User talk:QuadrivialMind

Welcome to my talk page.

Please do your best to follow these guidelines:

• Start new topics at the bottom of the page.
• Please remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~.
• Please assume good faith. I, like everyone, make mistakes —I might have reverted your edit if I thought it was vandalism, or accidentally reverted to an old but also vandalized version of a page. If you can correct me by approaching me in a civil manner, then it's more likely that I'll learn from my mistakes.
• If I left you a message on your talk page, kindly reply there. I will most likely check back later for your answer. You can also place the {{talkback}} template here to let me know you're expecting my reply on your talk page.

Keep in mind that unless you do not have a registered account, if you leave me a message, I will reply here most of the time. If you don't reply in a while, I will let you know I have replied to your message by adding a notice to your talk page.
Also, I sometimes archive stuff that I find useful for future reference from other talk pages, so don't be alarmed if you see a copy of our exchange of words here. I always add a note and timestamp at the beginning of archived talks.

Automated welcome message

You asked Bearcat for an automated welcome message. Contrary to popular myth, there is no automated process that welcomes new users to Wikipedia. Instead, real users sometimes place template messages for new users. Since you asked, here is a template message for you (I made this by typing {{Subst:Welcome}} into your talk page.)

Welcome!

Hello, QuadrivialMind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I finally get one of these. Haha. Thanks. Since you are so eager to answer my silly questions, I'll probably bother YOU in YOUR talk page then :) QuadrivialMind (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

While it's true that only admins have the power to actually delete a page, non-admins can flag a page for potential deletion by using the various speedy deletion templates, which file the tagged articles in a category that admins can review and delete (or not, in some cases). For what it's worth, you don't necessarily have to remember all of those tags, either — they're available for convenience, but just using plain old {{db|1=your reason}} is always acceptable too.

I know it seems like a pain in the keester, but options like page deletion can be used too easily for vandalism (e.g. people deleting politicians they don't like, etc.), so Wikipedia has had to be selective about certain privileges. Yeah, things can be kind of bureaucratic around here sometimes, but it's not just random — almost any process on here that seems especially cumbersome and annoying was formulated in response to somebody doing something that wasn't consistent with Wikipedia's goals. Believe me, those of us who've been around here a long time have literally seen just about every disruption tactic you can possibly imagine...and some you probably can't.

And for what it's worth, contacting an admin for help or information when you need it isn't "bothering" us — it's part of our job on here :-) Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info mate. Much appreciated. --QuadrivialMind (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huggle

Hi Quad! (Mind if I call you that?)

Here's your questions and the answers:

The questions would be:

• Is Huggle even functoinal anymore? On its page (I assume) it says MEDIAWIKI CHANGES/BUGS HAVE BROKEN HUGGLE. USE SOMETHING ELSE. THANKS. So... yeah. Kind of confused here. If it is unstable (or something), how long has it been this way? And do you think it might work properly again? (If it's broken in some way in the first place, of course)
  • MediaWiki is the software that allows Wikipedia to work. Basically, MediaWiki is to Wikipedia what an operating system is to a computer. Recently, there were some major changes to the version of MediaWiki that currently runs Wikipedia. This made Huggle become somewhat unstable, and not all functions work the way they should. (or they just don't work at all) Gurch, who developed (and develops) Huggle, is working on a new version that will probably be able to fix all the problems with it. Just how close he is to done with it, though, is anybody's guess.
• Is Huggle the reason you edit at the speed of light? Or do you just possess inhuman, godlike speed? I might just worship you if you do :D Or at least give you some sort of barnstar.
  • LOL! Yes, Huggle is the reason I edit so fast. Besides that, I have a fairly good internet connection (5Mb/s downstream; 2Mb/s upstream) so that makes me even faster. I am pretty fast natively (unaided, I mean), because I have quite a bit of experience fighting vandalism, but it is physically impossible to work as fast as Huggle unaided. Someone once made something like 50 edits in one minute with Huggle. You simply could not click that fast.
• Do I absolutely need rollback rights to use it? Or can I just do less things with it without having rollback rights? I want to know if I can fight vandalism better without having to apply for a privilege I don't fully understand and probably wouldn't get in a million years.
  • Yes, unfortunately you do need rollback rights to use Huggle. To explain why, I'll have to ramble a little, so bear with me. Huggle began as a tool Gurch made to help him revert vandalism faster. After a while, a few people asked him how he was reverting so fast, so he sent them copies of it. Around that time (early February 2008) Gurch went on wikibreak, so Huggle was distributed to trusted users upon request, and not a lot of people used it. Then Gurch returned in early April, if I remember correctly, and he started adding features and increasing its speed. Eventually, Huggle was released as an open download i.e. anyone who wanted to could use it. Unfortunately, Huggle has a very high learning curve, and many newbie Hugglers were not able to properly control Huggle's power. There were quite a few discussions about whether the tool should be banned, but eventually it was decided that what was needed was some way of controlling access to it. Since Rollback rights are granted when a user demonstrates that they understand what vandalism is, the rollback flag became a requirement to use Huggle.
  • Getting rollback is not difficult. All you need to do is demonstrate that you understand what vandalism is. To do so, I would recommend installing Twinkle and patrolling Special:Recentchanges with that. Twinkle automates many tedious tasks relating to vandal-patrol, and it can mimic the rollback feature, all with no base requirement to use. After a few days or a couple weeks of fighting vandalism with Twinkle, apply for +rollback at WP:RFPERM. If you are accepted, you will be able to use Huggle.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I may not be able to answer them right away, since I have to go to bed (it's midnight where I live), but I'll probably be back on between 13:45 and 14:00 UTC tomorrow. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs)

Adoption

Are you still interested in adoption? If so, I would offer my services. Just note that I am not doing classes or suchlike as other adopters do, but I am happy to provide mentorship and answer questions. Regards SoWhy 14:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I don't even know what those classes are, so I don't even know what I'm missing out on, haha :)

But yeah, I can imagine. I don't need tests to pass or anything, all I need is some guidance, so I'm perfectly fine with that.

