User talk:Hersfold/Archive 1 (January 2007)

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.

Archive 1 (January 2007) - Next archive →

This page contains discussions dated during the month of January 2007 from User talk:Hersfold. Please direct all current discussions there. Thank you.

Welcome!

Hello, Hersfold, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! – Ch acor 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Chacor! Hersfold 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky, Edit wars, and the 3RR

Did you not bother to look up the IPusers vandalising history early-on? As a new user, I would suggest checking up on the user contributions for this vandal and 76.177.18.83. The latter has been blocked for a short time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did see the other vandalism templates, but what's going on right now is for the most part an edit war. The two are arguing over an apostrophe, and I'm trying to make sure the two of them don't get blocked (in one case, again) over it. It looks like the article's semi-protected now, so that should help stop this anyway. It looked to me that the IP user was trying to contribute - he thought that that particular nickname for Louisville was spelled one way, so he fixed it. Stevie didn't think so and put it back. And the edit war ensued. Hersfold 23:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What's with the link to sand in the heading there?

Applying false templates to those who revert vandalism is in bad form. Reverting vandalism is key in keeping an article factual and free of disturbing changes; the 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look. According to WP:3RR:

"Edit warring is not productive." - Nutshell template
"Repeated reverts, even of simple vandalism, cause disruption, disputes, and result in unhelpful entries within the page history. For these reasons, when a pattern of ongoing, regular, or repeated vandalism is established, it should be dealt with in the long term preferrably by switching to blocking of vandalistic editors, or page protection for articles being attacked, with cessation of reversion once this is granted." - Reverting simple vandalism

Sure enough, this caused disruption, several disputes, and half a page of unhelpful entries. That's why I stuck a template on Stevie's page. That's why what Stevie and the IP guy were doing can be considered vandalism, and against the 3RR. I'm perfectly aware that reverting vandalism is an important step toward making Wikipedia a useful resource, I do it as well. But arguing over something as small as an apostrophe really gets in the way of people trying to protect other articles. That's why they cover it under the 3RR. If what Stevie was doing wasn't against it, I wouldn't have posted the template on his page. The 3RR does apply to simple vandalism. There were other ways to handle the vandalism the IP user was making. Those steps weren't taken, and things got out of hand. Evidenced by the fact that my user talk page is now filled with an argument. Hersfold 00:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(repost) To clearify, I did report both IPs to WP:AIV. The first was blocked for three hours, the second was not ("not that much vandalism" was the reason given). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To add, after I made the mention of reporting, was when the second IP vandal began to 'constructively' edit the articles in an attempt to puff up his appearance as a legitimate editor. And it appearantly worked, unfortunately. At least the article is semi-protected, so the IP vandal can't edit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for soft block of 208.198.210.253

This is just a note to confirm to Administrators that the IP address 208.198.210.253 is not just using my name to attempt to gain access. I am a registered user, whose school uses the currently blocked IP address 208.198.210.253. So that users like myself may access Wikipedia and continue to contribute from school, I ask that that address's block terms be changed to affect anonymous users only (a "soft block"). Thank you.

Link to IP talk page: User_Talk:208.198.210.253

Hersfold ^(talk|work) 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This request was granted shortly after the above statement was made. Thank you! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HI

who r u to tell me what to do??? (Added by Garganzola (talk))

I'm just an average editor who happens to have an especially low opinion of vandalism. The edit you made to Wikipedia:Cleanup was particularly rude and not in the least bit helpful. So, I added a {{bv}} or "Blatant Vandal" template to your talk page, as members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit are encouraged to do. You're welcome to make constructive edits, but telling people to, um, "Fart on a cow to have a good life" on a Wikipedia Project page, isn't very constructive. If you'd like, we can take this up with an administrator, who I'm quite sure would be interested in the edits you've made. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 02:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Not a problem... I've had other editors catch vandalism on my own talk page as well, so I'm happy to help - I was watching one of the pages he was vandalizing as well and, as is my usual practice, then began watching his contributions page over the next several minutes to see if there was a pattern, hence how I stumbled upon his efforts here. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert?

I'm interested to know why you reverted my edit here. –Unint 15:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the difference between the two, I'm really not sure. It's possible I may have hit the wrong link by accident during an anti-vandalism run. Unfortunately, it has happened more than once. I do apologize, I've put your edits back into the article. Thanks for letting me know. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)