This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwrayosrfour for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to welcome a checkuser to check this out. I'm sure this will exonerate me. Landon1980 ( talk) 23:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above case has been closed due to the report being harassment, and unwarranted. However, I'm leaving it on here to show how far some people will go just to try and get what they want. Never ceases to amaze me. 66.240.236.33 ( talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to leave it on my talk page anyways, not sure. It doesn't bother me though so I'll leave it there for now. Landon1980 ( talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Landon,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I first wanna say that I don't in any way intend to be argumentative, or get into an edit war over this, so for now I'm going to hold off on editing the article until this is resolved.

I'm glad that you gave a reason for your most recent edit relating to reputable sources, I really do appreciate that, but could you explain why you reverted edits like this and this? Was this simply a mistake? I ask this because those edits weren't altering references or the band's genre, but rather productive, unrelated cleanup edits. It just appears that you were reverting all of IronCrow's recent edits without thinking much of it or giving reasons. That's why I reverted all of your edits in a whole bunch, since it looked like there wasn't a reason for your removal of content. I might have seemed too revert-happy there, but when edits aren't blatant vandalism, there should always be a reason given for reverts – See this.

Did you actually intend to revert those two edits, or was it just a mistake?

Kind regards, Jamie S93 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Landon. :) It's just that those couple of reverts looked unproductive, but I knew you were acting in good faith. Now, I know the issue of these references is a different matter. I plan to generally leave that between you, IronCrow, and whoever else steps in to arbitrate it, unless either of you would like my perspective on this. I do have a few possible refs that I'll leave on the article's talk page. I may not agree with your side of the debate, but I do thank you for being open to talking about this and hopefully resolving it. -- Jamie S93 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you asked for my opinion Landon, and I am going to have to disagree with you. Family Force 5 is a Christian band. They are self-evidently so; they participate almost exclusively in Christian package tours and Christian music festivals, and they are reviewed heavily by Christian magazines... You asked for my opinion; there is plenty in the cited sources to call them a Christian band (and not just a group who happens to be Christian... They are clearly part of the Christian music scene)... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want sources, this google search is FULL of them: [1] There's enough there to clearly show that most reliable sources consider them a Christian band. Contemporary Christian Music Magazine has awarded them several "readers choice" awards (see [2] ) and other reliable music review sites (see [3] ) identifies them as Christian Crossover. Look, just because that one source that that one person added wasn't that reliable doesn't mean that we have to fight over what is essentially a small, minor, uncontroversial point, especially when reliable sources are so abundant, and where those sources clearly support what he was trying to say... Instead of simply removing his statement, why not just replace his reference with a better one?!? -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if I want to find out about a physics topic, I don't read psychology textbooks. Contemptorary Christian Music magazine is where I would go to find out reliable information on Contemporary Christian Music, just like I might watch CMT to find out about country music or read VIBE to find out about hip-hop, or Down Beat to learn about Jazz. There are numerous reliable genre-specific music journals, why should the Contemporary Christian ones be uniquely unreliable?

Both the claim of 'taking to arbitration' [4] and 'checkuser/sockpuppetry' [5] were filed incorrectly in the wrong forum. Either IC is sloppy, as unfamiliar with Wikiprocedures as a newcomer, or intending to cause intimidation. TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm indefinite block. I doubt its going to stop her though. Be on the lookout for possible sockpuppets.-- SilverOrion ( talk) 06:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Wiki: "An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration". I don't think she will be able to make new accounts.-- SilverOrion ( talk) 06:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done on getting this sorted out once and for all. I am ashamed to admit that I have been caught up edit warring with this user a few times, stupidly tarnishing my block log forever! Oh well, at least things should calm down now. It just goes to show, that even when you try to discuss things calmly and explain things clearly that some editors just do not want to listen. Sorry I missed your message until now - I was asleep! Cheers Nouse4aname ( talk)

Lol me too. I'm glad shes finally gone. Jakisbak ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm not too sure though, i think hes just a sore loser. Jakisbak ( talk) 20:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 18:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Shake 3000 is USEDfan. I've posted about this on FatalError and Nouse4aname's talk pages. There is even a checkuser request here. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 19:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, he just won't quit! -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 12:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