Thanks, I accept your services :D --QuadrivialMind (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. You should use {{adoptee|SoWhy}} to advertise your new status to the Wikiworld :-D

What I meant with classes is something like this: User:La Pianista/Adoptee classroom. While it's a nice thing to do, I prefer adoptees who are a bit more experienced and do not need assignments to work on the project.

Looking forward to work with you, please leave me a message whenever you need questions answered or help with anything. Regards SoWhy 18:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

(Incorporated text from Vishnava's talk page on 19:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi - I'm sorry about that. You reverted the vandalism 1 sec before I had clicked the button and therefore.... In any case, please accept my apologies for this misunderstanding. I have restored your version. Vishnava _talk 06:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It can happen to anyone, and I hear that Huggle thing is pretty fast! I realized what had happened when I checked the logs and saw you reverting, so I wasn't going to say anything anyway :P

Actually, I should say something and commend you for all the vandalism you've been reverting :) Keep it up!

--QuadrivialMind (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I reciprocate the compliment. Yeah, us "Hugglers" keep stumbling over each other when the vandalism is low. Anyway, back to work! Vishnava _talk 06:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Newbie editor back and asking for your input

(Obtained from J.delanoy's talk page on 12 October 2008, 08:04 (UTC))

Hi, it's me again... Quad, remember? :P

First off, I wanted to thank you for your advice, as it was really useful. I've been adopted now, so I didn't bother you with more questions as I could have :) (and be glad for that) I've been using Lupin's tool along with Twinkle to revert some vandalism the past few days, and I think I've been doing fine... I actually saw you quite a few times reverting some pages (As I'm sure did millions of others :P). But I wanted to ask you a couple more questions, if you don't mind:

• What is your experience with other tools previous to acquiring rollback privileges and the killing machine? Any recommendations or tips for a specific one?
• Do you think having the vandalism obliterator removes the need for ANY other tools?
• What's so good about rollback? I don't really get why people would apply for it having the tools I mentioned, but that's because I don't really understand what rollback actually does. What are the advantages of having it, and what new things are you able to do with it? This is apart from using Huggle, of course. Because I noticed Twinkle has a rollback feature, but according to my logic and what you said a few days ago, it can't be the same feature. And Lupin also, apparently (although I haven't tried that one yet, I usually find pages to revert with Lupin and revert and warn with Twinkle), but there is an option that says use non-admin rollback. So, yeah, kind of confusing to me.

Any input is appreciated. See you around, and keep up the anti-vandalism, you insane-ultra-fast-reverting-human/Huggle-hybrid, you :P

--QuadrivialMind (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, Quad!

First, I want to say that I love that "insane-ultra-fast-reverting-human/Huggle-hybrid" name you called me. That is awesome! When I get the chance, I'm putting that in an "awesome quotes" section or somewhere.

But for now, down to business...

• What is your experience with other tools previous to acquiring rollback privileges and the killing machine? Any recommendations or tips for a specific one?

I got rollback in January 2008. Although I didn't know it at the time, this was right after non-admin rollback had been implemented. Prior to that, only administrators had access to the rollback feature. Before receiving rollback, I fought vandalism by hand using the undo feature. After receiving rollback, I continued to fight vandalism by hand for around a month. Then I saw Jj137 on Huggle (which was really new then, basically no one knew about it) and he gave it to me. So I never actually used any tools before Huggle. As for other tools, I swear by Twinkle for minor cleanup if I run across it in my random browsing. It's very fast (especially for a script-based tool), easy to use, and incredibly versatile. The only drawback is that it doesn't filter edits for you, so if you're going to fight vandalism solely with Twinkle, you'll have to go to Special:Recentchanges, click on diffs, and hope you get there before a Huggler does. Another good tool (that does filter edits) is Mike's Wiki Tool. One drawback is that it is kind of hard to get MWT to work on Windows Vista. If you are running Vista and would like to give it a try, I could try to walk you through the steps to set it up. (If you decide to go ahead and use just Twinkle, and you have access to IRC, irc://irc.freenode.net/cvn-wp-en contains a useful stream of questionable edits that may make your life easier.)

• Do you think having the vandalism obliterator removes the need for ANY other tools?

