User talk:Master Jay/Archives Nov-Dec 2005

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Master Jay/Archives Nov-Dec 2005, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Tempshill 18:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship and Wiki wiki wa wiki wa wiki wa!

First of all, thanks for pointing out that particular bit of nonsense.

Second: Adminship. A number of criteria are used to determine whether a canidate should be granted adminship. Most canidates should have at least 1000 edits and preferably more, 3 months of participation and preferably more. Most canidates should have a balance of edits and participation in many areas of Wikipedia, preferably with a focus on janitorial tasks such as reverting vandalism and AFD. Canidates should have a history of nothing but civility towards other users (including newbies and vandals). These criteria vary depending on the user. Some users' standards are listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards. Leave me another message if you have more questions. Thanks again. Canderson7 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my page. That vandal was having a great time, eh? I'm less concerned about the userpage hit than about all the other damage. Actually, the userpage vandals make me laugh: I hardly ever notice unless someone calls my attention to it, or unless I happen to be scanning the history for some other reason. Some of them get really involved, and it amuses me that it's so much quicker to fix than it was to mess it up. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. I hope you enjoy it here. Joyous | Talk 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the kind note. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re George Bush

Hey, what's up. Yeah, I know what you mean about the George W. Bush page. That thing gets hit constantly! There's lots of debate about whether to protect it and for how long (like in wikipedia:requests for protection and on its talk page). It does get protected from time to time, but they try to keep pages as unprotected as possible. You can list the page on pages for protection, though. Hey, do you have IRC? #wikipedia-en-vandalism is a chatroom on freenode. You can talk on it and admins will listen. You can suggest people to block and discuss stuff like that. Peace, delldot | talk 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hmm...I think that recent tag you added was a bit over the top. I think that IP has stopped anyway. --HappyCamper 02:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries :-) Yeah, it's a bit concerning when the vandals just repeatedly come, but they seem to only vandalise only certain types of articles. Well, if you're serious about becoming an admin, keep up the good work, stay levelheaded, and occasionally visit this page - the last one works wonders to keep the Wikipedian healthy! --HappyCamper 02:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.89.82.11

I don't think I'd classify his edits since his last warning as vandalism, not very good edits sure, but not what I'd call vandalism. I reverted your CSD notice on Shabba as the article was originally a redirect, so I just reverted to that. I'll be keeping an eye out on him though --pgk^(talk) 22:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What took sooo long?

Hey there,

Regarding the last block you made, you know, to the crusaders vandal, what took so long for the alarms to go off? He (or she) made over 20 vandal edits within 48hrs, and we only blocked that user recently. Just wondering is all.--Master Jay 03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that no one told us? (I hadn't seen it, I'm not watching the CVU channel today, but it's likely that it wasn't in a regularily-vandalized page, so they weren't watching it.) Usually, when it gets posted on WP:AIV, I'll pick it up very quickly, if I'm here. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please warn in correct order (re: User talk:65.141.155.43)

Please give the warnings in the correct order; you gave this user a 'test2' before a 'test' had been given. I've replaced this with the first 'test' warning. If nothing else, it'll be a problem when some admin refuses to block someone because the 'low' warnings weren't given first.

Although I get pretty hacked off with obvious repeat vandals, this was the user's first contribution, and IMHO should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Fourohfour 12:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever my opinion is worth, if the edit is particularly egregious (as that dif seemed to be) I often skip test1 and head straight for 2. Joyous | Talk 14:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --HappyCamper 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HappyCamper, you wrote on my talk page "I read the comment you left on Master Jay's talk page, but I think there are times where it's okay to jump to "test2" - there are other users who do this. For example, take a look at Videosmusica".

Can you give me a link to the policy or guidelines? I thought it was generally accepted that the warnings should be given in order. "There are other users who do this" doesn't (in itself) justify the behaviour.

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy: In general, casual vandals should be warned twice before being blocked. Joyous | Talk 15:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At any rate, I believe that (assuming this it's a *genuine* new user) that they should get the benefit of the doubt once. Perhaps they were experimenting, and didn't realise their additions would be part of the article (yes; it's childish garbage, but if it was intended as a test, that's not a big deal). Don't bite the newcomers and all that stuff. If they do it again (which they probably will if they're genuine vandals), they can be warned more sternly, then banned.

