User talk:Limideen

Re: Thank you

Yes, sorry about that, like you I was reviewing those changes to Brian Regan - I'd been reviewing that users history because I noticed vandalism on another page. I didn't notice that you'd already reverted them so I ended up rollbacking your rollback. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure

I'm sorry I'm not quite sure what you are asking of me, could you repeat that again? Hairy Perry 13:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I gotcha...I gave you the 3 IP's I already had and I'll get you some more when I see them, ok? Later, Hairy Perry 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal List

Hello Limideen, I apologize for not being able to answer your query sooner! My activity on Wikipedia has fluctuated greatly because of my busy college schedule. I do not consider it wise to keep a vandal list (especially of IP vandals). I personally kept a temporary one when sorting through several confirmed socks of a notorious sockpuppeteer. However, when the case is less obvious, it is incredibly offensive to act as though you are stalking someone (or an IP address) that you assume will potentially vandalize. I would suggest tagging the page with a {{db-userreq}} tag and allowing it to be deleted. As Iridescant told you, its best to revert, block, and ignore in these situations. Hope this answers your question and I apologize once again for not responding to you sooner >.<.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Help desk question

My answer repeated here for your convenience: Templates do not need to be "registered". You can just create your template in Template space - ie with a Template: prefix in the name. Just like any other contribution it will be open to editing, possible deletion etc. See Help:Template. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Twinkle

I wasn't applying it to you specifically - you asked for the minimum. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free advice

I wouldn't go around with that "rollbacker verify" thing on your signature. It looks like you are bragging. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to lose the <big>, too, as it's expressly forbidden. – iride scent 17:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're {{subst}}ing your signature, then so is that, I'm afraid… – iride scent 18:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I think I have now managed to take that in... Hows this? Limideen 06:43, 25

Subst

Hey Limideen. Great job on the vandal-fighting. I just want to let you know, though, that when you issue warnings, please subst them, so that if a user is removing warnings, it's easier to tell. Generally, all User warning templates should be subst-ed. If you have any issues with this, please let me know, Spencer^T♦^C 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin impersonation

Please don't impersonate a Wikipedia administrator, as you did here. You are not an admin, and have no powers to determine who is or isn't granted access to the rollback feature. – iride scent 16:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did I impersonate one? I was simply repeating the reason that was given here as who declined it did not alert him/her From,

Limideen 17:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call that impersonation, if you bothered taking the time to look, you'd see that the editor in question was just adding a template to notify the user. Perhaps in the future you'll take that on board. Message from XENU^{u, t} 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Iridescent, that was not admin impersonation by a long shot. Pedro : Chat 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Message from XENU^{u, t} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for showing support on my rollback approval! Message from XENU^{u, t} 19:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Rollback for Huggle

I still fail to understand. I have noticed on multiple occasions that people with both less edits and lest time editing have been granted rollback, but I haven't. One person only started a few weeks ago and only had something like 100 edits. Ok I too started maybe 2 weeks ago, but I have nearly 500 edits, and good quality ones at that.

Maybe its just me being grumpy about not being allowed rollback, but you have to admit it does seem strange that some people that have less experience are still awarded rights when others who have more experience are not.

Kira Chinmoku (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb

I realize that I put in a horrible blurb by mistake. I was only trying to return the article to it's orginal state before it was hijacked by people misrepresenting facts and using Wikipedia for advertisement and recruitment. Is it not the role of people to get rid of things that are hyperboles and misrepresentations on this site? -Jack

Vandalism warning?

Could you please revert your warning on my page? I was reverting the change as noted in my summary. The change has been made several times by ips, etc, and consensus still stands that the way I changed it is correct. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies. The way I revert is keyword based, and I am sure you can understand why Boom, bang, bang was flagged up. Again. my apologies. All the best
Limideen 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I didn't vandalize anything, I was commenting ON vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.29.253 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking vs Banning

Thank you for your recent AIV report on vandalism by User talk:82.10.204.148. The user has been blocked for a period of time as a result. I see you left the user a warning on "banning". Although it sounds similar, please note that in Wikipedia there is a difference between a block and a ban. Have a great day. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re from my talk page: Looks like Alexf took care of the problem :) ♣Zoo Fari♣ 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Limideen. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TN X Man 15:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Counter on top of Monobook

Dear Renmiri, Hit Counter on top of Monobook in MetaWiki looks good. Please,please assist me in installing it. Do I have to install anything else? Thanks,
Limideen 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! If you still need help, I'll look for my notes on it Renmiri (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP.