No I don't. I think each has its place. Huggle is only good at catching vandalism as it happens. After 15 minutes pass, Huggle is almost completely useless to combat vandalism unless the vandal attacks again. To draw a rough analogy, suppose that vandalism is bacteria, viruses, and/or poison, and Wikipedia is a human body. Huggle is equivalent to the body's skin. It stops practically everything, but once something gets through, the skin cannot do anything to stop it. Also, Huggle is a stand-alone application designed solely for fighting vandalism. As such, it is very difficult to do anything else while using it. Script-based tools such as Twinkle ride along in your browser, so suppose I am writing a rather long message like this one and I'm thinking about what to say next. I idly click on my watchlist and see that someone I had never heard of edited User:Jimbo Wales. I click on the diff, and find that they vandalized it. With Twinkle, I can just rollback the vandalism and warn the user with only a few clicks. I don't even have to type anything. Doing that with Huggle or other standalone antivandalism tools would be very awkward.

• (a) What's so good about rollback? I don't really get why people would apply for it having the tools I mentioned, (b)but that's because I don't really understand what rollback actually does. What are the advantages of having it, and what new things are you able to do with it? This is apart from using Huggle, of course. (c)Because I noticed Twinkle has a rollback feature, but according to my logic and what you said a few days ago, it can't be the same feature. (d)And Lupin also, apparently (although I haven't tried that one yet, I usually find pages to revert with Lupin and revert and warn with Twinkle), but there is an option that says use non-admin rollback. So, yeah, kind of confusing to me.

(I labeled the different parts of your question to make it easier to read my answer)

• (a) What's so good about rollback? I don't really get why people would apply for it having the tools I mentioned,

Rollback is implemented at the system level, right in MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia. As a result, it is much, much faster and less demanding on the servers than any script-based tool could ever hope to be. As proof of what it is capable of doing, take a look at this link. There is no way you could ever do that with a script.

• (b) but that's because I don't really understand what rollback actually does. What are the advantages of having it, and what new things are you able to do with it? This is apart from using Huggle, of course.

Rollback is essentially a hyperlink that calls on a special feature of MediaWiki that automatically figures out which revision is the last revision made by someone other than the current editor. Rollback then supplies the server with a unique hashed token to verify that the person who clicked the link is allowed to do so, and if everything is in order, the server undoes all consecutive edits by the page's last editor. (If you're interested, a rollback hyperlink looks something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=rollback&from=Remember+the+dot&token=f42e845f614ddf72344d166a4ba29d7c%2B%5C)

• (c) Because I noticed Twinkle has a rollback feature, but according to my logic and what you said a few days ago, it can't be the same feature.

Twinkle's rollback feature mimics the MediaWiki one, but since it is a script is not as fast or efficient as the "real" one. The rest of my answer here would basically repeat the answer to part "b" of the answer to this question.

• (d) And Lupin also, apparently (although I haven't tried that one yet, I usually find pages to revert with Lupin and revert and warn with Twinkle), but there is an option that says use non-admin rollback. So, yeah, kind of confusing to me.

Non-admin rollback is what you would be getting if you applied at WP:RFPERM. There are two user rights groups that have access to the MediaWiki rollback feature: Administrators and Rollbackers. I explained some of the background behind this in the answer to question a.

I hope that helps you out. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. I've got to go to sleep now, so I guess I'll ttyl. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That cleared up a lot, so thanks! If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and archive these answers on my talk page, for future reference. Cheers. --QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee's questions

(Obtained from SoWhy's talk page on 12 October 2008, 08:07 (UTC))

Well, I don't know if this is the place you want me to ask you questions on; I know you like to do the entire talk on one page (either yours or mine) -a choice which I fully agree on- but if you prefer, we can move this whole thing to my talk page, if it is more comfortable for you.

Anyway, might as well start with the questions... Here they go:

• Deleted edits: I'm trying not to catch editcountitis, but I have to admit I have been checking some online edit counters, just to be familiarized with the whole total edits thing. But there is one thing I don't understand... What counts as a 'deleted edit'? Is it an edit I made that is undone by someone else? Is it an edit I made which was deleted by an administrator? A page I made that got deleted? (I had a subpage on my userpage that I wanted gone, so I tagged it and it was deleted –does that count?). I want to understand more or less what these are, if they are a bad thing, a good thing, or what.

Deleted edits are those edits that were made on a page that got deleted afterwards for whatever reason. It represents the difference between those edits that can still be seen by everyone (in the edit histories) and those edits that got deleted (like when you tagged a page for speedy deletion and it was deleted) and can only be seen by admins (or other special users).

I see. This is more of a curiosity question, but why can't I see my deleted edits? Why is it a privilege?

And was there a relatively recent change of policy regarding this matter? I ask this because the Wikimedia Edit Counter has a browse button for your deleted edits— and when I click it, it shows the following message: due to a change in policy, the archived contributions browser is currently unavailable. Which is kind of strange, because a change in policy appears as an internal link, yet when I click it an error is displayed (404 - Not Found).

Well, that is because there is a reason with the policies that these articles were deleted. Following logically from that is, that if they are deleted, their content should not show up on the project again, otherwise the purpose would be defeated.

As for the edit counter, you are using the old version that is not really maintained anymore. Currently the wannabe_kate counter is the most used. If you click the link provided by "change of policy", you will notice that it's from Dec 2005, i.e. quite a long time ago already.

• Vandalism: As you might have seen on my talkpage, I am attempting to act as a recent changes patroller. I have (I believe) successfully reverted a few vandalism edits, mainly by undoing revisions which are obviously malicious in intent. If I want to apply for rollback privileges (I won't yet –but this is with using Huggle in mind), I have to prove I understand what vandalism is (according to what J.delanoy said on my talk page). But how do I prove this, once I apply? Do people just check my contributions list or something?

