User talk:Todd Vierling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Motorcycling Wikiproject

Welcome to the Motorcycling WikiProject. Hopefully you have a good time, start many new articles and can contribute lots to the existing ones as we need that. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Todd good to see you've joined the project - I've not been here very long but learning fast so if there is anything you're not sure about I'm happy to help. I am working though all the missing articles and stubs for British Bikes and would welcome any help if you have the time. There is a category for British motorcycles and its linked to the Category to the Commons British Motorcycles so if you could help with matching pics to articles or adding the missing images to the Commons that would be great, as its a fairly quiet corner of Wikipedia Thanks Tony (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond. Unfortunately, besides a very rich background in safety equipment, my knowledge of the machines themselves is very much rooted in UJM standards and sport bikes. Indeed, that probably makes me a little too American to be able to give a good perspective on most European manufacturers. Todd Vierling (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits to NBC Weather Plus

FYI, the edits from User:68.188.91.23 were not in good faith. That user is another sockpuppet of a prolific vandal dubbed the St. Louis signer. He/she makes all sorts of petty, nonsensical edits from an IP account, then signs the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. That particular edit wasn't signed, and looked almost trivial enough to be an intentional contribution. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Todd Vierling (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he did sign it; that's how I ID'd him. :-) But thanks for the cleanup. BTW, I agree with your comments that the article reads like a PR piece. I wish I could bring myself to work on it, but I never could. I try to avoid the article, but it keeps ending up on my watchlist, as it's one of the favorite targets of another prolific vandal that has bedeviled the television stations project. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see the signature at first when reverting. Well, so much for AGF. <g> Todd Vierling (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: At sign

I removed it because it lists far too many issues to be useful anymore, at least in my opinion. Just like you said, it's been there for 3/4 of a year now, and it hasn't been resolved. Gary King (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

...and this means "remove the tags" how? Just because tags have been there for a while doesn't mean it's suddenly not a valid notice to authors. Todd Vierling (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

UE Tags

Hey, I happened to notice you placed two tags on the UE page, but then did not attempt to explain why you placed the OR tag. I urge you to please explain on the UE talk page why you placed the OR tag and also to help correct the problems and work with the other editors to improve the article. I also ask you that if you placed the citation tag on the article that maybe you could also help find more citations to back up the statements within the articles.

One thing that has always disturbed me is people running in placing tags up on the page and doing nothing to help improve the article. It's like people want to barely point out the problems, but do nothing to help improve it. Instead I would love to to see others who place tags on the article to actually help improve it.

As I mentioned I'm asking you to both describe the problem areas within the article on the article's talk page and also to help improve the article too. Thanks Brothejr (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Added an explanation. If I had more references to add on hand, I'd add them. However, the article's on my watchlist specifically so I may be able to help out at some point in the near future. I also created the stub Modern ruins recently as a related term. Todd Vierling (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply to your comments as I had been pulled into a couple other dramas, but you do bring up some really good points. I know that some of the ref's already used, could conceivably be also used to back up some of the statements you pointed out. Otherwise, if they cannot be cited, then I don't see a problem removing them as their removal would not dramatically impact the article. Brothejr (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

stop

can you stop spaming me thank you 72.208.118.127 (talk)

I was bringing back a recent content warning that you deleted without explanation. These warnings exist for a reason. If you are editing constructively, then it's no problem, and I'll let this one slide for now. I would highly recommend creating an account so that you aren't editing as a raw IP address (as logged-in users tend to be considered more trustworthy in the long run). Todd Vierling (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IMPROPER ACTIONS BY FLEWIS

Talk page content on 96.224.32.254 which you reverted I felt should be removed b/c the "warnings" you note by Flewis on the talk page referenced were wholly inappropriate, as explained, and when I posted/replied on his talk page, he kept deleting immediately my input on his talk page; if he can delete my entries on his and not respond to the issue, I should be able to delete his on mine; also, if you could report his behavior I would appreciate it; there was NO WAY my edit could be construed as vandalism, the cites he links to were WHOLLY inapplicable and he made his actions so quickly it shows he didn't bother thinking (wrong to me) and then his spiteful failure to address the issue substantively or even keep it on his page is lacking in wikispirit. Vandalism is a strong charge and all I did was update and clarify information publicly listed!96.224.32.254 (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you removed substantive edits to the page I'd made myself, which I rightfully restored; nonetheless, I feel it's best the whole page be blanked, as I note/d.96.224.32.254 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the latter four post sections or so that Flewis did keep in on his talk page after and before reverting mine all referring to improper warnings he posted are not mine; please give him a warning as to what appears spiteful editing of his page. Just as others questioned him on his page, I believe that was the appropriate place; as the issue was unresolved, he didn't reply, it should not have been deleted in my view, that is hostile (the fact he is reverting and warning willy-nilly should be cause for concern in my view). 96.224.32.254 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)96.224.32.254 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't simply blank a user page completely of an anonymous IP when there are active, recent warnings on it -- valid or not. You're free to go to the editor's talk page and respond to the warnings there, much like you wrote comments here. Better yet, I highly recommend that you create an account, since logged-in users are typically given more leeway than anonymous ones. Strange, unexplained edits by anonymous IPs are usually considered suspect at first glance, and you'll probably get better treatment when logged in instead. Todd Vierling (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

