User talk:IRP - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) at 00:29, 25 December 2008 (→AIV reports: no worries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:29, 25 December 2008 by Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) (→AIV reports: no worries)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

Archive 1 (prior to October 25, 2008)
Archive 2 (October 25, 2008-November 14, 2008)
Archive 3 (November 15, 2008-December 9, 2008)
Archive 4 (December 10, 2008-December 25, 2008)
Archive 5 (December 25, 2008-January 14, 2009)

Anti-vandalism work

May I ask you where you're getting your RC feed from? I noticed some vandalism on my watchlist, but before I had a chance to revert it, you had already gotten to it, and you did so within 8 seconds of the vandalism being made. That's a remarkably fast and efficient response time, so I'm wondering how you're doing it. I see you're using Huggle and/or Twinkle; does either of them incorporate a live list of diffs to check for vandalism? --Cyde Weys 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

With Huggle, you can revert vandalism very quickly. Huggle does incorporate a live list of diffs. They appear in the list as the edits are made, and disappear when they are reverted. -- IRP ☎ 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I investigated Huggle a bit further and I see that it's using a WMF IRC channel for its live feed. That's the same way that AntiVandalBot worked back when I was running it. It's interesting to see humans in the loop now, though. I take it that, across all of the Huggle users, every single edit to Misplaced Pages is screened in real time? --Cyde Weys 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Huggle reads the IRC recent changes feed and displays any edits made by IPs and any edits by users not on its whitelist. Then it allows the user to automatically revert any vandalism edits and issue warnings, AIV reports, or UAA reports. It also allows users to AFD, PROD or tag for speedy deletion, and admins can delete pages and they will also be able to block people at some point. Usually, there are at least two or three people on, even at weird times of day, so almost every edit get viewed. J.delanoy _adds 02:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I dare say, this makes the vandal-fighting even more fun than the vandalism. That's definitely one good way to tackle the problem. But there's one feature still missing in Huggle that should go on the statistics page: Your current anti-vandalism rank along with a level up progress bar. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I award you with this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for repeatedly beating me to reverts in Huggle! Gsp 8181 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You must've made a mistake. -- IRP ☎ 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for Speedy Deletion

I reverted your proposal. Proposed criteria or expansions to criteria should be made on the talk page: WT:CSD. Editors will reach consensus there and then update the project page when people agree. If you want some help proposing that or defending that proposal, let me know here or on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I proposed it here. -- IRP ☎ 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Smile!

Andy (talk) 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For all your excellent vandalism reverts, you keep on beating me!}} Andy (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your feature request

I apologize for the lateness of my reply. I am not acquainted with such matters. Please try WP:VPT. —David Levy 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me -- IRP ☎ 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about an edit war

{{Helpme|If an anon IP is continually adding incorrect tags to an article, and another user is continually reverting the action, and it happens more than 3 times, is it considered an edit war? Please see this link.}}

It's not an edit war. Adding erroneous templates is basically vandalism, and reverting vandalism doesn't count against you. You can warn the user and then report them to WP:AIV if they keep it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 17:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:RedirecttoWiktionary

You are using Template:RedirecttoWiktionary. You might consider how this relates to Template:Wi.

More importantly, it is vital that you use the extended {{wi}} {{subst:longcomment}} or {{RedirecttoWiktionary}} {{subst:longcomment}}, so that these soft redirect pages do not turn up in Special:Shortpages. --Rumping (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- IRP ☎ 21:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome -- IRP ☎ 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page (twice). mandarax • xɐɹɐpuɐɯ 23:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Zero-carb diet

There already exists an identical article: "no carbohydrate diet". "No carb diet" is the most common name for the "zero-carb diet" in academic publications. --Thermoproteus (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted your edit. I redid your edit. -- IRP ☎ 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Cheers, Thermoproteus (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article template

Sorry i was just testing the featured article template (the sandbox doesn't work for that.) i was planning to undo it but some guy did. anyway it sems the article is a real featured article candidate. That's always nice to see. Okay, bye 99.141.73.179 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use the "Show preview" button to test. -- IRP ☎ 00:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacker

Hello, IRP. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Messages checked -- IRP ☎ 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

{{Helpme|How can I use the rollback feature with a custom edit summary? How would I have to modify the URL? Is there any tool that I can use?}}

Installing Twinkle allows for pseudo-rollback functionality with custom edit summaries. // roux 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I have rollback rights (verify), and I know there is a way that you can use the actual rollback function, however, with a custom edit summary. How would I do that? -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That I do not know. The Twinkle function works identically to rollback, it just lets you use a custom editsum... wait, scratch that.

importScript('User:Gracenotes/rollback.js');

That's what you want. I only just remembered I had it. // roux 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Gracenotes/rollback.js will not install