Yes, that is what J.delanoy probably meant. Rollback will be granted to you if your contributions show that those edits you reverted using undo or manually and claimed to be reversions of vandalism, were really vandalism. That's the best way to prove that you understood what WP:VAND is about.

I've been doing some patrolling these past few days, and so far I think I'm doing well. I've been using Twinkle along with Lupin's tool, which saves a lot of time compared to manually patrolling the Recent Changes page. Actually, I only found that page useful for spotting people who are blanking pages, but usually someone gets to that quicker than me (I hear Huggle is pretty darn fast), and I can't really spot more discrete (yet still obvious) instances of vandalism.

I have, I think (from looking at my contributions), about 200 edits which consist of both undoing and warning users who have vandalized a page (which is the correct thing to do, right?); in some cases in which I saw the person continued to vandalize relatively shortly after being given a final warning, I reported the IP address instead of warning again. I have some questions regarding this matter:

• What happens if a long time has passed since a user has been given a final warning (assuming it's an IP address —would it change if it's not?) and there is vandalizing again? Do you report to administrators, warn again? Both?
• I'm going to ask J.delanoy some of these questions too for additional input, but even though I see him reverting vandalism often, I still value your opinion as much as his. So... I don't know if you still patrol pages, but you use (at least used) Huggle, right? Did you have any experience with Twinkle, Lupin's Tool, or something else previous to acquiring rollback rights? Do you think Huggle removes the need for ANY other tools?
• What about the rollback feature included in those two tools I mentioned previously? I still don't fully understand the difference between reverting, undoing, restoring and rollbacking. I know you can undo without any tools, and that's the same as reverting an edit, right? I read undo attempts to revert an edit (or several if you're comparing versions which intermediate revisions not shown, is that correct?) without changing all others... If rollback is just restoring to a previous version (which I'm not sure if it is), what is the advantage? My main question would be —what is so good about rollbacking, and what is the advantage of having this privilege versus editing with other tools or manually? Also, if you know what the difference is between admin rollback and the rollback function Twinkle and Lupin offer, that'd clarify quite a bit. Lupin actually has an option to use non-admin rollback —I checked that option because I don't want to get in trouble by attempting to use something I'm not allowed to use... But you can't just rollback like admins do because you have Lupin's tool in your monobook, right? When I saw that, I was really confused.
• I'm not going to ask you to go through every diff on my list, but if you could check a few reversions I made or warnings I gave and give me a little feedback, that would be great. So far I've had no complaints, and my page hasn't even been vandalized, but I don't want to do this 1000 times and then learn I was doing something fundamentally wrong. How far from being ready to acquire rollback would you say I am? Don't worry, I'm still not going to ask for it anyway, no matter what you say :P

Yes, warning is the correct thing to do. If you haven't done so, I suggest you make yourself familiar with WP:WARN to be able to warn users without automatic tools as well. Sometimes there is a need for that.

Now to your questions:

• If it's a registered account, then it's no change. Warnings are given to people, so if we can rightfully assume that it's the same person doing so, then we have to assume that the person decided to ignore the warnings. More would not help, so the next stop is WP:AIV. It is different with IPs. Most IPs are dynamically assigned, so old warnings to the IP might have been to a completely different person. Those have to be given again, because when there is any chance that it's not the same person, we have to assume it is really not. Such IPs reported will usually be declined as "stale" warnings.
• I am still doing so, I just am busy with writing a paper at the university's library, which is incidentally from where I am writing this. I have tried Twinkle and Lupin some time ago, but I did not like their usage. I prefer Huggle as a standalone tool that can be opened independent from the browser. Yes, I think it is superior to Twinkle and other tools (but that's like the PC or Mac debate, pure preference) but it cannot remove the need for all scripts as you can see from my monobook.js.
• "Reverting" means to change back to a former version, regardless how. If you rollback, use undo, just edit an old version and click save or remove the changes manually, it's all reverting. Undo is a feature of the software to minimize the need for editing old versions and saving. It attempts to remove certain edits within the history but actually just tries to identify those changes and offers you a version without them to review and save. Rollback is an option to revert anything by a user without reviewing. It's less ressource-consuming as it does not show an edit window but just does it with two clicks. If you continue to fight vandals, it's the way to go.
  Rollback can be granted to non-admins, as you know. If you haven't got it, the tools will emulate it but still use the edit window (just automated). I have lupin in my monobook, but if you look closely it's commented out with //, i.e. it does not load ;-)
• I looked at some of them and they seemed fine. I think you can request it within a few weeks max, although I will not grant it to you, being biased and all that. I suggest you ask J.delanoy for his opinion as well, if you are sending him questions anyway^^

• Creating and modifying objects (tables, templates): I read (and occasionally just skim over) a lot of guide pages on Wikipedia, tutorials, all that... But frankly, it just seems a bit massive sometimes. There are so many guides for doing stuff, it's just a bit confusing sometimes. As you might have seen on my userpage, I have a few userboxes, a thumbnail... some very basic things. And to be honest, I learned most of those by taking notes (so to speak) from other userpages and such, just by editing and trying out stuff in the preview mode, copying codes, etc. Needless to say, I made it work most of the time, but I'd like to know a bit more about things like creating a table, or modifying a template (an example would creating a code that adds text to what {{SA-novice}} generates. Can you point me in the right direction to a newbie-friendly guide on Wikipedia for this (if there is one)?