He seems only to be a member for 10 days or so and his "vandalism" warnings appear generally inappropriate and voluminous - I think his status should be reviewed and a warning or watch placed on him - just reading what is on his talk page seems to indicate as such - he is undoing the work of valid editors and causing needless irritation and loss of content and wasted effort.96.224.32.254 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I offer the same suggestion to create an account and log in. I'm not defending the actions of Flewis, because I didn't do that change; I only restored a warning message on an anonymous IP talk page. Todd Vierling (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need or requirement for me to create an account and log in each time; you neglected to note that I DID respond to Flewis' talk/discussion page and he DELETED it; furthermore, there was nothing STRANGE in my edit and I explained it in the discussion page and description in history. His actions appear wrong and I do request you follow up on what I've noted. He appears to be doing significant harm on the site and targeting users who don't create pages is WRONG. Wiki does not require accounts. His vandalism warning/cite referral should be removed; please review the situation and edits and if you are not in a position to do so, please refer this to an admin for me. Thank you, I do feel it is important, especially seeing his talk page and his removal of content and posting of wrong content. I repeat he needs to be monitored from what I've seen and his short time here. THat you did not note that I DID reply to his talk page which I clearly stated is disturbing as it makes your reply nonsensical in that regard (suggesting I do what I already did and failing to take into account his action in response, which I flagged to you, and then telling me I will be "treated better" if I create something I don't need to or want to use at present and Wiki wholly supports (many articles are started and edited by illustrious (ie, qualified and well intentioned) non-account folk.96.224.32.254 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to yell. By my observation, at the least you deleted the middle name of Salem Chalabi -- why delete valid content?

Anyway, yes, Wikipedia allows anonymous edits and plenty of folks have contributed anonymously. The fact still remains that anonymous edits are eyed with more suspicion than edits by logged-in users. So if contributing anonymously, it's best to explain the edit well in the summary, or it should be an obvious fix/change that couldn't be seen as strange in any way. Deleting someone's middle name on a bio page without explanation is generally suspicious looking. Does this help explain things? Todd Vierling (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in terms of calling what I did vandalism; questions re my change re name, noted in the history, should have been raised in the discussion page, not reverted and called vandalism; knowledge of the subject/research would have revealed that he is not known by his middle name and most articles don't list it and I noticed this caused various problems I needn't go into now. As I did not right to you in all caps ("yelling") and stated substance, however critical of you and Flewis, it seems odd to call it yelling and worse I heard nothing re the admin deletion of a false vandalism charge/cite linked onto my page, or a discussion of his removal as I posted to his page, or an apology for your loose reading of my post suggesting I do what I clearly told you I'd already done and had problem w/I was asking you for help in following up on (Flewis' deletion and his noted slap=happy vandalism charges against numerous unjustifiable people in the scant two weeks he's been on board. These appear the serious issues not the volume of my typing. So no, it doesn't explain things and anon users still have the right to discussion board notations v. immediate reversions. In fact, unresearched immediate reversions are more suggestive of vandalism but the post has enough unaddressed issues to avoid that. Please flag Flewis/alert me to an admin for this thread/s and the flag I want removed from my page as it was unwarranted.96.224.32.254 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog

I'm not deleting a message from another person's user talk page. I'm doing it on my own one. --98.192.44.39 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware. Please do not remove recent warning messages from an anonymous IP talk page. If you would like more flexibility and trustworthiness on Wikipedia, I highly recommend creating an account. Todd Vierling (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The user and I spoke about the situation and settled it. --98.192.44.39 (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood; leaving it alone. Todd Vierling (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, how did you come up with my user talk page? --98.192.44.39 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Come up with it? All changes are logged; that's how vandalism gets reverted so quickly even though Wikipedia allows anonymous edits. Todd Vierling (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No false warnings please

A valid warning was issued to Be Black Hole Sun for blanking content. Please read WP:VAN before issuing false warnings. If you have any questions about this policy please ask and I will direct you to someone who can help you to understand Wikipedia policy a little better. 203.97.49.128 (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For what article? The warning did not fill in the article name, nor did it even offer any insight as to what got blanked. I looked through the user's recent contributions and can't figure out which change made you place the warning.

