User talk:Skyjuggler1
Welcome![edit]
Hello Skyjuggler1, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. DBaK (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please slow down! :)[edit]
Hi there. Please slow down - I have no doubt that your edits are well-meant but each one of the three so far has damaged an article, and I've reverted them all - sorry! The trouble is Wikipedia has some quite complex markup, procedures and so on, and if you just whack text into the middle of things, they tend to break! :( You can use the Sandbox to try things out, and if you are not sure how to change articles or whether your changes will be OK, you can discuss it on the Talk page of each article. Hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see that you got blocked. As you see below I remain unconvinced that what you were doing was vandalism within the quite tight definition that we use at WP:VAN. I do feel that your contributions were unhelpful, as they came out, because they tended to cause damage, and I think you should have been more careful with these initial attempts. If you want to come back and try again then you should probably follow carefully the unblock instructions below and state your case. One thing that often works well is to go the the Talk page of an article and discuss there what you would like to change - you will quite often get good help from doing so. Also, there are a couple of places on Wikipedia that offer support to new editors - you could look at WP:Teahouse or WP:Adopt-a-user and see if that looks like something you could use. In the hope of getting a bit of discussion and possible support, I have left a message for each (human) editor who left you a warning. Something useful might come out of that too. Of course, if you ARE a vandal and your intention was just to cause damage, then I despair, and would not wish to spend any more time here ... but that is not the impression I got. I hope I am right, and that this is helpful. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yobol (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at IPhone 4S with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Elassint Hi 23:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ceiba pentandra, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Ceiba pentandra was changed by Skyjuggler1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874642 on 2012-05-09T03:41:17+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Chrysanthemoides monilifera. Я£ΙИӺΘЯСΣĐᴙᶕᵻᴎᵮᴓᴚᴐᶒᵯɘᴎᴛᶊTalk 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid (Talk) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)UNBLOCK |REASONING FOR THIS IS:- I have recently completed an Australian Nationally Recognised Certificate 2 in Horticulture & currently enrolled into an Australian Nationally Recognised Certificate 3 in Horticulture (production); During these programs I have been provided with various information from the Qualified Teachers to the effects of the information I provided in my editing. I am also active first hand at dealing with this such flora species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyjuggler1 (talk • contribs)
- And your horticulture certificate explains this edit to iPhone 4S how, exactly? —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism doubts[edit]
Agreed, the iPhone change is not a competent and useful edit by the prevailing standards of this encyclopaedia. It breaks things, spells badly and messes up in a number of ways. But is it vandalism? I am not so sure. And look at the user's other edits - they also do not look, to me, like vandalism - they look like attempts, even if unsuccessful, to improve the content based on what the user knows or believes. I've left a note for the blocking admin about this too but they haven't been around since the block. My concern is that vandalism is quite tightly defined, and what we are seeing here is not convincingly that. Compare, say, this collection of garbage with Skyjuggler1's contributions. Are they equivalent? Are they both vandalism as defined at WP:VAN? I do not think so. It is not great editing either, sure, no argument there - but is blocking the user the correct and only way to deal with it? At least here they are engaging with us. I'd love to hear what alternate responses are available. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you agree that these edits look like attempts at improving the encyclopedia as well? There's even a couple edits I've seen (I can't remember the pages) where editors mark an IP/new user's edit as "good faith" when they were 100% vandalism. Actually, most users can't even tell the difference between vandalism as in introduction of deliberate factual errors through sneaky vandalism in the pages I work in. Vandalism is not defined just as writing obscenities and such which is basically users like Bolson97. The IPhone edit was clearly unconstructive and to me showed their intent here. Elockid (Talk) 15:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the reply. Well to be honest I'm not sure what this other editor's efforts have to do with anything but, no, I don't think they look like an attempt at improvement. I can't see much scope for them to be anything other than deliberately screwing things up. I do understand what vandalism is, yes, but I remain concerned that this was not what this user was doing. If I return to their edits I can at least see a way in which - however ineptly - they are trying to get in what they believe about where kauris grow in Australia, or whatever. I am not however proposing to go through their every edit line by line. I am not denying that they have made a horrible mess; you will have noticed that their first several edits were reverted by me for this reason. But I still think there is scope for them to be editing without vandalistic intent even though they are causing damage by making a bloody awful hash of it. This is why I suggested (above) a couple of things above which I thought might help, since clearly they cannot just be allowed to edit at this standard and continue to damage articles. Having said all that, the user has now gone quiet - they may be having a good old laugh at my wellmeaningness, or writing up another chapter in their MSc thesis on internet sociology. If they do come back then I guess it is up to them - and you of course as the blocking admin - to figure out what to do next; there's not much I have to add here and I am clearly not helping. So I think I shall just thank you for your time and your sterling efforts to protect the encyclopaedia, and bow out of here. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)