User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 242
 | 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 235 | ← | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | Archive 242 | Archive 243 |
Comrade!
The cultural Marxist in me greets the cultural Marxist in you. Or whatever a cultural Marxist is. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit I made to the FarmVille page
Hi, I don't understand why my edit to the FarmVille page was viewed as unconstructive. I added the team members that made the game to the section under development. I must be missing something obvious to you, but unclear to me. I look forward to hearing your response. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Skaggs (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- The last one you made was not reverted by me. The first two (which were automatically filtered out) were not constructive. CLCStudent (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Mark Skaggs: WP:UNSOURCED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- The last one you made was not reverted by me. The first two (which were automatically filtered out) were not constructive. CLCStudent (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi- Thanks for the clarification. The first two edits confused my formatting with an emoji so I changed them. Do I send a note to "Deepfriedokra" here or figure out how to do that on his talk page? The information is "unsourced" but the person who wrote it David Gray is the source. He was on the team, kept records and still works at the company. Do we need to have a journalist write a story and then reference that as a source? Or can we somehow sign a doc verifying/swearing to the validity or truth to this information? Also, if we referenced my wikipedia entry (Mark Skaggs) that I did not create to add validity to it? Thanks for your help on this.
- You leave her a note on her talkpage at User talk:Deepfriedokra. CLCStudent (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Skaggs (talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Names in lists
Please do not add names to lists unless they belong there, per Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE. --2604:2000:E010:1100:B50C:B066:E244:2AEB (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
A neutral point of view?
So with all due respect I don't think it was sensible to undo my edit the split second after the change was made especially when the article contains nothing but flak. That's not a neutral point of view. Leaving a characteristics page at like two sentences is not neutral; it simply lacks nuance and basic detail that were included in my addition to the Corrin article. 218.102.12.12 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just learned about the automation. Sorry for the trouble; I've taken it to the appropriate page. 218.102.12.12 (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| You have shown great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. in.DITTO.gpr (SEALED) (ask.d-contributes) 09:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC) |
They are not socks, they are different accounts, honestly trying to fix "errors" on wikipedia. Report them ONLY if they disrupt real articles and users, not filter logs. Materialscientist (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Made a mistake
Hello. I am proud Wikipedian ::: We all make mistakes, but you should acknowledge your mistake to that user (they asked you about it in a different section) and retract the warning on their talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Thepersonwhowritesanything. When i was editing French Creek, West Virginia, I forgot to log in. You can change my edit back. Thanks. TPWWA. Time. 3:50 (EST)
Jordan A. Thomas; reverting a sourced edit with no explanation
Can you explain why you reverted this edit without explanation? I see no issue with the edit; the first few quotes I checked are indeed in the provided NPR interview source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a mistake. CLCStudent (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- We all make mistakes, but you should acknowledge your mistake to that user (they asked you about it in a different section) and retract the warning on their talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a mistake. CLCStudent (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
BLP violations and revdel
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to Terence Coles by Knomybdy. Those were rather nasty BLP violations; I let Oshwah know and he deleted them. The next time you see a BLP violation, even if it's not quite so bad, please email an administrator and ask them to revdel the edits. That way no one can see them in the page history.
To find an admin, I look at AN/I or other noticeboards and see who's posted there lately. There's Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests for a head start; every admin I've asked has been willing to look at the edits in question, even if their username's not on that list. Sometimes the edits aren't as bad as all that, so they aren't revdel'd and they stay in the history. But if you're at all concerned about something, it's best to ask. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
My edit
You have no reason to undo my edit. Why did you delete it? 31.187.2.66 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I know you've seen this. Why do you keep deleting my sourced and reliable contributions? Explain yourself. 31.187.2.66 (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
This your last chance to explain yourself before I report you for misconduct at the relevant pages. Final warning. 31.187.2.66 (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Another user with same issue.
I made a new section on the topic of Hermann's Tortoises about keeping them as pets. However, you deleted it. I am going put it back, however if you delete it once more I will send a report.
December 11th, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TortoiseOwner (talk • contribs) 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Another user with the same issue.