That is how I learn(ed) stuff as well, trying and tinkering. You can try to read Help:Tables and Help:Template (also Help:A quick guide to templates). But as said, I suggest you just edit {{SA-novice}} to copy the content to your userspace and tinker a bit with it. It's quite straight-forwarded in this case I think. :-)

Just tell me, what you want to do, if you still need assistance.

I managed to modify the template and write what I wanted, but I had one little problem. I copied the entire code that appeared when I edited {{SA-novice}}, and then started modifying what I needed. I left this as part of the original code:

---

<noinclude> [[Category:Service award templates]] </noinclude>

---

but then, when I put the modified code on my userpage, it was actually put in the category of service award templates! I entered the category and my user page was at the end of the list. What does <noinclude> do, then? I ended up removing those three lines, and apparently my userpage was removed from the category too.

I also experimented a bit with tables, and managed to get a few things right, but I'm still going to continue reading because to be honest, I found them a little complicated (I was attempting to align reduced sized images in table rows, just for reference). But I'll keep trying and tinkering ;)

<noinclude> means, that the part between those tags will not be included when the template is used within another article. It just appears on the template's own page, for example, as in this case, to categorize the template. Other uses include e.g. writing about how to use it or what the purpose is. Its counterpart is <includeonly> which can be applied to all those things you do not want to be shown on the template's own page but only when it's included somewhere.

• Wikiprojects: About Wikiprojects... As I understand, they are... well, it's kind of hard to define. Is it a group of editors, a group of pages? I recently made a new article about the singer Dido, who is one of my favorite singers –which is why I usually watch her pages and try to contribute (in small ways for now) to making articles related to her better. I noticed some of 'her' articles need a bit of cleaning up (even though they are not tagged), and a bit of expansion too, if a newbie editor may say so.
  This is why I was considering starting a WikiProject. But then I read a task force should be considered for a project with a narrow scope... such as a band (Even though I've seen WikiProjects that are about 1 band only, though usually more significant). I'm kind of confused now, to be honest :P I don't even know if there are people interested, what to do if there are, or if there are not... In fact I don't even know if I'm up for the job, to be honest. Maybe mantaining a WikiProject is harder than it seems, or too much of a job for me. What is your experience with WikiProjects? Is there something you can tell me, some basic advice to consider before even thinking of starting a new one?

They are groups of editors, coordinating to improve articles about certain topics (see WP:WikiProjects). They grew like crazy but then people realized that not every topic can attract a large number of editors. For example, there is a WikiProject for Doctor Who but none for NCIS. So if you do not know that there are a number of willing editors, you should not consider a WikiProject at all. You might want to consider a taskforce within WP:MUSICIANS but I'd advise you ask there or at WT:MUSIC first if there are any takers. Because if you cannot find any other editors, there is no sense in such a project or taskforce.

Got it. If I still like starting this in some time, I'll start asking around in those places.

That's it for now. Looking forward to your answers :) --QuadrivialMind (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my talk page is fine. It get's archived automatically when it's done and the Archive's index allows to easily browse those archive sections. I answered above. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. I have replied with some follow-up questions above. Feel free to take your time to answer. See you around! --QuadrivialMind (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, hopefully that helps. I will now go back to writing my paper, have a nice day :-) SoWhy 07:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answers. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and archive them on my talk page, for future reference. Cheers. --QuadrivialMind (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's all released under GFDL anyway ;-) SoWhy 21:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dido live region1.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dido live region1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to delete this image, since you apparently uploaded Image:Dido Live At Brixton Academy.jpg to use instead? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! I found it strange that the bot came to warn me, because I know I'm the uploader, but I'm also the one who tagged the image. I don't know if the bot doesn't care about that, or if it's just policy, but it's fine anyway.

But to just to clarify... Image:Dido Live At Brixton Academy.jpg is the one I uploaded originally. I then uploaded Image:Dido_live_region1.gif as an alternate cover, but found an alternative with better quality, which was Image:Dido_live_region1.jpg. There are 3 in total, the .GIF is the one I meat to be deleted. I would have just replaced it with the one I later found had it been the same format. --QuadrivialMind (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback enabled on your account

Hello QuadrivialMind,

I have noticed that you revert quite a bit of vandalism. Since you have demonstrated that you have a good grasp of what constitutes vandalism, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that you have done an absolutely fantastic job with Twinkle. I have never seen someone with that kind of accuracy. I literally looked at your last 175 reversions, and I did not find one that was incorrect. Just a note: When you use Huggle, be aware that you will not believe how powerful it is. Please take it slow for a few days until you get used to it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your compliments (they mean a lot coming from the Huggle-Human-hybrid ;P) and the rollback feature, too. For now, I think I'll keep using Twinkle for a little longer while I read a bit more about Rollback, Huggle, how to use it, etc. So, don't worry, I'm taking it slow :) --QuadrivialMind (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: After reading tons of material and getting it to work, I have officially tried the killing machine, and, I have to say, it's pretty neat! I'll try to take it slow for a few days still... but reverting vandalism is so easy with this thing! --QuadrivialMind (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Quad
I saw you on Huggle yesterday (read: I cursed all the powers of hell as you beat me multiple times...), and you did excellently. Apparently, better than I thought you had from just watching you - based on the stream of thank you's left on your userpage ;-) If you ever get tired of them vandalizing it, just ask any admin to protect it for you - users are allowed to request protection for any page in their userspace (except their talk page, usually) for any length of time for any reason.
Again, you're already (from what I saw) doing better than 99% of people who start using Huggle; I wanted to let you know that because you are doing a good job, and too often people only get noticed when they do something wrong. Have fun, and leave a little for me to revert sometimes, ok? :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. By default Huggle is configured to only look at the mainspace and the template space. You can change it to allow all namespaces by going opening Huggle and going to System → Options. Or if you want, I can just change your huggle.css for you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

