![]() | 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. |
Can you tell me how to add a userbox? Thanks,-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a temporary Block?-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be so they can continue to vadalised articles. Merely active to disrupt the project because they have too much time on their hands and not enough to keep them busy. Mr little irish 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a Rationale?-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk| Contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I notice you added the {{ Old IP warnings top}} template to several talk pages. Some of the warnings on those pages were not stale. In future, when using this template, please make sure to also include {{ Old IP warnings bottom}} so that the current warnings are still shown. Also, the {{ TOC right}} template should come before {{ Old IP warnings top}} so the Table of contents will still be shown and work for the non-hidden sections. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Scottdelaney1067. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Tow Trucker talk 03:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am proud of all the Vandlism I have reverted.-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Do most people on Wikipedia like being rewarded with chocolate chip cookies?--Scott Delaney 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The edit is not vandalism. The IP did not provide a valid source for this addition and US Airways's website shows no nonsotp flights from Honolulu to Charlotte on January 1, 2013. 68.113.122.83 ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rare_Ltd.&diff=496035113&oldid=496034676
You left this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:108.36.79.193&redirect=no ( Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Rare Ltd. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC))
I changed spelling for flow purposes. It's not at all a verifiability issue. This is why people hate editing wikipedia. 108.36.79.193 ( talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for your excellent vandalism removal. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you.--Scott Delaney 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for being so dedicated to helping out Wikipedia. Your help is really appreciated.
In addition to saying thanks, I also wanted to encourage you to be a little more careful with new or anonymous editors. You're reverting a lot of nasty vandalism, but when someone makes a simple mistake like this or this, giving them an automated warning might not be the best thing to do. It is much better to explain to them directly why their edit needed improvement, since they were really trying to improve the article. If it's a good faith mistake and not intentionally harmful vandalism, you can use Twinkle to "rollback AGF", which makes it easy to enter a custom edit summary and talk page message.
Thanks again, and keep up the vandalfighting!
Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi: I, the creator of my present account, would endeavour to show you that I have not edited many of the pages that has been claimed to be edited through my account. You have flagged a warning against me for editing the page George Vancouver, and I have not edited that page. I had never vandalised Wikipedia, and I do not plan to do so. All the information that I have added to Wikipedia are true and accurate to my knowledge. To be frank, I find it disruptive and insulting that someone (not you in particular, but many persons) should hold my edits as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that this post may cause, but I feel bound to express these views to you.
Yours truly,
alex0723alex0723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0723alex0723 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, we've never interacted before, but I thought I'd drop you a note concerning your use of vandal templates. I noticed that you templated this new user using a level-4 final warning vandal template for their first edit. I looked at the edit, and it was not clearly vandalism (they had even made an attempt to source it). When the user came to your talk page to say that they weren't vandalizing, you simply reverted them and templated them again with a signing template.
I'd suggest that you be more careful with the way you deal out templates. Wikipedia needs new editors, and we can't afford to be scaring off potential editors with scary vandal templates when they're attempting to edit in good faith. I also recommend reading WP:Please do not bite the newcomers.
Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I am really sorry for the vandalism mistakes I have made. I have enrolled in the counter-vandalism unit academy. I will not try to revert any more vandalism until I have completed this course.- Scott Delaney ( talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: your application to enroll in the CVUA Theopolisme TALK 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thank you for your wonderful work on keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism! TOW talk 05:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Scott Delaney! I'm Chip123456 and I'm happy to say I will be your academy instructor and it's great to have you on board! First of all as I'm sure you are aware vandalism is an everyday occurrence in Wikipedia, and we need to know how we deal with it correctly. We use The Four Steps of counter vandalism and that us to Identify it, remove it, warn the user and if need be, if they persist report to WP:AIV. I would suggest going through the links and also read WP:VAND. My first question is, have you got any questions? I'll be happy to answer! Once again, it's great to have you on board! Later on, I will go through your contributions so we have something to discuss about! Cheers, -- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit at mathematical coincidence was originally removed as trivia. I just wanted it removed (and better written anyway) for what it actually was. And I am not choosing log-in as IP address, btw. Just not have access to comp with good browser on Friday evenings is all. 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
it was not trivial to me.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) and also, if you believe i have warned you in error, just contact me. cheers!-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
as the notice says, discuss the matter on the article's talk page first.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the notice was intended for the person who removed it originally, rather than me. I objected to its removal on the grounds of triviality myself (and I wanted an improved wording); but unless there were to be a surprising reversal of consensus regarding routine calculation as exception on WP:OR (to not having to be truly trivially routine), I expected its removal (so I removed it myself immediately after undoing the original revert (by rewrite)). 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for that. It appears the person whose talkpage this is is trying to do more than he really has time for and accusing a lot of people of bad edits (At least that's my interpretation of what's under here). 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott,
I included a link on the "Cold Blank" wiki page that included a VALID interview with the subject Cold Blank. It was recorded directly with the artist and is 100% legal. Why was this taken down?
Thanks
Theuntz ( talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I had to take it down due to a possible Conflict of interest.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott, do not tag edits like this as vandalism [3]. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would delete that info, primarily in that it isn't sourced or needed. Calling someone's edits vandalism when they aren't is itself quite disruptive and WP:BITEy. If you are going to use the tools, use them right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit [4] could easily be in good faith, and very likely was since it was a small, dubious section that lacked sources. If it isn't clearly vandalism, as defined by WP:VANDAL, then don't tag it as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit [5] doesn't fit the criteria as vandalism either. This is beginning to worry me Scott. The fact that you templated their user page saying that a blank line was vandalism is very troubling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott, this [6] is related to a content dispute and is clearly not vandalism. The person even referenced the talk page. Did you LOOK AT THE TALK PAGE? There is disagreement on that name, but that is clearly not vandalism. This is 4 in just one day, and I'm not done looking. You are getting dangerously close to administrative action yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [7] is likely not vandalism. It may look borderline, but you should have noted it as section blanking, not vandalism. If you looked at the editors other two edits, in the same article, it would be clear that the deletion might be contentious but not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [8] was a mistake, not vandalism. Had you looked at his previous edits, you would have know this. He was trying to figure out how to add the reference since he was new, and you just bit him by calling him a vandal and leaving that template on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [9] is not vandalism. The editor explained why they remove the unsourced material. WP:BRD clearly allows this. It is a content decision that others may revert or discuss, but it is clearly not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
regarding san donato val di comino edits. removing original research is not vandalism. because i no longer have a wikipedia account does not mean my edits are unworthy. please rewrite the section in question or leave it removed. 76.24.125.233 ( talk) 06:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not a vandal. I edited a post twice in rapid succession, the second time to remove an old Youtube link I inadvertently added from someone's previous edit. How is this vandalism? I rarely edit anyway--to avoid things just like this.