I made valid edits (my first ever) today on page that you deleted in full based on unfounded claims they were unconstructive and appeared to be vandalism. The edits I made: (1) added sourced facts; (2) did not contradict but clarified and enriched existing information; and (3) were not controversial or offensive by any measure. If you respond quickly with an explanation, I will try to accommodate your concerns. Otherwise, I will restore and thank you to leave my valid edits alone. Esq411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esq411 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- That was my mistake. Sorry. CLCStudent (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Another user with the same issue.
I made valid edits from multiple reputable sources on challenges to Nicholas Kristof's recent work which you removed. The edits were direct quotes, with sources including experts in the field of moderation, and well regarded industry organizations. These edits gave balance to the current work section, where other wiki living biography causes sections have similiar additions that add much needed context. The edits provided enriching information and unlike other recent edits on the page are not vandalism. My concern is that you may have seen the page vandalism and reverted mine edits by accident. I will revert the edits, please respond if there are issues with the edits that you have so that I can understand and address them.
StreetTruckTacos (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Revert
Hi CLCStudent, I just reverted one of your edits at Ulverston - sorry about that, but the previous edit from the IP was alright. I've also taken the opportunity to update the reference being used by the edit. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Further to the above, I had a quick look at your edits following the incorrect reversal at Ulverston yesterday. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems in some cases you assume an IP edit is vandalism and revert without adequate checking. In addition to the above, this was the case with Madhoo. Perhaps take a moment to check the validity of these edits before reverting? Regards, Arcturus (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- I second to this request. My edits got reverted despite them being helpful. Filters help make our lives easier, but please be mindful before reverting. Machines make people's lives easier, but it is our responsibility as human beings to double check the information the machine are feeding us. Thank you. --2A00:23C5:D18F:CF01:5885:352C:AD1C:89F1 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
How do I warn Anonymous IP from vandalizing?
I tried to report one but admin said I didnt warn them. GoalkeeperCIWS (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- You should read WP:WARN. CLCStudent (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! |
|
Hello CLCStudent, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
I got a message about "vandalism", wtf did I vandalize?
??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.17.58 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Someone tried to edit the page Norfolk from your IP address but the edit that they tried to make was vandalism. However, it was disallowed by an edit filter that stopped it appearing on the page.-- 5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Reports to AIV
Hi,
May I ask why you're going straight to level 4 warnings with some users? This user was issued with a level 4 warning and a minute later a report was filed to AIV. However, a minute between the warning and reporting to AIV isn't giving the user the chance to read the warning first. As it was your final warning was issued at 22.48 and it looks like that was when they last edited. Sometimes there are occasions where you will need to go to a level 4 warning straight away but sometimes it can come across as unwelcoming to new users.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- This afternoon, the vandalism was so bad that I needed to do that to bring it down. CLCStudent (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes the users haven't been properly warned though. This user had only edited twice? -- 5 albert square (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- This afternoon, the vandalism was so bad that I needed to do that to bring it down. CLCStudent (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, I'd like to echo this. I have noticed for what feels like the last year or more that you are very aggressive with AIV reports, and often move immediately to go to high-level warnings and AIV reports for very routine vandalism. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the commenters here that you are far too aggressive at AIV. Today you reported Special:Contribs/2607:9880:1807:FEE9:FCF3:6432:FDFB:BC36, for a single edit filter hit, without any actual edits or even a single warning. If this were just a one-off error I wouldn't say anything, but this is happening far too often. Please make sure you go through the warnings, and do not report anyone to AIV until they edit after their final warning. – bradv🍁 22:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I hesitate to pile on too much to what's already been said, but I suppose I'll throw my two cents in: in my experience, a lot of vandals do get bored and stop after a couple warnings or "disallows" from the edit filter. I would say the primary reason why we ask for warnings before an AIV report is so that AIV doesn't get extremely backlogged. You may have noticed that oftentimes when you aggressively warn then report users, you find yourself adding 10 or more marginal AIV reports for users that have only edited a few times, and that slows down the AIV process for everyone. In order to make sure AIV focuses on the most urgent issues, I would also consider being a bit more conservative about when you choose to report, and when it's okay to just leave the IP or user alone with a level 1 or 2 warning for the time being. I do appreciate the work you've been doing to fight vandalism, and I hope you see this as a minor adjustment on your part to make the admin process significantly more streamlined as a whole. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed to see you completely ignore the feedback give here. Not only have you not replied to our comments, but you continue to make spurious reports to AIV, even going so far as to restore reports that are declined for not being sufficiently warned. – bradv🍁 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ditto on this one. If you use Twinkle, it can automatically give them level-one, -two, -three, etc. warnings. It just seems a bit harsh, especially—sometimes—on their first edit. signed, SpringProof talk 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- CLC sorry but it's still happening. You issued a level 4 warning to this user. However, even looking at the edit filter that's two edits that they made. They've tried a couple of times and been denied by a couple of filters, then they've tried a third time and this time the edit went through and wasn't reverted by yourself even though you issued the warning. I'm assuming an edit conflict. Yes, the user did vandalise again but when they vandalised again it was picked up by ClueBot NG and because the user was already on a level 4 warning, ClueBot NG then filed a report to the bot AIV page. That is inappropriate but it's all stemmed from a level 4 warning being issued in place of all the other warnings. A level one warning would have been suitable. ClueBot NG would then have issued a level 2 warning. As you can see, the user didn't edit after that. Sorry but I agree with Bradv-- 5 albert square (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored my comment above that CLCStudent removed. CLCStudent, you need to respond to the feedback people are giving you. You're plugging up AIV with spurious reports, creating needless backlogs and decreasing response times for the reports that actually deserve a response. This can't continue. – bradv🍁 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to add to this, but it's still happening. These users who are receiving final warning vandalism notices the first time they vandalize are new editors who, once they fully understand the principles of Wikipedia, might end up as constructive editors. Issuing editors with harsh notices when they are still very new is likely to deter them from editing Wikipedia, which, even for people who are known to be vandals, is not what we want to do. Thanks, Redtree21 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, I am trying to limit my reports to AIV, which I believe if you look at the reports I made today, you will find almost all of them to be good ones. CLCStudent (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hey CLC, I hope you're well. I'm sorry but I'm having to ask you about your warnings again. I will point out that I only noticed this one because Alfie Moon happens to be on my watchlist and I noticed ClueBot NG revert someone on it today. When I see things like that, I always check the editor and the page in case further administration action is needed. You issued this user a level 3 warning for triggering the edit filter, however, looking at the edit filter, they had only made one edit. It's just level 3 seems harsh for one edit? What's happened is that you've issued them with a level 3 warning for the edit filter warning, they've then edited again and this time the edit went through and then about a minute later they got a final warning for that from another editor because of your level 3 warning. The next editor coming across them was ClueBot NG which has of course, ffiled a report to AIV. That may have been totally unnecessary though, if we'd started off with a level 1 warning, by the time ClueBot NG came across its edit, the bot would have simply issued a level 3 warning. It can come across to a newbie as very aggressive to start at a level 3 warning, I think L235 mentioned something similar above. Alfie Moon isn't a BLP, he's a fictional character. The vandalism is simple, it's been changing the name of his father to the name of his friend.