User talk:Orphan Wiki/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Orphan Wiki. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome and introduction

Hi, Orphan Wiki. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person by golly! And this real person (that would be me), wants to say welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you've made an account! Thanks for joining; you're on your way to making some great contributions.

Because I've noticed you've just joined, I wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. Any questions are fine, nothing is too silly (we've heard them all). Now, the tips below - hop on them - they should help you begin editing. Best of luck! JoeSmack ^Talk 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yessss! You made an account! Totally sweet!

Anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. Besides that, you shouldn't feel nervous or anything about a good-willed contribution. If you're concerned, talk to us.

Play in your user area. For example, create User:Orphan Wiki/test. If you feel nervous, feel free to talk to us.

When you're ready, start your first article using the Article Wizard. You don't HAVE to use it, but for your first article it really helps. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. If you'd like more guidance, you guessed it, talk to us.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. (You'll want to sign your name with these four tildes ~~~~ when you leave something on a talk page to help know who you are!)

Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

--JoeSmack ^Talk 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you just feel like poking around, Wikipedia:Help is a good place to start. :)

cool

I like your work. you do good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natbug123 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha cheers, mi dears. Orphan Wiki 16:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Matthew ivory

Hi Orphan Wiki. Thanks for helping out by tagging Matthew ivory for speedy deletion. However, I don't think {{db-nonsense}} was the correct tag to use: by 'nonsense' it really means things which are completely incomprehensible, just strings of characters like "FBIfieffds". A more appropriate tag would be G3, which covers vandalism and blatant hoaxes. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, yes, I see what you mean with the nonsense tag. Thankyou for pointing it out. Best wishes, Orphan Wiki 08:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks again for drawing it to my attention - the editor created five copies of the exact same page in under an hour before getting himself blocked. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Orphan Wiki. You have new messages at Lear's Fool's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

IBPI

Perhaps you could actually look at what's going on, including any messages in edit summaries. 87.254.76.204 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unusual to see ClueBot make a mistake, and not being aware of this at the time, I followed suit. However, I didn't see that you had made an edit with an edit summary, because your recent ones lacked them. Use them at all times, and both bots and RC patrollers won't be mislead. Apologies, Orphan Wiki 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

:(

not a admin on English wiki, sorry.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, misread your userbox. Never mind, someone MUST notice sometime soon! :( Orphan Wiki 09:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP has finally been blocked. About time too. Orphan Wiki 09:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Believe me, if I saw that kinda shit on Navajo wiki, it's infinity-block. I'll keep that article on my watchlist, there could be socks coming up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed...the usual trickery that follows... Orphan Wiki 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: User talk:76.125.240.209

Hey, it looks like we added warnings to this IP within seconds of each other. Was your particular warning regarding the deletions to Primary color? If so, could I politely ask you to retract the warning you gave, (or I could retract mine, whatever way works) to prevent confusion for this new editor? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seen as I made the revert, I've kept my corresponding warning. It appears we both reverted the page at the same time, and as a result, two warnings were put on the IPs talkpage. Orphan Wiki 23:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove my warning. Thanks for the clarification. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

...or not. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe no worries! All the best, Orphan Wiki 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics.

Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.190.227 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning Vandals: User:66.41.145.24

Thank you for reverting the vandalism that the above-captioned anonymous editor did to Sherlock Holmes. Thank you also for warning the little miscreant. I see also that you used the {{Uw-vandalism1}} template, which was certainly appropriate. However, there is a further parameter to that template that permits the editor being warned to know what you are talking about. If you had instead used {{Uw-vandalism1|Sherlock Holmes}}, then the vandal would have known to what article you were referring. The general formats for that template are as follows:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1}}
{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}} references a specific article
{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article|Additional text}} adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you"

Most of the warning templates listed at WP:UTM work in a similar manner. I hope this helps. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 19:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I wondered how to get the actual name of the article in question into the warning message. I've never got round to finding it out. Thankyou very much for that, much appreciated. Orphan Wiki 19:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you have rollback rights, you should consider using the vandal-fighting tool, Huggle (HG). HG does all of this for you. You determine if what you see on the HG screen is vandalism, press the button that both reverts and warns, and the system reverts the offending edit while giving the vandal the appropriate next level warning along with the name of the article and a link to the actual edit in question. The only thing you have to be sure of is that (a) the edit should indeed be reverted, and (b) you properly select the appropriate warning to give (e.g., vandalism (default), spam, personal attacks, removal of content, blanking pages, etc.) Give it a try! — Spike Toronto 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Huggle would work with Internet Explorer, because that is the browser I use. I know Twinkle won't, you see. Orphan Wiki 19:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears it does work with IE, and I'm now using it. It seems to work a treat! Thankyou, much appreciated, Orphan Wiki 19:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t see your question earlier. It is because I, like you, use Internet Explorer that I can only use Huggle and cannot use Twinkle. What bothers me about Twinkle is that anyone can use it; it has the same “power” as Huggle, but the user is not required to have at least proven himself worthy of rollback rights before being entitled to use it. Btw, another tool you might find useful is Popups. It let’s you revert back to an earlier clean copy of an article when the vandals and well-intentioned reverters have made such a hash of it that a simple rollback or undo will not do the trick. Finally, you might want to take a look at AWB for making repetitive edits. Feeling overwhelmed?! — Spike Toronto 20:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Be forewarned: Huggle is addictive! — Spike Toronto 20:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. If this is true, then I guess you knew all about Huggle/Popups/AWB already. — Spike Toronto 21:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did once possess an admin account, but retired. That was a few years ago. Recently, I decided to come back. However, I didn't want to be plagued the stresses of being an admin anymore, so I set up a new account. Until being made an admin I patrolled the recent changes old-school style, and never used Huggle or Twinkle or Pop-ups. Which is why my first port-of-call once I came back was to obtain the admin-like revert tool, as that was my primary job anyway. And I'm still learning. Thanks for taking your time to explain these things. Orphan Wiki 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It’s too bad you didn’t retain your sysop bit as it is extremely difficult to pass an RfA today especially if one is primarily a vandal fighter. Today’s RfA “trolls” do not consider it of value to the Wikipedia project, sadly. — Spike Toronto 22:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That is of little concern to me, as I don't wish to be a sysop now. It stressed me out beyond belief, and I duly left the project. All that I found enjoyable to do when I initially joined was replaced by brawling, politics, jibes and unresolved quarrels. It may be different now, with the contemporary admins, but it's not something I wish to experience again. That's why I abandoned my old account entirely. This is a new and constructive fresh start. Orphan Wiki 23:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you would find that, quite often, not much has changed. In fact, I notice that great hordes of the admins who obtained their sysop bits some years ago are no longer active as admins. Although still contributing as editors, perhaps they share some of your disillusionment. The other day I was listening to a radio interview with a fellow (name escapes me!), billed as an Internet pioneer, on the occasion of the publication of his most recent book in which he takes Web 2.0 to task. The primary example to which he kept making specific reference as illustrating what is wrong with Web 2.0 was Wikipedia. I have to admit that his criticisms were well articulated … and well founded. — Spike Toronto 00:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I dare say. I couldn't cope with all that again. I'm just happy to start again and simply lend a hand. Orphan Wiki 11:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Orphan Wiki. Thank you for the warm welcome. Happy editing to you, too. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Orphan Wiki 19:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)