User talk:JephSullivan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:09, 7 June 2007 editHappyCamper (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users13,078 edits Tips← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:51, 14 June 2007 edit undoAepoutre (talk \| contribs)8,625 edits Hey thereNext edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Wow, it's been a long time since that welcome message - thanks for visiting my talk page! There is a centralized page at ] which you can use to report vandalism that is happening in the now. Typically, you can apply a final warning if the vandal has previously received a number of warnings within a small time frame. Vandalism from an IP address tends to occur in clusters, which is why this rule of thumb is generally effective. There are lots of subtleties involved with fighting vandalism, but anyone can learn these heuristics with practice. In other words, the "authority" which decides whether a particular warning is appropriate is good judgment. You should be able to justify your actions at the time of taking responsibility for it. Some Wikipedians tend to deal with vandalism with a more minimalistic approach. They will just revert the page quietly and move on, deferring to other people to deal with it. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches - the entire phenomenon of vandalism is complex, and it is to Misplaced Pages's benefit that there are a diversity of methods for dealing with it. Since the vandalism from the IP address was a few days old, I would have inclined towards the latter approach. However, it is also true that the IP address be on the record for a history of chronic vandalism. This says implicitly that a group of Wikipedians have considered the IP address to be a persistent source of vandalism. I think you were spot on to hesitate with the final warning. Vandalism on Misplaced Pages tends to be seen as something which should be acted on immediately, and when the opportunity passes, it's good to be a bit more reserved with the warnings if you decide to issue them. I can speak from experience that from the administrative side of things, the degree of immediacy is often the deciding factor for actionability. This is true even for some page protects, blocks, and deletions in response to certain kinds of vandalism! Let me know if this is helpful - if you need anything else, you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers! --] 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)		Wow, it's been a long time since that welcome message - thanks for visiting my talk page! There is a centralized page at ] which you can use to report vandalism that is happening in the now. Typically, you can apply a final warning if the vandal has previously received a number of warnings within a small time frame. Vandalism from an IP address tends to occur in clusters, which is why this rule of thumb is generally effective. There are lots of subtleties involved with fighting vandalism, but anyone can learn these heuristics with practice. In other words, the "authority" which decides whether a particular warning is appropriate is good judgment. You should be able to justify your actions at the time of taking responsibility for it. Some Wikipedians tend to deal with vandalism with a more minimalistic approach. They will just revert the page quietly and move on, deferring to other people to deal with it. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches - the entire phenomenon of vandalism is complex, and it is to Misplaced Pages's benefit that there are a diversity of methods for dealing with it. Since the vandalism from the IP address was a few days old, I would have inclined towards the latter approach. However, it is also true that the IP address be on the record for a history of chronic vandalism. This says implicitly that a group of Wikipedians have considered the IP address to be a persistent source of vandalism. I think you were spot on to hesitate with the final warning. Vandalism on Misplaced Pages tends to be seen as something which should be acted on immediately, and when the opportunity passes, it's good to be a bit more reserved with the warnings if you decide to issue them. I can speak from experience that from the administrative side of things, the degree of immediacy is often the deciding factor for actionability. This is true even for some page protects, blocks, and deletions in response to certain kinds of vandalism! Let me know if this is helpful - if you need anything else, you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers! --] 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

			== Hey there ==

			Both, actually! I am an alumnus (06) with a BA in American History. I also minored in Business. I was unsure of whether I wanted to study education, archaeology, business, history, or law after ENC, so I just began looking for employment opportunities in the Boston and Quincy areas. I promised myself I would never work at ENC, in fact, but received a call last summer from the new VP for Enrollment. I eventually determined, after a lot of thought, reasoning, prayer, and discussion, that God was leading me back to ENC, and to Admissions no less. The only thing I wanted to do less than work at ENC was work in Admissions! God has a funny sense of irony, eh? So I'm the enrollment counselor now for Upstate NY, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, though I was born in Boston and grew up in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. I think my wiki updates are less "official," however, and more a function of my love for research, teaching, learning, and accurate information! It's been nice getting help from other wikipedia editors who have done everything from delete information to tag it as reading like an advertisement, haha. I prefer to take the criticism constructively, however, and a couple different people have been a great help, especially with POV issues. That's the long answer to your very simple question, haha. -- ] 16:51 June 14, 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 20:51, 14 June 2007

Welcome!

Hello JephSullivan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --HappyCamper 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tips

Wow, it's been a long time since that welcome message - thanks for visiting my talk page! There is a centralized page at WP:AIV which you can use to report vandalism that is happening in the now. Typically, you can apply a final warning if the vandal has previously received a number of warnings within a small time frame. Vandalism from an IP address tends to occur in clusters, which is why this rule of thumb is generally effective. There are lots of subtleties involved with fighting vandalism, but anyone can learn these heuristics with practice. In other words, the "authority" which decides whether a particular warning is appropriate is good judgment. You should be able to justify your actions at the time of taking responsibility for it. Some Wikipedians tend to deal with vandalism with a more minimalistic approach. They will just revert the page quietly and move on, deferring to other people to deal with it. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with either of these approaches - the entire phenomenon of vandalism is complex, and it is to Misplaced Pages's benefit that there are a diversity of methods for dealing with it. Since the vandalism from the IP address was a few days old, I would have inclined towards the latter approach. However, it is also true that the IP address be on the record for a history of chronic vandalism. This says implicitly that a group of Wikipedians have considered the IP address to be a persistent source of vandalism. I think you were spot on to hesitate with the final warning. Vandalism on Misplaced Pages tends to be seen as something which should be acted on immediately, and when the opportunity passes, it's good to be a bit more reserved with the warnings if you decide to issue them. I can speak from experience that from the administrative side of things, the degree of immediacy is often the deciding factor for actionability. This is true even for some page protects, blocks, and deletions in response to certain kinds of vandalism! Let me know if this is helpful - if you need anything else, you're always welcome on my talk page. Cheers! --HappyCamper 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Both, actually! I am an alumnus (06) with a BA in American History. I also minored in Business. I was unsure of whether I wanted to study education, archaeology, business, history, or law after ENC, so I just began looking for employment opportunities in the Boston and Quincy areas. I promised myself I would never work at ENC, in fact, but received a call last summer from the new VP for Enrollment. I eventually determined, after a lot of thought, reasoning, prayer, and discussion, that God was leading me back to ENC, and to Admissions no less. The only thing I wanted to do less than work at ENC was work in Admissions! God has a funny sense of irony, eh? So I'm the enrollment counselor now for Upstate NY, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, though I was born in Boston and grew up in Southern Chester County, Pennsylvania. I think my wiki updates are less "official," however, and more a function of my love for research, teaching, learning, and accurate information! It's been nice getting help from other wikipedia editors who have done everything from delete information to tag it as reading like an advertisement, haha. I prefer to take the criticism constructively, however, and a couple different people have been a great help, especially with POV issues. That's the long answer to your very simple question, haha. -- User: Aepoutre 16:51 June 14, 2007 (EST)