-- 5 albert square (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Right now, I am trying to limit my reports to AIV, which I believe if you look at the reports I made today, you will find almost all of them to be good ones. CLCStudent (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to add to this, but it's still happening. These users who are receiving final warning vandalism notices the first time they vandalize are new editors who, once they fully understand the principles of Wikipedia, might end up as constructive editors. Issuing editors with harsh notices when they are still very new is likely to deter them from editing Wikipedia, which, even for people who are known to be vandals, is not what we want to do. Thanks, Redtree21 (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've restored my comment above that CLCStudent removed. CLCStudent, you need to respond to the feedback people are giving you. You're plugging up AIV with spurious reports, creating needless backlogs and decreasing response times for the reports that actually deserve a response. This can't continue. – bradv🍁 03:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- CLC sorry but it's still happening. You issued a level 4 warning to this user. However, even looking at the edit filter that's two edits that they made. They've tried a couple of times and been denied by a couple of filters, then they've tried a third time and this time the edit went through and wasn't reverted by yourself even though you issued the warning. I'm assuming an edit conflict. Yes, the user did vandalise again but when they vandalised again it was picked up by ClueBot NG and because the user was already on a level 4 warning, ClueBot NG then filed a report to the bot AIV page. That is inappropriate but it's all stemmed from a level 4 warning being issued in place of all the other warnings. A level one warning would have been suitable. ClueBot NG would then have issued a level 2 warning. As you can see, the user didn't edit after that. Sorry but I agree with Bradv-- 5 albert square (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- The problem was the he called someone a slut. CLCStudent (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- I hesitate to pile on too much to what's already been said, but I suppose I'll throw my two cents in: in my experience, a lot of vandals do get bored and stop after a couple warnings or "disallows" from the edit filter. I would say the primary reason why we ask for warnings before an AIV report is so that AIV doesn't get extremely backlogged. You may have noticed that oftentimes when you aggressively warn then report users, you find yourself adding 10 or more marginal AIV reports for users that have only edited a few times, and that slows down the AIV process for everyone. In order to make sure AIV focuses on the most urgent issues, I would also consider being a bit more conservative about when you choose to report, and when it's okay to just leave the IP or user alone with a level 1 or 2 warning for the time being. I do appreciate the work you've been doing to fight vandalism, and I hope you see this as a minor adjustment on your part to make the admin process significantly more streamlined as a whole. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the commenters here that you are far too aggressive at AIV. Today you reported Special:Contribs/2607:9880:1807:FEE9:FCF3:6432:FDFB:BC36, for a single edit filter hit, without any actual edits or even a single warning. If this were just a one-off error I wouldn't say anything, but this is happening far too often. Please make sure you go through the warnings, and do not report anyone to AIV until they edit after their final warning. – bradv🍁 22:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Reversion
Hi, you recently said that one of my edits were reverted, however I cant help but realise that the information on that page is wrong and this beshogur person is a turkish nationalist who if you look at logs for that page, only edits nationalist things, his account of the invasion is blatantly wrong and I have argued my point constructively in the talk, he however seems to just go off on his emotions or much rather his perceptions. Would it be possible for you to look at the talk page then revert it because if you look at the actual event of things, you'd see he is wrong. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.77.150 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Randomly piggybacking on the above header: sorry for the accidental revert at Billy McFarland. Was a second too slow in removing the vandalism and got your edit instead. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Removed valid contribution to CRI
Not sure why you recently reverted a valid contribution to the CRI page. Even though the edit came from an anon IP please actually review edits before reverting them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Color_rendering_index&type=revision&diff=997212438&oldid=997212395 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDcolor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, CLCStudent!
CLCStudent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Precious anniversary
 | |
| One year! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for your contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. KAS(talk) 20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC) |
You're up late
Hullo. I've never seen you on at this time. Just wanted to wish you a belated Happy New Year and hope you and yours are safe and healthy. Ifnord (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I appreciate it, and same to you! CLCStudent (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Templates?
