User talk:Dan653/Archive 11

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 5

←

Archive 9

→

query

Hi,I have fulfilled the minimum critera at CVU,then what to do next?--Zeeyanketu ✉ 10:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)We are finding an instructor for you and will notify you when you have been taken. Electric Catfish 21:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Why do you say I need more understanding of counter-vandalism? Have I done something wrong? Or is it just that you think I'm relatively new and therefore my understanding must be incomplete? Victor Yus (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Because your request for rollback permissions was not granted. You have not done something wrong. I am not saying at all that because you are new you have an incomplete understanding. Dan653 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter

Doing... now. Theo polisme_:) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Done Theo polisme_:) 11:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism Studies Update - August 2012

Hello, members of the Vandalism Studies Project! As some of us are quite new with the Vandalism Studies project, it would make sense for us to re-read some of the past studies, as well asstudies outside the project. Please do so if you have a chance, just so we can get into the groove of things. We're planning on attempting to salvage the Obama study (or possibly simply convert it to a new Romney study), as well as hopefully begin ourthird study this November. If you have any ideas for Study 3,please suggest them! If you have any questions please post them on the project talk page. Thanks, and happy editing - we can't wait to begin working on the project!--Dan653 (talk) and Theo polisme _:)
11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
_{If you would like to stop receiving Vandalism Studies newsletters, please remove your name from the member list.}

Thank you !

Thank you for being my instructor. I've read the page on vandalism as you requested. I have no questions about it. It looks pretty clear to me! "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 18:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How to handle this accordingly?

Hi

Please have a look here User_talk:97.119.200.165 and let me know if and what action should be required here?!

thanks --Fox2k11 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

None really. You can always tell them why they should care, but they probably won't care about that either. You could keep a watch on their contribs for a few days, to see if they vandalize some more. That's about it. Dan653 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok Thanks =) --Fox2k11 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

access request for STIKI

Hi Dan

I want to use Stiki so could you request access on it's talk page for me?! thanks --Fox2k11 (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will request acess for you once you have finished reading WP:Vandal, so I know you have a good understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. Dan653 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I already Finished Reading WP:Vandal on the day you told me to read the Article I can Distinguish Basic Vandalism from Good Faith edits --Fox2k11 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

O, you never told me, but nonetheless I'll request acess. Dan653 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I have Forgotten to tell you but thanks =) --Fox2k11 (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use Stiki requires at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Instruction_methods#Requesting_tool_access perWikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Archive_2#New_Requirements_for_using_STiki.I would suggest doing your research before commenting in 3 different places. Dan653 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am already are of those archives as I am aware of practically everything at the CVU-CVUA. Even if in good faith, neither developers nor CVU instructors are authorised to override admin discretion. In my opinion, and in that of several admins, the CVU and its academy need a rethink. I am sure that you are aware of those discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, could you give those other admins names, I would like to personally discuss their concerns with them. Dan653(talk) 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you get yourself up to date with some of the many discussions on the CVU/CVUA pages, even if they have been archived, and examine the names of the commentators to see if they are admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much just u, worm, and zippy. Worm and zippy are activley asdissting us in the revamp, but it would be nice if instead of just commenting you would assist too. Dan653 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to butt-in but the user user:Zaldax on the STiki talk page has only 700 edits and has been granted permission and he is also an CVUA Student! Fox2k11 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Dan653 (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I seem to recall that DGG, one of our wisest and most experienced admins has also made suggestions. My suggestions are simple: cut down on at least half the different pages, cut out the use of all the templates and micro-templates (the pages are beginning to look like Christmas trees), and above all, reduce the social or semi-social banter. Every superfluous posted comment, , creating a cat, a tinker with a template, a note on a newsletter, 'clerk' posts at PERM, chat on channels, or holding elections

could have been a vandal revert. In short, the bureaucracy needs to be cut down. Many of my comments have not been taken in good faith, and my 2,000 or so edits a month are usually made elsewhere - such as contributing to content, the development of solutions for NPP and RfA, and correcting other editors errors. It stands to reason, therefore, that I have an eagle eye on the CVU, but I don't feel that I should be the one to actively rewrite the project because I remain confident that the regulars there should be able to take the advice on board and do it themselves.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@Fox: Apples and oranges I'm afraid. There is a big difference between 140 and 700 edits (but I will be checking on Zaldex), and I honstly feel that you have not been given the best advice from your instructor who to the best of my knowledge only has around 1,400 to mainspace himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

that was not my point of course there is a big gap between 140 and 700 edits but you said its required to have 1000+ edits (or rollback which I guess Zaldax neither has) so the only option in my humble opinion is to either grant me the same right or revoke zaldax the right for the sake of equality! just saying --Fox2k11 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Zaldax has made 199 actual vandalism reverts. As I said, apples & oranges - and yes, still does not have Rollbacker rights - which also, as I said, will depend on admin discretion if he applies for it, and I'm sure he will when he feels he is ready for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree with either side of this debate. Dan, asking for STiki access for a user that new is unwise to say the least. Just as admins must make the decisions as to whether a user can identify vandalism to provide rollback access, we have to go through the editors edits to confirm that they understand what vandalism is, we cannot just "take their word for it". STiki has 1000 article edits/rollback as a requirement for a reason, I would like to see a bit more experience in a student before you put him forward. A little more caution would go a long way.
Kudpung, I do not see anything which suggests STiki requires administrator permission to use. Although a fully automated system (bot) needs to go through BRFA and AWB requires permission due to the fact that it requires reduced human supervision, STiki does not seem to fit into these categories. Per our policy on assisted editing, Authors of assisted editing tools are permitted to create their own approval mechanism for that tool. STiki's approval mechanism specifically includes the option of a request at the STiki talk page, you are welcome to object to the request (and I have no problem with the manner in which you did this), but being an admin gives you no extra power in this matter. I could be wrong, it's happened before, but I don't think this is a good point to pull the "admin" card. Worm^TT(talk) 09:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, you both could do with increasing the amount of good faith you assume about each other, both of you are justified in your points, but are being generally short with the other and seem to be assuming some sort of ulterior motive. I believe both of you have the best interests of the project at heart, do remember that :) Worm^TT(talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely not played an admin card in this issue. The only time I use my 'power' is in the discretion I apply when according official user rights after thoroughly examining the candidate. In all these issues I am only speaking as a mature (I hope) and experienced member of the community. You may wish to see this conversation that took pace earlier this evening. I am wholly committed to all aspects of keeping the 'pedia clean, especially the improvement of he patrolling of new pages and vandalism; the CVU is an essential project but I just hope that it will begin to take some of the advice from other like-minded editors - especially yours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

how to report a VANDAL

Hi, I just want to know if there is any procedure in Wikipedia to report a habitual and regular vandal?? if possible,kindly advise me in this( the subject is User talk:Nb20078....thanks--Adamstraw99 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user'stalk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them atWikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then decide whether toblock the user. Please note that I have not reviewed the user's contributions, thus please only report the user if the edits are true vandalism. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 04:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

removed link

Hi, I was wondering why you removed the link I put on the RC Aircraft page?

I linked to pilotincontrol.com which is a page for RC Aircraft enthusiasts. It seems no different than the other external links on the page and is relevant to the article isn't it?

Thanks, Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by152.133.10.13 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the link, but saying "sign up free" goes against Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Dan653 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan...

Running for 2 or more elected offices simultainiously is "duplicitious". One can not legally fulfill the obligations of multiple offices. This will logically disenfranchise a certain number of voters. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 108.238.32.184 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right. There was a spate of vandalism going on, my bad. Dan653 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)