{{helpme|I cannot get this to work. I have set my browser cache to 0MB AND restarted it.}}

Hmm. Have you tried asking at the help desk? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have requested help here. -- IRP ☎ 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the link, but I think that you have to clear your browser's cache... (is it WP:CACHE or WP:BYPASS?) Allanon 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to set your cache to 0, you just need to purge it. Ctrl-refresh, or ctrl-shift-refresh, usually. It says on your monobook page what you need to do to purge your cache. Note also that you have to be viewing a diff comparison to see the 'sum' link. // roux 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've updated the rollback script to work on other pages—I've been meaning to do that for a year :) Summary links should now appear on history pages and user contribution pages. You may need to purge your cache, as roux described above, to see the changes. Gracenotes § 02:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism to my user talk! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- IRP ☎ 02:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:VPP has been the commonly used shortcut for Pump/Policy for more than two years. It's generally considered polite to ask first if you want to take a page's shortcut because you think you've got a better idea of how to use it than everyone else had. I don't see any discussion at WP:VPP about this. I've reverted. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

VPP is an acronym that may refer to "Village pump (policy)" or "Village pump (proposals)". Since they both share the same acronym, it may refer to either one of them. Otherwise, which shortcut should I use for Village pump (proposals)? -- IRP ☎ 21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The one you usually see, in use for over 3 years, is WP:VPR, and there are a couple of others mentioned in the shortcut box on that page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

SMS Goeben

Sorry about the unexplained removal of content here. The page was not loading properly so I tried to remove the original content which also failed. Spudinator (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. -- IRP ☎ 23:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Art Christmas

Hello there, I notice that you're encountering the same problems I am with the above article and its creator. Just to let you know that I've removed the CSD tag from the article for now, as it is listed at Copyright Problems for review. There it'll be given 7 days, at which time if permission to use the content isn't present, then the article will be deleted. It's because I think that the creator of the article is probably the owner of the website, and owner of the copyright, as opposed to having just copied the text in. An administrator will take a look at the page in the next week (most likely Moonriddengirl, as WP:CP is her neck of the woods), but if User:Artxmas doesn't stop being disruptive, your best bet would be to ask Moonriddengirl to take a look early. I'll be watching the article too, so hopefully this'll get sorted out soon. Best, – Toon 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about that. I'll keep an eye on it. -- IRP ☎ 01:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Help:Edit conflict

Removed vandalism, it's restored now. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you have to delete it just to remove vandalism? -- IRP ☎ 13:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

At present, that's the only way you can remove an edit from the history (delete the article and then restore without the offending edit). Apparently the developers are working on a fix that will allow deletion of selected edits without deleting the whole article, but it's not ready yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the edit was so bad that it had to be deleted rather than just reverted? -- IRP ☎ 13:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's part of a long-term abuse pattern from a single banned editor. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Bell (broadcaster)

Other part of the edit was a near blank of the article, that's why I reverted the whole edit. Kesac (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Users have a right to remove content from pages that they have created themselves without giving a reason. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- IRP ☎ 21:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the user wasn't the creator of the page (as far as I know). They've made quite a few edits to the page, but it was created by User:Dodgydazzanz back in 2007. It looks like they removed the text to rewrite it however -- going to leave a note about leaving edit summaries. Kesac (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user was, as you can see from the page history. -- IRP ☎ 21:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the first edit that I see to the page on the page history. Kesac (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 21:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page

File:Pie.jpeg

Jake Wartenberg has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You're welcome. -- IRP ☎ 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting block of Hezzospike

When you took a look at the user's talk page, did you see that that he had already gone past his 4th vandalism warning? I wrote this just in case you didn't notice. Does it still not count if a user vandalizes after his 4th warning? Please {{talkback|Didz93}} on my talk page, Thank You Didz93 (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This was the user's last edit. It would not be fair to block the user now. It seems like the user took the last warning seriously and will either stop editing Misplaced Pages or start editing constructively. If the user resumes vandalizing, the user will be indefinitely blocked from editing Misplaced Pages since the account has been used only for vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 03:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll continue to watch his contributions. But he did receive a Level 4 warning here which was before his most recent one. Didz93 (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That warning has expired. It was given 5 days before I gave the first warning (back to the first warning) for this edit. -- IRP ☎ 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the huge number of reverts on my talk page. It looks like somebody wasn't happy that I deleted their club's article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was 71.52.121.175 who was removing large amounts of data from your user talkpage for no given reason, and I had to continually restore it until the user was blocked. I doubt it had anything to do with you deleting someone's article because users who are not logged in cannot create articles. -- IRP ☎ 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know IPs can't create articles, but I'm pretty sure it was related to a motorcycle club article that I deleted. If you look at the first contribution of that IP, they added in a motorcycle club. If you follow the redlink in the history (I deleted several redlinks on the article), you'll see that I deleted the motorcycle club's article that was created a day later. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that the user signed out and vandalized your user talkpage? -- IRP ☎ 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup! Or They could have possibly forgotten to sign in, went to check the status of the article, noticed I deleted it, and then decided to take out some feeble revenge upon me. It happens from time to time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert on my talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It appears you deleted the revision anyway. -- IRP ☎ 17:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes as one of the two had a phone number in it. Eventually it will be ovevsighted again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Before it was deleted, I remember seeing "HAGGER??????????????????????", which is a disruptive behavior that sock puppets of Grawp do, and should be immediately blocked (see this link for information). Did you block the user? -- IRP ☎ 17:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I always block them but from the look of the IP's now it appears that they have recruited a few friends. I would semi the page but then they would just insert the same phone number elsewhere and I might not be able to find it so fast. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