Okay, I've semi-protected it indefinitely. I find a protected userpage gives you more peace of mind... a rather long-lasting rude comment in one of my templates convinced me to protect pretty much my entire userspace other than my talkpage. Cheers, · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Limideen. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dear 174.116.29.253,

1. Please add a new section to my talk page, because I nearly didn't notice (You added it to a previous discussion) 2. How is "What the crap????" (Here) not vandalism? 3. Please don't remove vandalism warnings which people have issued you, ask them to remove them themselves and provide a reason

From, Limideen 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not into the wikipedia political game. If something is undeserved, I remove it. That's how I roll. Did you not perhaps read the statement above? The "Controversy" sections sounds a little more like "vandalism" than my comment. Do not message me again in any fashion, it will be considared harassment.

Unfettered One

Reported Usernames

Hi there. The usernames you have just been reporting to WP:UFAA are already blocked, and have been for several years. Please check the block log of users before reporting them. Thanks! Ale_Jrb ^talk 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

igloo

Hi Limideen, and thanks for your interest in igloo; I probably now feel warm and fuzzy. Please read the following important info before continuing:

I'd like to take the time to remind you that igloo is in testing, and is wholly unfinished. Because of this, bugs may cause you to edit erratically or change the wrong thing, even if you pressed a button on a valid revert. This will result in angry users demanding to know why you have reverted their good change. You will need to apologise and fix it before continuing; if you can't handle this, please don't use the program. You will also need to regularly check your changes to ensure igloo is doing the right thing. If not, please let me know so I can fix it - this will help improve it for the future.

If you still wish to help test igloo, you will need to remember the following controls, as the igloo control system is incomplete at this time.

When you are using igloo, it will help learn which edits are vandalism by listening to your assertions.
When you revert an edit, you are asserting that it is bad, as well as reverting and warning. To do this, press Q on your keyboard while viewing a diff. The edit will be reverted, and the user will be warned. This will happen in the background as you go.
When an edit is clearly not vandalism, you can skip to the next diff by pressing SPACEBAR - this will assert that the edit is good, and display the next diff.
If you are unsure whether it is vandalism, and do not want to revert press E to skip to the next diff without making an assertion.
If you regularly make invalid assertions and revert good edits (and vice versa), igloo will automatically suspend your access to the tool.

igloo will list diffs at the left side of your screen. You can click a diff to display it, or press space/E to go to the top diff. These are listed in the likely order of vandalism; edits most likely to be vandalism are at the top, and those least likely are at the bottom. Edits that igloo believes are vandalism are highlighted red, and clean edits are green. Edits where igloo is unsure or neutral are highlighted in yellow.

If you have any questions, comments, bugs or suggestions, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Ale_Jrb ^talk 13:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech

I seek a free internet. Hinder the progress and you will be comsumed

WE DO NOT FORGIVE WE DO NOT FORGET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firereef (talk • contribs) 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Firereef, you have been issued a final warning regarding this.
Limideen 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: ACC

I have reactivated your ACC account. FunPika 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!
Limideen 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giving Warnings

Any reason why you're skipping straight to a level 3 warning [1] for straightforward vandal edits like this [2]. Another example: [3] for this [4] which the user reverted immediately. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that they were removed immediately, as the Lupin Anti-Vandal tool I use normally says if somebody edits after the vandal. I apologise for these cases. As far as I am aware (Please correct me if wrong!), it is my choice of which level to issue to vandals.

Out of courtesy, in the cases where the test edits were reverted immediately, I would, yes, leave a little friendly message on their talkpage, or maybe, issue a little informative Level 1 Warning. In other cases, I may issue a Level 3 warning to get the message across

All the Best,
Limideen 14:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the level of warning is up to you. But if the editor is reported to WP:AIV then the admin is going to look at the talk page and might ask where the level 1 and 2 warnings are as they follow WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Just a heads up. Cheers! --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ever so much, I'll look for a relevant barnstar for helping others!
P.S Please do check my latest case, where I did follow your advice and give a friendly message: User_talk:173.10.186.162
Limideen 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pest but Food preservation is on my watchlist but giving a npov3 warning [5] for what was a test edit [6] is definitely going to raise some eyebrows. I fully support your vandal fighting as I focus on that myself and I know that starting off with a level 1 warning sometimes seems pointless but it's easier for the admins to block if they see the standard process has been followed. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaarrrghhh! I think I might need to take a break of this.
Sorry if these all seem like excuses, but I honestly was going through a long list of possible vandalising edits, and the one above or below must have needed the npov warning! I will attempt to locate which one it was, but it might be impossible.