Hey, where can I find the templates you use when dealing with vandalism? (those that you put on people's talk pages) Thanks! BrownFerret (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- You may find those on WP:WARN. CLCStudent (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! BrownFerret (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Warning levels
Make sure that you warn users starting at level 1, then level 2, then level 3, and so on. I notice that you constantly skip warning levels when warning users when it's not necessary or appropriate, and it results in users being reported too soon. I've seen a couple of users reported by you that only had one warning what-so-ever over simple vandalism, and one where the user wasn't recently warned at all. Remember that we only skip warning levels or jump straight to a level 4 or level 4im if the vandalism is severe (such as libel, BLP violation, or harassment), or in cases of block evasion or other issues. If you have any questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them. :-) Thanks for dedicating your time and energy toward reverting vandalism. It's a thankless job, and (coming from someone whose done it for over 10 years) I appreciate it a lot. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- To add to my message: This behavior of skipping warning levels and not leaving sufficient warnings before reporting users to AIV was the reason that your rollback flag was removed by Ritchie333 back in August. I don't want to see you fall into the same habit as what was discussed in that ANI report, and it looks like you might be doing so. I just want to put this on your radar so that you can fix the issue before you find yourself in hot water again. Let me know if I can help in any way. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- And I see you've completely ignored Oshwah's request already [1] so to focus your mind, if I find you failing to use the warning levels system again, I'm going to block you from editing WP:AIV. Nick (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've had yet another report about you failing to use the correct vandalism warning levels. If you fail to explain yourself, I will block you from making any reports at AIV. Nick (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Nick: Which one? CLCStudent (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I've had yet another report about you failing to use the correct vandalism warning levels. If you fail to explain yourself, I will block you from making any reports at AIV. Nick (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The warning that I start with all depends on the extremity of the vandalism. If it involves defamatory content, I begin with level 4. If it involved attacking another person, I generally start with level 3. If you point me to a specific one, I can explain in more detail. CLCStudent (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I guess a resolution I can make is to always start with level 1 or 2 warnings. CLCStudent (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but I'm confused with this report to AIV. You've said that the IP is IP hopping with their vandalism, when I checked the warnings ClueBot warned one IP once and you warned the other one once. I'm confused as to why this was reported with only 2 warnings issued, all I've done is warn the IP that carried out todays vandalism.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- When it comes to IP hoppers, I usually just skip the warnings and go straight to AIV because that is something this site just cannot have. CLCStudent (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you want, one change I can make is to give them the "using multiple IP" warning before reporting. CLCStudent (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, quick note, but I (or someone else) can elaborate if necessary: in the case for this IP, its changing is likely completely out of the user's control. The actual "address" would probably be 2A02:C7F:B2EE:D000::/64, and their IP is anything in that range. I believe {{Uw-multipleIPs}} is more when bad-faith disruption is being done through multiple IPs with an intent to avoid detection or evade blocks, which I doubt is the case here. Perryprog (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you want, one change I can make is to give them the "using multiple IP" warning before reporting. CLCStudent (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- When it comes to IP hoppers, I usually just skip the warnings and go straight to AIV because that is something this site just cannot have. CLCStudent (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry but I'm confused with this report to AIV. You've said that the IP is IP hopping with their vandalism, when I checked the warnings ClueBot warned one IP once and you warned the other one once. I'm confused as to why this was reported with only 2 warnings issued, all I've done is warn the IP that carried out todays vandalism.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I guess a resolution I can make is to always start with level 1 or 2 warnings. CLCStudent (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The warning that I start with all depends on the extremity of the vandalism. If it involves defamatory content, I begin with level 4. If it involved attacking another person, I generally start with level 3. If you point me to a specific one, I can explain in more detail. CLCStudent (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not vandalising
I was fixing the video format at Crash test --108.17.71.32 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, this wasn't vandalism. It was clearly a good-faith attempt to add an image and move another. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- The admins made a mistake with this one, but I will not pursue it further. CLCStudent (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I replied under the wrong comment; you were correct that the IP was edit-warring at crash test, but the controlled impact demonstration edits were mostly fine. Nevertheless, none of the edits were vandalism, because they were good-faith. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- The admins made a mistake with this one, but I will not pursue it further. CLCStudent (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
31.127.126.135
As a general rule, if they want to blank their talk pages after they're blocked, it's better not to engage. The block notice is still in the history and the block is still in the log so will be seen by any future admins considering a block, but really we want them to go away so sometimes it's best to let them have their "parting shot". It's certainly not wise or helpful to goad them. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. I just lost my temper there. CLCStudent (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| I've seen you around for quite some time and I really appreciate your hard work in fighting vandalism. Please keep up the good work. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 19:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |
January 2021
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. (Elsewhere in your talk page it's mentioned that this is a repeated issue; pinging @Oshwah to discuss.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, I have been starting off with level 1 or level 2 warnings in all cases except for extreme cases. Could you point me to a case where my warnings were too harsh? CLCStudent (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- My object of concern here is User talk:2601:19C:4501:8C30:999E:E749:2334:5EC9 (man are these masked IP pages unwieldy), where you escalated to a level 3 warning on a potentially good-faith ('critical' and 'bad faith' are frequently conflated) edit after an only loosely related level 1 notice. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I can agree to be more careful with good faith edits. CLCStudent (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- My object of concern here is User talk:2601:19C:4501:8C30:999E:E749:2334:5EC9 (man are these masked IP pages unwieldy), where you escalated to a level 3 warning on a potentially good-faith ('critical' and 'bad faith' are frequently conflated) edit after an only loosely related level 1 notice. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't been making any edits, and if I did, I would log in. 199.38.189.9 (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- On Monday, somebody on your IP address attempted to make disruptive edits, which the filter disallowed. CLCStudent (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
|
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for your work over in the filter log. SHINYeditbonjour. 20:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |
User talk:71.2.73.250
There was only one edit which triggered both filters so It's better to probably start with a level 2 warning . Kpgjhpjm 13:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- They had already received a warning by the time I came along. CLCStudent (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, I meant a level 2 after the original one . Hopefully that makes sense. Kpgjhpjm 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, the vandalism they were attempting the second time was a bit extreme. CLCStudent (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, I meant a level 2 after the original one . Hopefully that makes sense. Kpgjhpjm 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- They had already received a warning by the time I came along. CLCStudent (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
INFOBOX
The figures of the Infobox are only for league goals. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies. I actually reinstated your edit. CLCStudent (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for vandalizing...
Sorry for that! I won't do it again. SADF.man (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism of user 216.11.189.99
Hello! I noticed that you sent a block warning to user 216.11.189.99 if he continued to vandalise pages on 29 January last year. Recently, he modified the government dates of several colonial mayors of San Antonio, Texas, in their respective articles.--Isinbill (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, that was actually last year. CLCStudent (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Helen Martins
Hello, CLCStudent!
As you were of of the editors reverting the bad faith changes on Helen Martins redirect, I have decided to consult with you. I have written the article dedicated to Helen Martins as a part of Women in Red initiative dedicated to Africa. But now as I sat down to create the article, I stopped in doubt. Is she notable enough to have a separate article or is it better to leave all as it is. Could you please share your thoughts?
The most solid sources are New Dictionary of South African Biography, this webpage, Artsy, a book - Ross, Sue Imrie (1997). This is my world: the life of Helen Martins, creator of the Owl House. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195715163 - these sources are dedicated to her rather than the Owl House, there's a whole bunch of others, but those concentrate rather on the museum (you can see them in the museums article).
I would really appreciate your opinion. I feel a bit lost with this one. Thank you! Less Unless (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Re: Block requested
Indefed (or 226 years indefed). Mitch32(sail away with me to another world.) 22:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not vandalism
Hi CLCStudent: You mistakenly marked my edit as vandalism. I responded at length to the previous revision here. In brief: Labeling someone a "racist" is not vandalism if it is both (a) true and (b) important to the material. In this case, the entry cites a historian saying a town was "squalid and dirty" because of "its large number of black inhabitants." That's a racist comment from a historian with a history of white-supremacist comments (again, details here). It's the same as quoting an anti-Semite calling a town "filthy" because of "its many Jewish residents." Either there needs to be clarification of the historian's view or the entire line should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4680:EFB0:2D5A:16F9:CF7:8ACF (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize for the tone of the warning I gave you, and I modified it appropriately, but I still cannot allow that in there because that can cause a number of issues. CLCStudent (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Bryan Thomas Schmidt edit reverts