Also, as I said, it'll be held against any proposal of a block, and needlessly confuse things when it comes to organising one. My philosophy; if they're going to hang themselves, they'll do it quickly enough and I can say "they've been warned, they knew what they were doing", and have them blocked (hopefully).

My preference would be for one less warning, and less paranoia about blocking, but I still prefer to keep things running smoothly.

Fourohfour 14:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'm not so interested in turning Master Jay's talk page into a philosophical discussion on how one should use these test tags. Generally speaking, I think we generally do what is we think is situationally the best - Wikipedia is an open stochastic system that we can't ever hope to have a policy on everything in print. No policy can capture every subtelty, which is why there may not be complete uniformity in every action that is seen. I really don't think Master Jay was out of line here to warrant so much concern here. It was a valid concern though - I'm sure Master Jay has a particular way of handling vandalism - one that evolves over time, and one that improves over time. We can trust him with that I think. --HappyCamper 15:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: How to change a title

You use the "move" button on top. I just fixed David Nyhan; next one you can do yourself. :) Owen× ☎ 03:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:How do you do that

It's a special button that you get when you become an administrator. When you look at the diff page between two edits, a small button that says "rollback" appears on the most recent one. If that one's vandalism, you can hit the button, and it will automatically revert back to the last version not by that author. It also leaves the message: "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y" automatically, so I don't have to type it in myself (otherwise I'd probably go crazy :)).

You can also get the rollback button without having to be an admin. Paste this script in User:Master Jay/monobook.js and you should be able to get it. Be careful, though. It's been buggy for a few users.

Happy editing! Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 03:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges

Just to let you know that this is only a PROPOSED policy, therefore the vote won't count. I recommend you take away the nomination and place it again if and when the policy passes.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :) I wish I had the time. I promise I will try if I find some time. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

revert button

As others have pointed out, only admins have a rollback button. There have been some proposals to give it to some non-admins, but right now the software itself doesn't allow that as far as I know, so it would up to the developers to change that and then in all likelihood some kind of lengthy debate (it's often very slow to change how anything works around here). I've heard a number of reports about godmode-light not working properly, so I can't recommend it. Probably the only solution is to become an admin, but that can take a while since many people will automatically vote against someone who hasn't been around for what they consider to be long enough. Anyways, good luck and I think the only solution is patience. -- Curps 02:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's pretty much as Curps describes, I'm afraid... Sam's "godmode-light" scripts never worked for me either. Before my adminship, I used to do the reverts manually, using a text editor to cut-and-paste the messages. I got pretty good at that, too; I was able to revert a couple of dozen vandals an hour. Hang in there—in a couple of months you should be able to get adminship (unless you do something horribly wrong). And once you do, I have a whole bunch of goodies in my Javascript basket for you. :) Owen× ☎ 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TRADOC Sucks

If you've never been in TRADOC, then you have no idea how bad it sucks.

OK then, sorry about that.

Tolpuddle Martyrs settled in London, Ontario

MJ, just thought I'd let you know that the Tolpuddle Martyrs did indeed settle in London, Ontario. They're buried in a small cemetery on Fanshawe Road East in London.

There's also an affordable housing/ trade union complex at the northeast corner of Adelaide and King streets named after them, as well as a small monument behind the old public library, central branch (301 Queens Avenue) to them. Barry Wells 00:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

test

User:Master Jay (talk)

Alabama Vandal

Man, that Alabama vandal just wouldn't stop, eh?

Thanks for the help on that one ;-) --TonySt 02:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

No problem, dude! :) Apparently he went right back at it a few minutes later, I'm sorry for not catching it a second time. Library computer uses IE, not exactly good at keeping tabs on everything. :( Mo0[talk] 03:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question for Master Jay

Okay, I'm confused a bit. What can I edit without being "banned"? Is it the editing of any material or just writing "mean" stuff that gets me in trouble with you guys?

Thanks

Jay,

Thanks for the info, man. I appreciate the help.

I'm not sure someone who has been a member since Nov 2005 should really be patrolling against legitimate changes in an article. Really, are you kidding me by directing me to the sandbox? Those changes were completely legitimate. Last time I checked, you did not have to be logged in to make changes, that's the beauty of this great wikiland.

I'll reapply my proper changes to the Kerry page soon enough, unless you want to put them back for me.

Re: Admin?

No, afraid I'm not an admin. I'm pretty fuzzy on the details of RFA, so I'm not even sure what's involved. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways