Misplaced Pages

User talk:SlimJim

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.3.4.54 (talk) at 00:13, 4 May 2006 (Woodlawn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:13, 4 May 2006 by 75.3.4.54 (talk) (Woodlawn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


I was unaware that removing the below was considered vandalism, I return it to its proper place. --Geneb1955 13:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This message is regarding the page User:209.215.39.13. Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- xaosflux /CVU 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof application

Dear User:Geneb1955,

VP is a powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version has even more power. As such we must check each user before approval. Regretfully I have choosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and although we have a 250 edit minimum and you have to date 282 edits, only 172 of those were in mainspace and a fair percentage of those seem disambig pages or minor. I would really like to see more evidence of your experience dealing with vandalism (which of course you do not need VP to do). Perhaps try again in a couple of weeks? Thank you for your interest and hope to see your app in the not too distant future! - Glen C (Stollery) 07:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that you once removed a vandalism warning from your talk page (see this edit on 8 Jan 06). Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism and is not well-tolerated by the Misplaced Pages community. You have to understand that we are seriously concerned that this tool may be used for destructive means, and though it may seem petty to make such a big deal about removing a {{test1}} warning, such actions raise serious suspicions about your intentions in using the tool. AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It would have never occurred to me that removing a {{warn1}} from my talk would be construed as vandalism, but you are correct – it's on the vandalism link, provided in the warning. I took it as a polite warning and left it at that. At that point, what I knew of the talk page was taken from the tutorial listed on the main page. There is no mention of removing warnings being an issue. When I got the warning, I figured I knew what vandalism was and what the warning was for and haven't received a warning since. You would think that someone with subvercive intentions would receive multiple warnings, likely have been banned for a time - none of which pertain to me. My unsigned post of “ha ha ha” to an IP:Talk that had committed blatant vandalism was ill considered. It was also done before becoming slightly wikiholic. I have rectified that situation by returning it to my talk page. I take my status seriously and am working to improve wikipedia. That is why a good portion of my edits have been to disambiguate such an exciting topic as nasal. Again, does some vandal indicate by his behavior by performing such rewarding activities?

I have been using popups to revert blatant vandalism. I do this for articles even where I completely disagree with the topic because I'm interested in decent contributions, not juvenile antics, despite what the “ha ha ha” portrays (see Cynthia McKinney – interestingly enough, you and I reverted the same IP vandal User:71.10.160.198 6 Apr 06. It took some learning and in that case, I think I had a learning-curve misfire and reverted to the wrong version – but I ultimately got it right. That’s when I started using Vandal Fighter, but still find that it appears others were having an easier time reverting vandalism; to wit, the summary comments that yours displayed as referenced and CSCWEM (same article, subsequent reverts). That’s why I’m looking for an easier to use or cleaner tool. I don’t like using popups to revert because it references an article number and you have to constantly check to ensure you’re reverting to the correct article.

Regarding your comment on My talk in combination with the edit summary, I am left with a question. When you say “(→Your VandalProof application - Removing warnings = no vp for you)” do you mean forget about it (period), because I made a warning-removal mistake (early in my wikilife) – that’s it, it’s final? Is this something that you will reconsider at a later date? Has any of this further clarified what I am trying to do and what my intentions are? --Geneb1955 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that my remarks in no way finalized that you would never be allowed to use VP. I should have made that more explicit in my remark, and I apologize. It would be quite extremist and absurd for me to "ban" individuals from using my app simply because they removed a {{test1}} notice, and that was in no way my intent. I merely wanted to let you know that many contributors, myself included, frown at removing warnings as such actions appear dishonest and unwikipedian. There's currently a debate going on about this very issue, and it's likely that we will soon see a policy change. Despite my earlier comment, I actually don't believe removing warnings to be an act of vandalism, though I do believe it should not be tolerated. And, as an aside, the edit summary was simply a really bad joke on my behalf that I never considered anyone would read (see Soup Nazi), and was in no way intended for you to read. Again, I apologize.
I've re-added your username to the approval holds list, as I am now, primarily as a result of your remarks, seriously reconsidering approving you, and I will likely reach a decision on it tomorrow. I do now believe that your intentions are good; however, you are still lacking the substantial evidence to prove this (i.e. your relative inactivity within Misplaced Pages), but I think I will likely make an exception in this case. I was actually in about the same boat as you when I began writing this tool, so I entirely understand where you're coming from. But anyway, I'm on my way to bed right now, but tomorrow evening I will have decided what to do (perhaps after some discussion with my fellow moderators). However, if you are rejected, I do strongly encourage you to resubmit your name in a couple of weeks, once you have more evidence to support your intentions.
Again, I apologize for the confusion and my accusative tone in my previous remark, and I will seriously reconsider this. I further would like to thank you for your civility and your convincing comments in this matter, and I hope none of this will discourage you from contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your time. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that I have reconsidered your request to use VandalProof, and I have decided that you are definitely someone I can trust with this tool and, as such, have added you to the approved list. Thank you again for your patience and civility with me, and I apologize for the inconvenience. By the way, according to an updated edit count using my tool, you now have 221 mainspace edits and 384 in all namespaces, quite a lot for a day or two's work. Anyway, welcome to VandalProof, and if you have any questions or problems, feel free to contact me or post a message on the discussion page. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Helpme}}

Hi, just wandering if you needed help? Bjelleklang - talk 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's completely up to you where you choose to reply. However, it would probably make more sense if everything was posted on one page :-) Bjelleklang - talk 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, here is fine. I cleaned up some tables and they look great in my sandbox, but act wierd on the intended article. see recent edits/reverts. The tables are nested, but the first table drops, skipping whole sections. No idea how to make it work :(
That is very strange...I'm not an expert on wikitables, so I'm probably not the right person to ask I'm afraid. However, I've asked at the IRC chatting channel, and you are welcome to join if you would like to. Bjelleklang - talk 11:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I'm going to grab a smoke and see if I'm awake enough to keep at it. 'nite --Geneb1955 11:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

According to User:J_B, "|-" will automatically create a new line so it's normal that the final result is on just one column. If you want more columns just substitute"|-" with "|" where necessary. Hope this helps! Bjelleklang - talk 11:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

YES

YES! Please help me. That would be so much help. Thank YOU Caf3623 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 

     Thank you VERY much. That helped. Caf3623 02:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!

Hello SlimJim! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Misplaced Pages rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Tip toeing...

I actually noticed that you had been here, but thought you deserved a warmer welcome than you had in your history. Keep up the great work. I won't tell the vandals you are lurking. Kukini 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Smoked Meat

Can you please explain what exactly was nonsense or vandalism regarding my edit in the article about the Smoked Meat? Please also see my comment in the discussion of the article. Groovebuster 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree

You asked me to contact you if I disagreed with your criticism. Well, here I am.

And yes, Kate Bush does allegedly have a huge pair of big hairy bollocks.

Jessica Tandy edit

For your information, I didn't remove any content from the article. I actually added the film title from which she won her Oscar in the succession box. But with you reverting it back, you removed it. So please refrain from removing content from Misplaced Pages, it is vandalism.Joey80 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Woodlawn

My edit to the Woodlawn article was not vandalism. 75.3.4.54 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)