In this case, your revert was incorrect. Please be cautious when reverting others' edits, especially when using automated tools. When you use them incorrectly, as you did here, you drive potential editors away, and you cause errors to remain in articles. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- You cannot delete things without explaining. CLCStudent (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, there was an explanation, it was a typo. If you click through to one of the sources talking about the series (or the author's website) you can see that it is indeed called the Saga of Davi Rhii. Perryprog (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- As Perryprog noted, the IP included the explanation "typos". That's extremely clear to me. What about it did you not understand? Look, we all make mistakes here. You made one in this case. Accept it and move on, hopefully wiser in how you apply the automated tools you use. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I was looking at someone else's contribs as I replied. I made a mistake with this one. CLCStudent (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- You cannot delete things without explaining. CLCStudent (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
FYI
Hi CLC,
As, I believe, the most-active AIV reporter, I just thought you might want to drop some thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Responder role (currently in drafting stage). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, there is no point whatsoever in warning these idiots. In fact, it's unhelpful, because in that filter log a blue link for a talk page gives me pause to think I already blocked them, so I have to look twice. Since I am blocking them as fast as I can click, that's unhelpful. Just stop warning them. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies CLCStudent has been warned more than a couple times that they have to go through the proper stages of adding warnings before reporting vandals to AIV. Indeed they have even been threatened with a block if they do not do so. I feel sure that C does not want to create extra work for you. Is there some way for C to be able to tell the difference between those that they need to warn and those they don't. My apologies for intruding, especially if it makes this situation worse, I've followed this for awhile now and I just wanted to see if there is some way to get everybody on the same wave length. MarnetteD|Talk 01:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Marnette, I am sure that CLC knows very well what the difference is between a regular vandal and one of these idiots whose Notable person edit gets caught by the filter. Nobody really needs to warn for edits that get caught by the filter; DatBot captures those. I know what you're saying about those warnings, but I have in fact told them they should not hesitate to skip one, or two, and to start at three or four if the edit warrants it--clear BLP violations, racist stuff, etc. But CLC, just leave that filter alone: it is a complete waste of time. I click on "Details" for EVERY single one I block, and if you do that too, then you will know what's what. Marnette, look at my log. This is a lot of work. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I mean seriously. This, User talk:Lululoom, is so obvious. And here I am again--every time I'm here, there's a half a dozen more. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to right all of this Drmies. It helps me if know one else because I was unbaware of the details. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarnetteD, there's post on AN and on ANI. I saw this stuff happening yesterday and this morning, and all the work done by ToBeFree, and then I saw those posts which cleared a lot of it up. It hails from TikTok--unf***ingbelievable. Look at the block logs--they are insane. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, day-of I made something like 15 or 20 OS requests within an hour or two, and that was after the main call-to-action video was taken down. Stuff is seriously crazy. Perryprog (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarnetteD, there's post on AN and on ANI. I saw this stuff happening yesterday and this morning, and all the work done by ToBeFree, and then I saw those posts which cleared a lot of it up. It hails from TikTok--unf***ingbelievable. Look at the block logs--they are insane. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to right all of this Drmies. It helps me if know one else because I was unbaware of the details. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Use my ttnonnotable warnings
For TikTok vandals. Shinyeditbonjour. 13:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Apparently...
...yes. 
Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Editing Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena page
The information in the current page are not fully accurate and key areas are missing. I represent the person mentioned in the page. Bombaleo Matara (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Please don't bite the newbies
I was surprised that you did a vandalism warning to new user RebeccaAlvarez, for what was obviously a trivial typo. Was this an automatically generated 'collateral damage' from doing a twinkle rollback? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am not finding that warning. Could you please point me to it? CLCStudent (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it was unfair and inappropriate. It is still visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RebeccaAlverez&oldid=1006350146 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was barely a bite. I gave him a level one warning. In other words, I did not threaten him with a block or scream at him. I just told him that his edit did not seem constructive. I do not see how that is biting. CLCStudent (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- For a trivial typo? I'm amazed in that case that every editor on the project hasnt had at least a 100 warnings from you, 1,000 in my case. Lighten up! Anti-vandalism is an important task, please don't devalue it by overreacting to good faith trivia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was barely a bite. I gave him a level one warning. In other words, I did not threaten him with a block or scream at him. I just told him that his edit did not seem constructive. I do not see how that is biting. CLCStudent (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it was unfair and inappropriate. It is still visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RebeccaAlverez&oldid=1006350146 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am not finding that warning. Could you please point me to it? CLCStudent (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry
It was accidental. –Kammil (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)