I will remove the npov warning I sent accidentally immediately, and look deeper and further in my next vandalism warning(s)! I hope we continue to fight vandalism together, and hopefully, soon, we will completely stop the vandals!
Limideen 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You might want to look into using WP:Twinkle if you don't use an automated tool already. After you revert, it automatically pops up the user's talk page. If you do decide to use it and have any questions, let me know. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do use Twinkle occasionally, but prefer Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool. The interface is much better in my opinion. The only problem is that you cannot warn about npov's automatically. You can only warn with uw-vandalism and uw-test
Limideen 15:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use that too but when a non-vandalism edit occurs I click on the Last link which brings up the diff. I revert with Twinkle from there. A couple extra steps but I find it easier then remembering all the different warning templates. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and I hope to run into your vandal-reverting edits again! :-) --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism

Hello Limideen! Yes, I use this tools. Normally I patrol the Spanish wiki, but now there aren't many vandalism, so I patrol the English wiki. Sorry for my English, I don't know very well the language... --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 11:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, how old are you? and where do you live? --by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 11:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live in England.

I'm younger than you

Why do you ask?
Limideen 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not mandatory

I noticed you posted a message on User talk:216.157.223.35 saying the IP address has been reported. Apparently it's not necessary after the final warning. It can just be done behind their back, and I don't know why they changed it from 2007. mechamind 9 0 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What changed after 2007? Thanks for noticing and giving me a heads up on that! I guess I think that I wanted the IP to know hat had happened, as otherwise they might be a bit surprised if other users bring it up, without them knowing that they had been reported.
Limideen 16:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, but I've deleted the warning simply because my heart skipped a beat when I read it, because I tend to skim-read things! I wondered what on Earth I'd done. Anyway..., thank you for telling me, and for your realistic looking warning. ;) All the best
Limideen 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages

On my talk page --Tommy2010 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Secret Page

You seem to have found it. I suppose you deserve this.

		The Secret Subpage Finder Barnstar
		This user has found Hi878's secret hidden sub page! Will you be the next one to find it? Try it here!

Hi878 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's my first Barnstar :)
Limideen 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Hi Limideen. Where is the template you used here located? It seems very unhelpful - just whacking the hive rather than imparting useful information - so I'd like to suggest its removal. Thanks. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it anywhere, but I wrote it after a user I submitted to AIV was not told about being blocked, therefore not "being kept in the loop"

I felt that this was very unhelpful to the user

I didn't mean for it to be "whacking the hive", just to as you said the opposite, I did mean it to impart information. I believe it is completely factual, but can you recommend any improvements to my message, or do you believe most administrators will tell users after them being blocked? Was the example I created this in response to a one-off?
Limideen 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really advise you stopped using this template. Our Level 4 templates (like {{uw-vand4}}) provide a good warning that the vandal's time is up. Further templating looks like goading the vandal - whacking the hive. Once a vandal is reported to AIV, they are either blocked or not, for reasons of policy and experience.

As a rule, when we block a user, they're given a template with the information your template is providing. There are certain exceptions, at the discrimination of the blocking admin (WP:DENY springs to mind, or with sockpuppets). If you're concerned that a block notice wasn't given after a vandal was blocked, ask the admin in question why not; but don't invent your own template to provide the information in advance: it's a waste of time and bandwidth and, as happened here, you placed it after I'd blocked the vandal and I edit conflicted with you, wasting even more time that I could have used to block vandals. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much for telling me, and I will no longer use the template.

Thank you for alerting me to WP:DENY, a policy I was unaware of

And I shall also take your advice, if I am concerned of whether a block template wasn't issued I will bring it up politely at the Administrators talk page. Once again thank you :)
Limideen 19:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. In the template above, it says: Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes, however, on [7], it says Reviewers edits on Pending changes pages are visible immediately.

Limideen 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The basic process of editing an article (i.e., making a change and pressing the "save page" button) is not changed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up.
Limideen 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ip-warning

Template:Ip-warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for telling me, I'll make a comment on the page
Limideen 20:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis of Assisi Catholic Technology College

Hello, Limideen. You have new messages at Krashlandon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I found even more lingering vandalism on St Francis of Assisi Catholic Technology College. I think I've fixed it all now, but I couldn't validate the alumni claims, so I put ^{[citation needed]} tags on them. Krashlandon ^(talk) 03:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]