For the reverting of vandalism on my talk page. I ike the way the vndal put a low end college in Kent! Ha ha!

You're very welcome. -- IRP ☎ 19:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You must of been very quick, I didn't even know that I had it! I just saw it in my history as I was about to make a few tweaks. Thanks again! Andy (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The booyah page needs cleanup.

It is written very messily, and someone should probably give it a cleanup banner. I can't do much because I don't have an account and I don't know much about the subjec —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.153.167 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- IRP ☎ 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this:...

...and this:.

Merry Christmas, Willking1979 (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- IRP ☎ 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: AfD

Um, yes, I closed it. The AfD closing script missed one step. –Juliancolton 00:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for that snappy response. I'm a tad frustrated with the closing script at the moment. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton 01:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: December 2008 (on my talk page)

The reason I replaced the page with blank content was because the user that created that article accidentally typed the beginning of said article on the talk page instead of the main article page. The blank content was created when I moved the text to the actual article page. Because of your revert, the main article and talk page are identical right now, which doesn't bother me so I'll leave it up to you to make a decision on that. Thanks for keeping an eye out for (actual) vandals, though!
Goeagles4321 01:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you didn't read further information, but I tagged the page for speedy deletion. -- IRP ☎ 01:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for calling that to my attention.
Goeagles4321 01:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For your information, please remember not to replace pages with blank content because it can be perceived as vandalism. In the future, if you think a page should be deleted, you should add "{{db|reason to delete the page}}" at the top of the page. You may also wish to see Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion. -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that from your link to further information... haha but thanks. No hard feelings. -Goeagles4321 01:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page again

Thanks once again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you're welcome again. Did you delete the revisions? -- IRP ☎ 02:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that they got oversighted before I could delete them. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

test edits

I was trying to debug your post to the Village Pump; I'm impressed you spotted it!

I had suspected that the thing you'd seen - the automatic edit summary for a redirect - might have been itself a bug, with the "redirect created" edit summary turning up when the redirect itself was edited, rather than simply when a new redirect was created. I've noticed in the past that if you alter an existing redirect you get the summary identically to the creation of a new one, so it's plausible it would do something slightly unpredictable. I needed to test this before suggesting it, though, and doing it in the main namespace rather than userspace seemed essential for this, in case the AES script exhibits different properties in userspace (you never know with these things...) Apologies for any confusion I caused by it.

It's all a bit odd. On the one hand, it didn't generate the automatic edit summary, so we can can that theory. On the other hand, for some reason it didn't stop me making a blank edit summary, and the preferences setting for edit summaries usually forces a "did you mean that?" screen, so something's a bit off somewhere. Shimgray | talk | 17:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what your point is. What you should do is say "I am making a test edit for a technical reason, I will revert it shortly", or something like that. -- IRP ☎ 17:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you did self-revert, I missed that one. -- IRP ☎ 17:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

But I still recommend explaining the reason for the test. -- IRP ☎ 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to put it in the edit summary, bit that seemed a self-defeating idea. :-) I realised a second after hitting save that I should have left a more meaningful message, but... well, it was a bit late then. Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, will you say what you think at Misplaced Pages:VPR#When non-admins can delete a page? -- IRP ☎ 18:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I intended to remove the k Serendi ous 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration in the United states

As I explained in the edit, I deleted that content in order to create a shorter article. Many editors have said that the current version is too long. Beware of Huggle. It turns "counter vandalism" into a game whose motivation is too get the highest score. "Counter vandals" should be motivated by article quality, not score keeping. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean everything is a nail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.147.236.221 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You gave an invalid reason, I should've explained that a little better. You can't just shorten an article by deleting large chucks of data from it. You have to discuss it on the talk page to enable the Misplaced Pages community to reach consensus on removal of large amounts of content. You can't just edit war about it. -- IRP ☎ 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to a policy statement on what is an "invalid" edit?