You seem to do this a lot. If you have something constructive or critical to say about someone's edits then that's good, but If you don't know what you're doing, please stop. 76.181.46.246 ( talk) 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have have a problem on one of the four steps of counter vandalism and that is identifying it. Now, I don't want to give you a long list on your talk page on what is and what isn't vandalism so I am asking (again!) that you read WP:Vandalism. This gives you examples if what is and more importantly, in your case, what isn't vandalism. As your CVUA instructor (and I'm sure with any instructor) for me to teach you, you need to know the basics, identifying. When you are reverting an edit, from now on, until you are sure you can identify vandalism, instead if using the 'rollback VAND' use 'rollback' which is in blue. Then give an explanation to your revert in your edit summary. What I would also suggest is, even if it takes longer, give the editor a personal message (unless it is obvious vandalism) without using twinkle. An example to this would be 'Hi, re your edit to (x), it has been removed because (x). Thanks!'. Something like that would be more suitable if it's not pure vandalism. Unfortunately, you have received a lot of complaints about your reverts, rightly so, because if I was a new editor making contributions, the last thing I would want was somebody labelling my edits as vandalism. Always assume good faith, if an editor has made a mistake (one which is not vandalism) and try not to bite them. The only way for us to remove your rights would be to block your account, which is a last resort. So always think, is it vandalism or is it a mistake? Is the editor contributing with good intentions or not? If you are unsure, always go back to WP:VAND or ask. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the WP:AN is very disappointing and also, this is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by misusing your tools, label good edits as vandalism and bite new comers, you maybe blocked from editing. You are still in the CVUA and I do want to carry on being your instructor. When you start editing again, I and other users will tell you how you are doing and how you can improve. Regards, -- Chip123456 ( talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It is with regret Scott that we have decided to drop you from the academy due to recent events like the AN. Dan653 ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Brown. I have read the warnings you have placed on my talk page and i have been thinking, I need to be more careful. I realized that if people remove content for a reason, it's Best not to revert it. I also realized if someone removes content, i need to click the blue rollback button using Twinkle and add, section blanking. I am going to Carefully check the edits made before taking any action. if you have any tips on what is Vandalism And what is not Vandalism, Please let me know. This will help me identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism. Thank you for letting me know about those false positives i made. This also Helps me to identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism.
P.S Do you think i should start a user talk page where people can report false positives?
Thank You. Scott Delaney ( talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to look at This edit.Because i do have experience identifying personal attacks. P.S I look at the Abuse log. Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012(UTC)
The warning you made to 68.113.122.83 is not disruptive regarding to Auckland Airport. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know!-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to User talk:Scott Delaney/Mentoring, since I expect that will be a more practical venue for our discussion than on your talk page. I hope you'll forgive me for boldly creating this sub-page in your user space. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC+12)
![]() | 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. |
Can you tell me how to add a userbox? Thanks,-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a temporary Block?-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be so they can continue to vadalised articles. Merely active to disrupt the project because they have too much time on their hands and not enough to keep them busy. Mr little irish 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
What is a Rationale?-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk| Contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I notice you added the {{ Old IP warnings top}} template to several talk pages. Some of the warnings on those pages were not stale. In future, when using this template, please make sure to also include {{ Old IP warnings bottom}} so that the current warnings are still shown. Also, the {{ TOC right}} template should come before {{ Old IP warnings top}} so the Table of contents will still be shown and work for the non-hidden sections. Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Scottdelaney1067. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{ helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Tow Trucker talk 03:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I am proud of all the Vandlism I have reverted.-- Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Do most people on Wikipedia like being rewarded with chocolate chip cookies?--Scott Delaney 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The edit is not vandalism. The IP did not provide a valid source for this addition and US Airways's website shows no nonsotp flights from Honolulu to Charlotte on January 1, 2013. 68.113.122.83 ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rare_Ltd.&diff=496035113&oldid=496034676
You left this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:108.36.79.193&redirect=no ( Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Rare Ltd. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC))
I changed spelling for flow purposes. It's not at all a verifiability issue. This is why people hate editing wikipedia. 108.36.79.193 ( talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thanks for your excellent vandalism removal. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thank you.--Scott Delaney 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for being so dedicated to helping out Wikipedia. Your help is really appreciated.
In addition to saying thanks, I also wanted to encourage you to be a little more careful with new or anonymous editors. You're reverting a lot of nasty vandalism, but when someone makes a simple mistake like this or this, giving them an automated warning might not be the best thing to do. It is much better to explain to them directly why their edit needed improvement, since they were really trying to improve the article. If it's a good faith mistake and not intentionally harmful vandalism, you can use Twinkle to "rollback AGF", which makes it easy to enter a custom edit summary and talk page message.
Thanks again, and keep up the vandalfighting!
Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi: I, the creator of my present account, would endeavour to show you that I have not edited many of the pages that has been claimed to be edited through my account. You have flagged a warning against me for editing the page George Vancouver, and I have not edited that page. I had never vandalised Wikipedia, and I do not plan to do so. All the information that I have added to Wikipedia are true and accurate to my knowledge. To be frank, I find it disruptive and insulting that someone (not you in particular, but many persons) should hold my edits as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that this post may cause, but I feel bound to express these views to you.
Yours truly,
alex0723alex0723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0723alex0723 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, we've never interacted before, but I thought I'd drop you a note concerning your use of vandal templates. I noticed that you templated this new user using a level-4 final warning vandal template for their first edit. I looked at the edit, and it was not clearly vandalism (they had even made an attempt to source it). When the user came to your talk page to say that they weren't vandalizing, you simply reverted them and templated them again with a signing template.
I'd suggest that you be more careful with the way you deal out templates. Wikipedia needs new editors, and we can't afford to be scaring off potential editors with scary vandal templates when they're attempting to edit in good faith. I also recommend reading WP:Please do not bite the newcomers.
Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I am really sorry for the vandalism mistakes I have made. I have enrolled in the counter-vandalism unit academy. I will not try to revert any more vandalism until I have completed this course.- Scott Delaney ( talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: your application to enroll in the CVUA Theopolisme TALK 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
Thank you for your wonderful work on keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism! TOW talk 05:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
Hello Scott Delaney! I'm Chip123456 and I'm happy to say I will be your academy instructor and it's great to have you on board! First of all as I'm sure you are aware vandalism is an everyday occurrence in Wikipedia, and we need to know how we deal with it correctly. We use The Four Steps of counter vandalism and that us to Identify it, remove it, warn the user and if need be, if they persist report to WP:AIV. I would suggest going through the links and also read WP:VAND. My first question is, have you got any questions? I'll be happy to answer! Once again, it's great to have you on board! Later on, I will go through your contributions so we have something to discuss about! Cheers, -- Chip123456 ( talk) 06:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit at mathematical coincidence was originally removed as trivia. I just wanted it removed (and better written anyway) for what it actually was. And I am not choosing log-in as IP address, btw. Just not have access to comp with good browser on Friday evenings is all. 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
it was not trivial to me.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) and also, if you believe i have warned you in error, just contact me. cheers!-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
as the notice says, discuss the matter on the article's talk page first.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the notice was intended for the person who removed it originally, rather than me. I objected to its removal on the grounds of triviality myself (and I wanted an improved wording); but unless there were to be a surprising reversal of consensus regarding routine calculation as exception on WP:OR (to not having to be truly trivially routine), I expected its removal (so I removed it myself immediately after undoing the original revert (by rewrite)). 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for that. It appears the person whose talkpage this is is trying to do more than he really has time for and accusing a lot of people of bad edits (At least that's my interpretation of what's under here). 173.15.152.77 ( talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott,
I included a link on the "Cold Blank" wiki page that included a VALID interview with the subject Cold Blank. It was recorded directly with the artist and is 100% legal. Why was this taken down?
