| Revision as of 11:45, 14 February 2010 edit163.1.147.64 (talk) →Sneaky vandalism: para← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:25, 14 February 2010 edit undoDoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,863 edits Reverted to revision 343407949 by Department of Redundancy Department; rm rubbish. using TWNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| :I'm not sure that she's what I'd call a conspiracy theorist, but at least it is sourced now. —] (]) (]) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | :I'm not sure that she's what I'd call a conspiracy theorist, but at least it is sourced now. —] (]) (]) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::And now that she has flatly denied being a truther, I have again removed that cat. —] (]) (]) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | ::And now that she has flatly denied being a truther, I have again removed that cat. —] (]) (]) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Sneaky vandalism == | |||
| "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted." | |||
| Verbal's vandalism is adding plausible misinformation and reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. How is that not clearly vandalism?] (]) 11:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:25, 14 February 2010
User:Department of Redundancy Department/templates/User talk
 Archives | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
User:Nks1
Yep i see ...looks like self promotion...I will comment/help no further.. (But will direct him here if he pms me or ask what to do now!!) ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 12:36 pm, Today (UTC−6)
- FYI: Their other userpage was deleted 3 times by myself and two other admins per WP:CSD#G11 because it contained the same material. Thanks for trying to help, though! —DoRD (?) (talk) 12:44 pm, Today (UTC−6)
Re ANI regarding me
Sorry, but these guys are being appallingly rude in this ANI, as in the last comment: "You are clearly a troll". What am I supposed to do about this? You've warned me to stop what I'm doing, so I'm in a bind here. -- spin 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Go back to ANI and listen. You were told that it is against policy to re-add a PROD tag, but did it anyway. There are concerns that you are editing to make a WP:POINT, but you are arguing rather than discussing. Ignore other editors' opinions at your peril. —DoRD (?) (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the PROD (23:22, 1 February 2010) half an hour before American Eagle set me straight (23:55, 1 February 2010), so I left it as is. What I hear in the ANI are some people who want to make personal attacks. Please clarify what you want me to do here. -- spin 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for getting the timing wrong, but even not knowing the policy, you should have known not to edit war. But I suggest again, for your own sake: Get back to ANI and discuss. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I don't see anything I would normally consider edit-warring. Are you referring to my removal of the fake references to WASM? I tried to follow indications as to correct procedure. I would have thought editing twice doesn't constitute edit warring. -- spin
- I apologize for getting the timing wrong, but even not knowing the policy, you should have known not to edit war. But I suggest again, for your own sake: Get back to ANI and discuss. —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced the PROD (23:22, 1 February 2010) half an hour before American Eagle set me straight (23:55, 1 February 2010), so I left it as is. What I hear in the ANI are some people who want to make personal attacks. Please clarify what you want me to do here. -- spin 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM
Hi, Department of Redundancy Department. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
GFDL and Misplaced Pages
Hi DoRD. I noticed that you recently removed a copyvio tag from the Pencubitt House article because the content was released under the GFDL license. However, GFDL-only text can no longer be used on Misplaced Pages since the switch to dual licensing on June 16, 2009 (see Misplaced Pages:Licensing update). Just thought I'd let you know. :) Regards, Theleftorium 23:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's all so confusing. I won't be declining any G12 speedy tags unless they are obviously wrong from now on. Cheers —DoRD (?) (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
What abs positioning can i use?
What abs positioning can i use then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmniWikia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have a clue, but you might try asking about it at Village pump (technical). —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'll also add that repeatedly tripping the edit filter can get you blocked. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Debra Medina (politician)
The category that I added had been properly sourced when I added it, however the content related to the category had been removed along with the references. I have since added the category back along with an additional ref. to illustrate that the category is appropriate. --Tdl1060 (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that she's what I'd call a conspiracy theorist, but at least it is sourced now. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- And now that she has flatly denied being a truther, I have again removed that cat. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)