New question

(Obtained from SoWhy's talk page on 16 October 2008, 02:26 (UTC))

Hey there, how are you? It's your adoptee again :P

This time, I have a very simple question: is there any way to change your password? I couldn't find info on this, only loads of tips on how to create a strong one.

If you could shed any light on this matter, I would be, as always, thankful :)

See you around!

P.S. I hope you did well on that paper you were writing the other day, by the way :) --QuadrivialMind (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is simple: Go to "my preferences", it's there on the first page where it says "Change Password" ;-) SoWhy 06:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thanks, I hope so. Will take some time till I know, I will hand it in today and they usually take 4-8 weeks to grade them...

Duh, thanks. I've changed just about EVERYTHING on my preferences and somehow missed that. I'm going to change it in a sec. Also, I just came up with a question, so if you don't mind me asking here...

I noticed in some pages –specially user pages and talk pages– something that is, to me, quite strange. It appears that with a very simple code, as if it was a template or something, you can generate very complex things (or even entire pages!). For example, in your talk page, you can find the code

{{User:SoWhy/Talkheader}}

which produces your header which contains the guidelines for your talk page.

What I'm wondering is... What is this kind of code? How does it work? Not that I want to, but for example, if it was my desire to edit something about your header, I wouldn't be able to, since all I'm able to see is "{{User:SoWhy/Talkheader}}". Where is all the 'real' info stored?

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Cheers --QuadrivialMind (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know how templates work? When using {{ }} around a certain text, the MediaWiki software will look at Template:certain_text and if it exists, just project everything from there to where the {{ }} are. It works the same with other namespace, you just have to specify it accordingly. And that's what I did here. The "real" info is stored exactly where it says so, at User:SoWhy/Talkheader. I just created a seperate page for this "template" that I use only for my purposes (and thus is not for Template: namespace). You can do it with virtually any page, but you have to be careful, as for example {{User:SoWhy}} would include my whole userpage at the specific point. It is done primarely to have the pages less cluttered with code, e.g. I have my committed identity, my userboxes, my header and my links on my user page all on different sub-pages and I just include them. Hope that explains it. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooooh. *something clicks in QuadrivialMind's brain*. You just blew my mind there, mate! Thanks, that cleared up a lot. Also (I'm sorry, this is starting to turn into an endless chain of questions!) but I have two three more things which I neglected to ask:

• A few hours ago, I tried Huggle out (it's fantastic, by the way), but the latest version did not work on my computer. I get a strange error and I can not start it up. However, I read on the feedback subpage that quite a few people have this error too; and it could be worse, since some people apparently can't use any version –I, in fact, am using 0.7.12.
  I know that if Gurch hasn't said anything, you probably don't know either, but do you have any idea if I could fix this? I don't really know what new things the latest version has (maybe it's just some minor updates), but is it true some people can use it and some can't? Because I don't understand how Wikimedia could affect running a program on someone's computer before even accesing the database (because according to the notice, Wikimedia changes broke Huggle). How do you work with Huggle?
• I'm finding it more and more common to be utterly confused by timestamps. Is there any way to show all times (in signatures, for example) according to a single timezone? It's driving me mad. Usually I see everything according to my timezone (because of what I changed on my preferences), but, for example, on your talkpage, that's not the case –even when I'm signing my own comments, the time is not the same as mine.
• Is my preferences the only place I can edit my signature in? I don't want to insert a fancy code, but if I wanted to, would I have to put it all there in that small little box? If I want to preview it, should I just save it, then use the sandbox or something? Also, when I press the signature button on the edit toolbar, these two characters (--) appear automatically. Are those part of the signature? Can I sign with without them appearing, but using the button anyway? Basically, I just want to remove them from my signature, but I was hoping to do it automatically... Will I have to press the button and then every time delete the two --, leaving just the four tildes? That's tiresome, I'm too lazy for that! :D

Thanks again for taking the time to answer. Cheers --QuadrivialMind (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, you are welcome:

• I use 0.7.12 at the moment, 0.8.1 making some strange things. I got such errors too once in a while and I "fixed" it by just retrying until it worked. But yeah, the message is correct and the newest version will not run properly. It connects to the server on startup and reads different configuration files and suchlike and thus changes there affected the software itself. Just use 0.7.12 for now ;-)
• Because the signing is permanent, it is not calculated anew every time you load the page. Thus the time used is UTC, which is universal. If you get confused with your own time zone, I suggest heading to my preferences and activating "A clock in the personal toolbar that shows the current time in UTC and also provides a link to purge the current page" under Gadgets. It shows a clock with UTC all the time, thus allowing you to easily determine what time the timestamps were created.
• Yes, it is. You can use any page you like, create the sig there and use the preview button until you are satisfied, then just copy+paste it to the little box. Don't forget to check "raw signature" if you made the links to your pages in it yourself. As for the button, the "--" are not part of the sig but it seems to have evolved as the default look. I have yet to find a way to disable that but I have long found it easier and faster just typing the four tildes.