Thanks
Theuntz ( talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I had to take it down due to a possible Conflict of interest.-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott, do not tag edits like this as vandalism [3]. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would delete that info, primarily in that it isn't sourced or needed. Calling someone's edits vandalism when they aren't is itself quite disruptive and WP:BITEy. If you are going to use the tools, use them right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit [4] could easily be in good faith, and very likely was since it was a small, dubious section that lacked sources. If it isn't clearly vandalism, as defined by WP:VANDAL, then don't tag it as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit [5] doesn't fit the criteria as vandalism either. This is beginning to worry me Scott. The fact that you templated their user page saying that a blank line was vandalism is very troubling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Scott, this [6] is related to a content dispute and is clearly not vandalism. The person even referenced the talk page. Did you LOOK AT THE TALK PAGE? There is disagreement on that name, but that is clearly not vandalism. This is 4 in just one day, and I'm not done looking. You are getting dangerously close to administrative action yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [7] is likely not vandalism. It may look borderline, but you should have noted it as section blanking, not vandalism. If you looked at the editors other two edits, in the same article, it would be clear that the deletion might be contentious but not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [8] was a mistake, not vandalism. Had you looked at his previous edits, you would have know this. He was trying to figure out how to add the reference since he was new, and you just bit him by calling him a vandal and leaving that template on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This [9] is not vandalism. The editor explained why they remove the unsourced material. WP:BRD clearly allows this. It is a content decision that others may revert or discuss, but it is clearly not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
regarding san donato val di comino edits. removing original research is not vandalism. because i no longer have a wikipedia account does not mean my edits are unworthy. please rewrite the section in question or leave it removed. 76.24.125.233 ( talk) 06:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not a vandal. I edited a post twice in rapid succession, the second time to remove an old Youtube link I inadvertently added from someone's previous edit. How is this vandalism? I rarely edit anyway--to avoid things just like this.
You seem to do this a lot. If you have something constructive or critical to say about someone's edits then that's good, but If you don't know what you're doing, please stop. 76.181.46.246 ( talk) 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have have a problem on one of the four steps of counter vandalism and that is identifying it. Now, I don't want to give you a long list on your talk page on what is and what isn't vandalism so I am asking (again!) that you read WP:Vandalism. This gives you examples if what is and more importantly, in your case, what isn't vandalism. As your CVUA instructor (and I'm sure with any instructor) for me to teach you, you need to know the basics, identifying. When you are reverting an edit, from now on, until you are sure you can identify vandalism, instead if using the 'rollback VAND' use 'rollback' which is in blue. Then give an explanation to your revert in your edit summary. What I would also suggest is, even if it takes longer, give the editor a personal message (unless it is obvious vandalism) without using twinkle. An example to this would be 'Hi, re your edit to (x), it has been removed because (x). Thanks!'. Something like that would be more suitable if it's not pure vandalism. Unfortunately, you have received a lot of complaints about your reverts, rightly so, because if I was a new editor making contributions, the last thing I would want was somebody labelling my edits as vandalism. Always assume good faith, if an editor has made a mistake (one which is not vandalism) and try not to bite them. The only way for us to remove your rights would be to block your account, which is a last resort. So always think, is it vandalism or is it a mistake? Is the editor contributing with good intentions or not? If you are unsure, always go back to WP:VAND or ask. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the WP:AN is very disappointing and also, this is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by misusing your tools, label good edits as vandalism and bite new comers, you maybe blocked from editing. You are still in the CVUA and I do want to carry on being your instructor. When you start editing again, I and other users will tell you how you are doing and how you can improve. Regards, -- Chip123456 ( talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
It is with regret Scott that we have decided to drop you from the academy due to recent events like the AN. Dan653 ( talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Brown. I have read the warnings you have placed on my talk page and i have been thinking, I need to be more careful. I realized that if people remove content for a reason, it's Best not to revert it. I also realized if someone removes content, i need to click the blue rollback button using Twinkle and add, section blanking. I am going to Carefully check the edits made before taking any action. if you have any tips on what is Vandalism And what is not Vandalism, Please let me know. This will help me identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism. Thank you for letting me know about those false positives i made. This also Helps me to identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism.
P.S Do you think i should start a user talk page where people can report false positives?
Thank You. Scott Delaney ( talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to look at This edit.Because i do have experience identifying personal attacks. P.S I look at the Abuse log. Scott Delaney ( talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012(UTC)
The warning you made to 68.113.122.83 is not disruptive regarding to Auckland Airport. Thanks! Snoozlepet ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know!-- Scott Delaney ( talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've moved this discussion to User talk:Scott Delaney/Mentoring, since I expect that will be a more practical venue for our discussion than on your talk page. I hope you'll forgive me for boldly creating this sub-page in your user space. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC+12)