new response on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FatalError#Question_for_you Mister Muffin ( talk) 06:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow has denounced you on Wikiquette alerts for being uncivil. Please read [6] Kmaster ( talk) 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally. -- Kmaster ( talk) 02:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but when you voted on EricV89's RfA, you overwrote mine. I'm sure it was just a simple mistake, and I cleared it up, but I wanted to notify you anyway. Cheers, Little Mountain 5 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep changing the band so that they are not listed as a Christian act. Do they have success on mainstream (non-Christian) formats? I have only heard them on Christian radio stations. Royal broil 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that a band should be described with the "Christian" label only if they are not known in the mainstream (non-Christian) music industry. So the lead section for bands like Reliant K and Switchfoot should have both listed or just the generic label without mentioning Christian. The website that you mentioned deals only in the Christian music scene, so they abbreviated by not mentioning the Christian genre. If you can find sources that show that they have mainstream success, then the lead should talk about both or just use the generic term if they had an equal success in each industry. This is my opinion about how to deal with the lead. Royal broil 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple instances where you've had to manually undo several edits, one at a time, to revert vandalism. I'd like to suggest that you request the rollback feature, which allows editors to revert several changes by a single user in one click. It basically just adds a "rollback" link next to the current "undo" link, and it saves a lot of time. You don't need to install any scripts or anything; it's not like Twinkle or Huggle, but it's still really useful. Just thought I'd make the suggestion. Have a good day. — ^Fatal Error 21:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll do that. I'm not sure if they will give it to me though. My little brother used my account the last couple days and was a bit uncivil on the Columbine massacre talk page, nothing serious but he was pretty rude to a couple fellow editors. I made him make his own account and changed my password, but they may still look at that, right? Can't hurt to ask though, I thought only admins could have that feature. Thanks for telling me about it, and have a good day. Landon1980 ( talk) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought the same thing until I found that page on accident, and I love it. Saves a lot of time. Cheers. — ^Fatal Error 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, just a note, you've probably realized this already but you can't have a custom edit summary when you use the tool. It took me a while to realize that. Cheers again. — ^Fatal Error 05:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Landon1980, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request for the tool. Please remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and should not be used to revert good-faith edits or to revert-war: misuse of the tool can lead to its removal. For more information, you may wish to see Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and I promise I will not misuse the tool. Thanks again, and have a great day. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I ran into you a couple times while patrolling the recent changes, and on the Lawn mower article. I have just started being active in fighting vandalism and I wanted to ask you something. What is the next step after you issue several warnings and the user continues to vandalize? Do you report them all on ANI or is there a quicker way. I ran into this several times today, and sometimes it took hours for them to be blocked from editing. So my really what I'm asking is, is there something else I should do after issuing warnings that will speed the process? Thanks and have a great day, Landon1980 ( talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Landon, and welcome to WP:CVU and vandalism patrol! :)

First of, ANI is mainly around to report long time disruption and wikipedia wide issues; Its not the place to report the normal "All day" vandalism. As you already noticed is that WP:ANI is rather slow, mostly due to most of the reports on there requiring manual attention, and cant be resolved with semi-automated tools. Instead of reporting there you should relay all reports to WP:AIAV, which is the area every day vandalism is handled.

To report to AIAV simply make sure that the user has at least 3 recent warnings including a level 4 last warning. When the user qualifies edit the page (Instuctions on what has to be done are hidden as comments in the page itsself, editing the page will show then). You will like AIAV as it is MUCH faster then ANI. In general it should never take longer then 30 minutes to get someone to take action on a report, with the average time being 15 or so minutes.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{( Talk, Contribs)} 13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, you have been very helpful. Thanks for your time, Cheers. Landon1980 ( talk) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism at my talk page ;) Keep up the good work! =Species8473= ^(talk) 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might find this interesting User:IronCrow, User_talk:IronCrow. -- Kmaster ( talk) 05:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tyw7 has made a new user box for users with rollback rights:

What to type:
{{ User rollback}}

Results:

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. ( verify)

Please spread this message onto others who have rollback rights

Thanks, — ^Fatal Error 21:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You've asked User:FisherQueen for assistance with User:USEDfan. Suggest you try someone else - FisherQueen has not edited since 00:31 6th July so you might not get the fast response you're looking for. Exxolon ( talk) 01:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I went to WP:RPP, but decided not to, as I've never reported anything there yet, and I don't have time to learn how to do so right now. Thanks for taking care of it. S. Dean Jameson 05:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. I actually have made it so ClueBot would revert on my page from User:ClueBot/Optin. Schfifty Three 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to revert my user page, but thanks for beating me to it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL ( talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Just popped by to thank you for watching and reverting the vandalism to my user page while I was RC patrolling on the numerous occasions in which it was necessary. I'm not sure how long it would've taken me to notice it otherwise. These vandals are spiteful, eh? Robert Skyhawk ( Talk) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You just posted an unkind comment to me accusing me of vandalizing the Joan of Arc page. Would you be so kind as to tell me what, exactly, I did that constituted vandalism? All I can recall doing was trying to add a space between "Arc" and "citation needed" in the caption box of the WWII French resistance flag picture in an effort to make the "Arc" appear on the same line as the preceding text to make it look better. It may not have been a good edit, but how is it vandalism? Please keep in mind that vandalism is a serious accusation and you should have a good reason to suspect bad faith before you go and hurt someone's feelings. The vandalism page which you so kindly linked to says: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." Under this standard, I cannot imagine how I could be guilty of vandalism. 68.118.237.200 ( talk) 22:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, you're edit was definitely not vandalism. I made a mistake, the warning was intended for User talk:60.240.162.85. I don't know how I ended up giving you the warning, I'll try to be more careful in the future. I removed the warning and explained what happened in the edit summary. Sorry for the mistake, and have a good day. Landon1980 ( talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure if I am even talking to the right person, but I have recently got a couple of "vandalism" warnings for correcting an out of place subject. I am not trying to vandalize your website by any means, I am trying to fix it. I was planning on writing a new page for the subject which was very out of place and which I had read several complaints on in the discussion box for taking up to much space for those interested in the actual articles subject matter. So, if I am talking to the right person, please stop sending me these warnings and changing everything back that I fix.

I responded to you on your talk page. Landon1980 ( talk) 04:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its because I just created this about 5 minutes ago but I have no messages or posts. What did you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatonedudethatskates ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I responded on the IP you were using before. You can read it here. Landon1980 ( talk) 05:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You reverted an edit to Giant Panda, removing valid (though uncited) information, and used the minor edit flag. As I understand Help:Minor edit, such changes should not be marked minor. I have reinstated the edit, and added a supporting link. I'm not terribly good with Wikipedia citations, so perhaps you could help format that correctly. Dfeuer ( talk) 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone was adding nonsense to the article. I did that while patrolling the recent changes. Thanks for fixing it, Landon1980 ( talk) 18:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)