I couldn't find any that said what I did was wrong, though I did find where reverting stuff without an explanation (like how my edit was reverted) shouldn't be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.147.17.223 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing is, if you plan to move the content to a new page (because it looked to me like it was legitimate content), you will have to request that on the talk page of the article because users without accounts cannot create new pages. If you wish to get an account, you may do so here. -- IRP ☎ 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following your thinking process. You reverted my edit because you didn't like that I deleted content. You said my edit was "invalid". I asked for a link to the policy you used to make this determination. I'm waiting for you to provide it. In the interest of fair play, I can point you to where it says that reverts shouldn't be done without also giving a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.237.3 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of useful encyclopedic content is considered vandalism (see this link to see exactly what you're looking for), you have to provide a reason other than "I'm trying to shorten the article". An example of appropriate removal of content is "the information was inaccurate", that's a valid reason to remove it. As an alternative to removing the content, you can propose that the section be moved to a new page by posting a message on the article's talkpage (click here to add a post to the page). -- IRP ☎ 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC), modified 22:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article you linked to states vandalism is the deliberate removal of content with the intent to diminish the article's integrity. As I stated in my edit summary, I removed content with the intent to create a shorter article. I am explicitly directed by Misplaced Pages to be bold in editing. You are explicitly told by Misplaced Pages not to revert without giving a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk • contribs)

Apparently you didn't read where it said you have to state a valid reason. And I keep telling you over and over again to use the article's talkpage to discuss the removal of content instead of edit warring about it. -- IRP ☎ 15:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The words "valid reason" appear nowhere in the article you pointed to (perhaps a good thing - since "valid" seems like such a completely point of view kind of thing). Perhaps you accidentally linked to the wrong article. Which article did you intend to link to? The one you directed me to says that being bold in editing isn't vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See this link and look at the post that says "Requesting help on my talk page" in big letters. -- IRP ☎ 01:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

so, the other editor doesn't know if I violated a policy either. It seems Boone knows of a basis for your accusation that I was vandalizing the page. But I can point to the direction to edit boldly and I can point to the direction not to revert without an explanation. I can also link to an article on article ownership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.148.208.90 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to know for sure, please ask your question at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (post a new message on the page). The people in that area have a lot more knowledge of the Misplaced Pages policy than I do. -- IRP ☎ 17:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I was led here by the village pump. I would like to recommend that both of you (re)read this essay: WP:BRD.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Template:Db-t1

Hi, I noticed you recreated Template:Db-t1 as a redirect. I'm concerned that this redirect may be misleading, as not all former candidates for T1 are viable candidates for G10. A good example is the pedophile userbox, which is only placed by users on their own user page (and so is not an attack). I think it's important for people to decide which course of deletion is appropriate on a case-by-case basis and would move for deleting this redirect. How do you feel about it? Thanks. Dcoetzee 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the criterion said "merged with g10" I figured it should be redirected. -- IRP ☎ 22:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it said G10 or TFD, as appropriate. It's not a big deal either way. Dcoetzee 23:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

How can i use a sandbox?

Heal ME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.125.246 (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

About vandalism.

Hi. On Misplaced Pages vandalism is defined as edits made with the intent to compromise Misplaced Pages. So even removal of good content is not vandalism when it is made from the belief that the removal will help Misplaced Pages. Taemyr (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Then which policy would it violate to remove content for no reason other than to shorten the article? I would say that is not a valid reason to remove content from an article. -- IRP ☎ 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with removing content solely to shorten an article. If the content fails to add anything to the article it should be removed as irrelevant even from short articles. If content is removed that other editors feel does add something to the article then WP:Consensus would be a good policy to start from. I don't think there is any guideline that states this or that have to be in an article. The feature article criteria on comprehensiveness links no guideline, presumably because it will always need to be up to the editors to decide on a case by case basis what needs to be covered. Taemyr (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Happy Holidays! You seem to be turning into an awesome wikipedian. It's good to see. Keep up the good work. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you as well, and I am doing a lot of editing and anti-vandalism work. -- IRP ☎ 23:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

...and thanks!----Merry Headcheese!-hexaChord 00:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and Merry Christmas to you as well. -- IRP ☎ 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Noticed you popping up a few times when Im fighting vandalism :) Thanks for helping aswell as me, The project needs it. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. --Frankie0607 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you as well! -- IRP ☎ 00:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV reports

Hey, do you mind not making reports like this from now on? I know you're trying to save time or something similar, but really, it's not helping at all. Please wait until the IP vandalizes after the final warning from now on. If you really wanna speed things up, just skip the level 3 warning and go straight to a final, if you want. Tan | 39 00:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. -- IRP ☎ 00:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for all your vandal help; happy holidays and all that. Tan | 39 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)