me review and then reply. 15:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Your user page
On your user page, you state you are 22 years old. It has been like that since 2016. You might want to update your age to how old you are now. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am currently 22 years old. CLCStudent (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, what a fast response! I doubt you were 22 in 2016. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) User:Interstellarity, don't be rude. It is none of your business how old CLCStudent is. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- I was not 22 in 2016, That was the year I turned 20. It automatically updates every year on my birthday. CLCStudent (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, what a fast response! I doubt you were 22 in 2016. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| I am seeing you around a lot lately. Thanks for reverting vandalism. Masum Reza📞 19:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
Message
Hi... any idea what this is all about? I realise it was probably an automatic message, but does it mean that someone was trying to edit my user page? It certainly wasn't me... Richard3120 (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- It was not an automatic message. I left it there because somebody was indeed trying to edit your userpage unconstructively. CLCStudent (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Then thanks for letting me know – looking at the location of the IP address, it could be the long-term IP problem that affects articles related to the band Queen, which I have been periodically reverting, and perhaps it is a revenge attack. I think I will let Binksternet know about this, as he keeps an eye on those articles too. Richard3120 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ah no, it's going to be related to this edit. This IP keeps filing blank protection requests for this article, and nobody knows why. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 13:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
How am I being a vandal?
If you think I'm making a mistake, just tell me. Just don't accuse me of being a vandal. Thanks. Nashhinton (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Word of advice / request (SBT)
Hi. WP:LTA/SBT. Seriously, and I don't often say this, this one is best left completely alone.[2] Advice / request: please don't warn, don't report, do absolutely nothing, else disruption will surely ensue. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Question
I've blocked this IP for personal attacks, but can you explain to me why you repeatedly restored the content they blanked from their page?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- They were being uncivil. I was issuing warnings, not so much restoring content. CLCStudent (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Other than shared user templates and declined appeals on current blocks, it is completely ok for them to blank their talk page (see WP:BLANKING). In fact, you open yourself up to a WP:3RR block when you repeatedly restore content that an editor has removed from their talk page. You can issue new warnings, but you shouldn't be restoring all of the content each time. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I blocked someone a couple of days ago for doing the same stuff; I think it was a known vandal, at least known among some editors. Do you know? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it was this range that I remember--maybe not, maybe there's more. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I do not know, but the range block will most likely prevent her from editing through any other IP addresses in her organization. CLCStudent (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Private edit filters (followup)
Hello there. I see that you removed my earlier message about this subject, without comment. I realize I should have been more direct. Hualfe's edit's were not vandalism. So could you kindly remove or strike your {{uw-attempt1}} from their talk page? It's the first thing there, and may lead other users to judge this user as a vandal. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy
I've lost count of the number of times you've beaten me to reverting vandalism tonight - good job! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
List of flags by number of colors
Hello, I noticed that you reverted there and want to ask why you reverted, because it doesn't seems like Vandalism. (I'm not 100% certain on whether defeated countries should be added there, but if not a Vandalism revert looks a bit Bitey to me). Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
CVU Anti-Vandalism Award | |
| This is for your excellent performance in saving Wikipedia from the harmful threats of vandalism. I appreciate your efforts and hardwork. You are a bold defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 15:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) |
A goat for you!
Thanks for fighting vandals!!