I do understand Wikipedia policy pretty well. If you also understand it so well, then you should already know don't template the regulars. If you want to discuss a change, feel free to add a new section in human language to the user's talk page. Even a "Hi, why did you remove content from [[this article]]?" would be nice. Todd Vierling (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning template

I blanked it deliberately. It's my account, I've abandoned it, I don't edit at Wikipedia anymore and I want the redirect removed. If you won't let me do it, would you please remove it yourself? Never mind, I logged in and reblank it. Please leave it alone now. 75.3.140.64 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine; as long as you do it from the user's own account, there's no problem with blanking the page. Todd Vierling (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:202.156.8.12, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). These exceptions only exist to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And you don't see the following sequence as "gaming the system"?

1. User vandalizes.
2. Reverter doesn't see any warnings.
3. User is warned (l1).
4. User blanks talk page.
5. User vandalizes.
6. Reverter doesn't see any warnings.
7. User is warned (l1).
8. User blanks talk page.
9. User vandalizes.
10. Reverter doesn't see any warnings.
11. User is warned (l1).
12. User blanks talk page.
13. User vandalizes.
14. Reverter doesn't see any warnings.
15. User is warned (l1).
16. User blanks talk page.
17. User vandalizes.
18. Reverter doesn't see any warnings.
19. User is warned (l1).
20. User blanks talk page.
21. User vandalizes.
22. ...Yadda yadda yadda.

Please exercise a little common sense here. Persistent vandals will do anything they can to game the system. If it weren't for restoration of warnings in quite a few cases in my own observation, we would have quite a few IPs that were blocked in the last couple days continuing to vandalize because no one is the wiser. This sort of situation is even worse when shared IP pools are taken into account, and more so yet when those shared IP pools are lower educational institutions.

I appreciate this stance, and I'm not planning on doing RC patrol again for a while. However, if someone vandalizes an article on my watchlist from an anon IP, and blanks that IP's talk page just before the vand or just after my warning, I will not hesitate to resurrect the warning(s) from post history. Unlike logged-in users, whose talk pages I have not treated this way, raw IPs are not necessarily "owned" by the person using that IP at that given moment -- though yes, this is an opinion (albeit one shared with many others). Todd Vierling (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Official wikipedia policy has allowed editors -both registered and anonymous IPs- to remove content from their own talk pages since at least January 2006. While I did not necessarily agree with it when someone introduced me to this policy last year, community consensus has confirmed it time and again (as someone said during the last debate at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), edit warring with a someone in their own userspace is the height of futility). Reverts such as these ([1], [2], [3]) are clear violations of the official Harassment policy ("trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment").

Please understand that I am not "yelling" at you or trying to ride your chops about something you never even knew about. Back before I knew better, I inadvertently harassed a lot of IPs about their talk page warnings, and I was lucky I did not get blocked for it. I have no intention to blocking you, removing your access to any of the anti-vandalism tools (which you have been using to great effect to remove vandalism), or going through your past edits and reverting all of the improper reverts. My only goal here is to bring you up to speed on policy. So now that you know ... please stop reverting editors who remove warnings from their own talk pages. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a FYI that {{talkback}} templates generally go on talk pages rather than on an editor's user page [4]. We only get the big orange "you have new messages" box when changes are made to the talk page (not the user page). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ip hopping 'sockpuppet'

Hi there, this may be of interest to you: User_talk:Flewis#Please_inform_me_how_to_contact_an_admin. Cheers --Flewis^(talk) 07:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I posted on Flewis' page as to how to contact an admin (a good faith question) and he failed to reply in good faith, I hope you can tell me. Please reply here in good faith and I will check and follow up as the threats against me (banning me for posting anonymously! saying good faith attempts to follow up on issues is harassment (and bannable) cause me to ask in good faith for this info (let alone falsely accusing me of vandalism for explained and simple edits updating info on a single page a single day).96.224.42.29 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1