Come back if you have more questions ;-) SoWhy 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP notice

(Obtained from This flag once was red's talk page on 19:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi! I wanted to ask you about this edit. It's great that you can add that kind of thing, I didn't know regular users could do that... Would you mind filling me in a bit on how? Where do you check the IPs for comparison?

Thanks –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi

It's pretty straightforward - use the {{SharedIP|???}} tag, and replace the "???" with the ISP details. I use Sam Spade to look up the ISP details - you simply plug the IP address in and it will return the ISP's details.

I've found that vandals tend to regard this as a "wake up call" - it shows them that they're not quite as anonymous as they thought they were ;-)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DHS

How did I vandalize, Hagen Jr. High sucks.

And how do you find pages that have been edited and stuff so fast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.84.142 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Use your common sense: inappropriate humor, malicious revisions attempting to mislead readers or mock entities, introducing deliberate factual errors and adding profanity are some of the most common types of vandalism.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but more than that, it is a collaborative effort, and as such, it has some basic guidelines editors are asked to follow to maintain the integrity of the project. Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines can be summarized as five pillars that define the character of the project. These include trying to write with a neutral point of view —this implies it's ok to write information about an opinion (preferably with sources to back this up), but it's not ok to include a personal opinion as a fact or assertion— and maintaining a certain code of conduct. When editing to contribute to the project, please do your best to follow these basic guidelines. For more information, you may also wish to read an introduction to editing.

Oh, and to answer your second question... This is one of the ways we find and revert vandalism so quickly.

I hope this clears things up. If not, feel free to contact me again. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 08:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about vandalism

(Obtained from SoWhy's talk page on 18 October 2008, 22:11 (UTC))

Hi, how's it going?

I recently warned an anon editor for vandalizing a page, and reverted the edit as well. The editor then proceeded to mess with the code on my talk page, which I consider vandalism. Now, I didn't warn him for doing that, because I'm not sure it is appropriate. I mean, maybe it's seen as being impartial or something on my part... Is it? I'm not sure what to do. Should I warn him anyway? Should someone else?

I appreciate your input on this matter :)

Cheers –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Now, I should ask for your input twice. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 23:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, warn him again. User pages are part of the project in no other way than all other pages. Thus vandalizing them is to be treated just the same as with every other page and the same measures can and will be taken. I doubt anyone will think it a biased thing to do when you warn people for obvious vandalism. After all, if someone else had reverted it, they'd have done the same. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time it happens. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 21:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Croskerry

(Obtained from CyberGhostface's talk page on 19:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi. I don't really understand why you tagged Brendan Croskerry as an autobiography and as a candidate for SD under A7, but it's not really of my business since I'm not the one who created the article (nor did I significantly contribute to it), and I'm not really familiar with SD at this point.

My question is, why did you revert my edit? If the article is deleted, I wouldn't mind my disam fixes being sent into oblivion, but if the article is kept, then I (or somebody else) will have to tag them again. Was it a mistake or on purpose? Clarification would be very much appreciated :)

And if you could explain to me why you tagged the article the way you did (even going so far as to claim it as NPOV) then I'd be thankful for that as well, as I am considering starting to participate on the whole SD process and I'd like to understand more. I mean, the user has a copy of the article on his user page, but that doesn't mean he's Brendan Croskerry. It just means he was creating that article on his user page, right? Again, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that I reverted your edits to begin with, and I apologize for that. I just restored your edits. As for there being conflict of interest...well, the fact the main contributor shares the same name as the subject's label pretty much speaks for itself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CG, we do not delete for conflict of interest alone, though it is certainly a very good reason for skepticism. The article indicates songs on recordings that charted. I am myself unable to judge if their being compilations affects the notability, but this would be a question for afd if you want to pursue it.

Similarly, for Vihang A Naik, I removed the speedy also, for although there is undoubtedly strong COI, the career as described is notable & there are references for the notability present in the article--I think it would hold up at afd. DGG (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And thanks for restoring my edit :)

I hadn't realized the label and the page creator shared a name, and after seeing that, I absolutely agree on the autobiography or the COI tag... But not the speedy deletion tag, as the article appeared notable to me (charting singles or albums, and sources for those claims as well).

But I have seen what DGG pointed out, so I won't ask for any more explanations. See you around –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 01:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Astley albums

(Incorporated text from MisterWiki's talk page on 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hey there. I've noticed you've created a lot of new pages lately, albums by Rick Astley, correct?

I just wanted to tell you that I'm removing "Rickroll" from the Genre section on each infobox. I don't mean to be rude, but in case you don't know, Rickrolling is not a music genre, it's an internet meme. I just wanted to let you know first, instead of just suddenly changing all of the tags... I know you don't own the pages (and neither do I), but I just thought it'd be nice of me to leave an explanation here.

If you disagree on the decision, please contact me. Let's not engage in an edit war. Regards –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, was a prank.!!--MisterWiki talking! :-D - 12:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome

(Incorporated text from 99.3.19.1's talk page on 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Why are you so awesome? Its 3am and you are rocking the hell out of warnings. Trying to have a little fun with a friend and you have to spoil it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.19.1 (talk • contribs)

Your edits constitute vandalism, which, according to Wikipedia policy, will only result in getting you blocked from editing.

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort—it benefits from people who want to help the project from all over the world; and you would not believe how committed some of them are to helping Wikipedia be the best it can be. If there weren't more people dedicated to building the project and improving it than there are people having "fun" or attempting to hurt the project, Wikipedia wouldn't be alive today. This is why you have to understand: vandalism, fun, or whatever you may call nonconstructive edits will always be eventually reverted. Usually sooner than later, as you have witnessed.

Please feel free to make constructive edits and help the project. You can also use the sandbox: You're virtually free to just edit whatever you want there (except one small little piece of the page) and no-one will block or warn you for typing gibberish there.

For more information, please see an introduction to editing and 5 general Wikipedia guidelines.

I hope this clears things up. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 07:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well they got that right...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for your great anti-vandal work! Proper warnings, good AIV reports, and you take extra time to discuss your reasoning calmly and politely. Even the vandals have to face it: You're awesome! delldot ∇. 07:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to my talk page

(Incorporated text from Antivenin's talk page on 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Hey. Thanks for reverting this edit to my talk page, but I don't mind having messages from anon editors on my talk page. Even though the editor had previously vandalized several pages, that edit did not constitute vandalism, despite being written in a mocking tone.

I don't mind answering that kind of thing, so unless the edit removes content or is obscenely vulgar, I don't mind having it on my talk page.

Thanks for the gesture anyway :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be my mistake.. I didn't even realize it was a talk page. 0_0 I'm sorry, I wouldn't have reverted it if I'd known. You're being very decent about it though. Thanks for that. Antivenin (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's nothing. You're actively trying to revert vandalism, is that correct? I read on your user page you're a RC patroller. You use Huggle, right? Unless you didn't configure it yourself, Huggle isn't meant to show recent edits on talk pages. However, if you do have that option checked (which I believe you do), you can always tell which ones are talk pages because they always start with talk: or User talk: (maybe you already know this, I'm saying it just in case).

If you knew this but you just failed to notice it when you were reverting, then it was just a simple distraction mistake, which happens to all of us from time to time. And I don't mean to judge or anything (in fact, I commend you for taking up fighting vandalism so enthusiastically!), but you should never try to revert edits too fast. I don't know if you do, but I think many newcomers to fighting vandalism attempt to revert too fast. Just a friendly piece of advice: take a moment before reverting and ask yourself: is this obvious vandalism? is this a user page? a talk page? are you familiar enough with the article name so that you know it's not some newly created page? (I, on occasions, have found myself reverting vandalism on a page that was tagged for sd!).

Also (and I say this because I saw a message you have on your talk page), do look at the end result after you revert. You need to make sure you didn't revert to another vandalized version of the page. In case you don't remember, when you press the Revert & Warn button on Huggle (or, alternatively, the Revert this revision button while viewing the latest revision), all top edits from the last editor in the revision history are reverted. This is something especially important to consider when you find a page that's been vandalized by multiple accounts, which unfortunately, as you probably know, is not very uncommon.

There are a lot of people around to revert vandalism. Do not worry about speed; if you're not sure if something is vandalism, it's better not to revert. See the page for yourself from a browser rather than the Huggle interface (which, let's admit, can be a bit confusing sometimes), check the page history, check the contributions of the user who made the (top) edits which you are considering reverting, or just wait for another more experienced user to come by. Edit count is not really an important thing, it's better to make fewer edits if you know you're doing them right. However, also keep in mind any mistakes you make can be reverted, so it's no biggie if you mess up here and there—we're all human (Well, almost all).

It's great that you're so eager to fight vandalism, but Huggle can be a powerful thing (and rollback privileges can be revoked if you show misuse of them—not saying that you do, just giving you more info) so try to take it easy ;)

If you need any help whatsoever or information about vandalism fighting, don't hesitate to contact me—I am by no means an expert on the subject, but will be glad to help you in any way I can.

Keep up the good work. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 08:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That advice should be added to the Huggle documentation! I'm still unfamiliar with Huggle, having used Twinkle for a while. I don't remember checking any option that displays talk pages on the Huggle list. Where is this option located? I'm learning a lot with Huggle. And I'm trying to avoid controversial edits too. =P Oh yea, about my userpage, it's a total mess. I've considered organizing all the userboxes, but I haven't gotten down to it yet. One of these days I'll arrange them in a column or something. Again, thanks for the advice. Antivenin (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The newest version of Huggle was released very recently, so maybe it was that. I just ran the older version (which was basically what everyone was using like a week ago), and the Options menu is different from the current version. It's probably the default configuration to check for these pages now. In the current version, you can change these options by going to Queue → Manage Queues.... You can configure what to filter there.

About your user page: try adding {{Boxtop}} before your first userbox, and {{Boxbottom}} after your last (I noticed all the codes for your userboxes are cluttered at the beginning of your user page) and preview the results. You can also see other people's user pages you like and copy some pieces of code to your page to preview and see if you can find a layout you are more comfortable with :) –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 08:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dido Live iTunes.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dido Live iTunes.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)