User talk:Starlemusique

September 2009

Ooops, sorry. Edit clash meant I reverted you not the IP! Quantpole (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page User talk:Quantpole. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. RaseaC (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, too quick with HG, saw ';)' and assumed vandalism. Feel free to remove this message. RaseaC (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed I wasn't the first, ever considered just becoming a vandal?! It would make everyone's life a bit easier! RaseaC (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection that's probably a better idea! I've had a quick look through your edit history (I hope you don't mind me being nosey) and you're doing quite well given your limited experience. Incase you're interested here is a list of warning templates you can use when reverting vandalism if you so wanted. Where a vandal is obviously just being a nuisance I personally don't see much point in 're-habilitation' but if there's a chance a genuine mistake has happened the templates can be quite helpful in enlightening new contributors. If you need any help let me know, I probably can't be too much help but am usually willing to try my best! Take care, RaseaC (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism Warnings

Good question, I can only give you my opinion really. I usually do leave warnings mainly because I do most reverts using software that automatically leaves a warning, so it's no real effort plus I'm confident enough to defend my edits if needs be. As far as not leaving warnings is concerned, a lot of editors (myself included) will often look through a vandal's contributions before leaving a warning and if they have done a lot of vandalism but not been warned I will very often skip the first couple of warnings and go straight for a level three, but only if the editor must have known that what they were doing is wrong. Most prolific vandals will do enough to get themselves blocked automatically even if they aren't warned every time so I wouldn't worry about not warning them. Ofcourse some will argue that warning them just encourages them, so in some people's view what you're doing is right and what I do (i.e. warn) is wrong. There's no right or wrong way, so do what you think is best. RaseaC (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whois

Hi, Sorry you've got me on that one, no clue at all. If you type { { h e l p m e } } (without the spaces) on this talk page someone in the know will be right with you! Sorry again! RaseaC (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell em something I don't know! Yeah, if you type it here with your question under it eventually someone will come and help you out. RaseaC (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's the protocol on IPs removing whois templates from their IP talk pages?

That is my question above, just forgot my tildes Starlemusique (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user page guidelines indicate that while comments/warnings can be removed from their talk page by them, one of the exceptions is "for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates" - indicating that it should not be removed. I hope this helps, let me know if you want clarification or have any more questions. Camw (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add it back and let them know they'll be blocked if they continue to be needlessly disruptive. Camw (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I'll take care of it, it's such a stupid thing to get blocked over, but they had fair warning and the last time they were blocked was partially because of the same thing. Camw (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}} What do I do if an IP has made a number of unconstructive edits, that look like good faith, but on instinct probably aren't. Sheer volume stops me from simply undoing. The IP is 69.136.253.140 Starlemusique (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the article talkpage(s) or on their talkpage. In general, depending on how unconstructive the edits are and how receptive the IP is to dialogue, it may be necessary to revert their changes and insist on an explanation. In this case, I think that is certainly warranted. If you feel that this approach does not work and you cannot prevent the IP from making suspect edits other than by edit-warring, you might want to bring it to the administrators' noticeboards for incidents. Skomorokh 23:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I've had exactly the same problem with another IP and I found the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films were quite useful, as those guys can usually spot a weasel word a mile off. That may be worth a go if you're in two minds but when the majority of an IP's edits are vandalism I tend to view WP:AGF as a load of bollocks and ignore it. RaseaC (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help both of you. After closer inspection I reread the sentence "In (Wishology) She is sexual with Tatum Riley. She kissed her on the lips and is stabbed in the chest by Tatum as tatum grabs her in the butt and dies too." and thought that was most likely unconstructive. Assuming good faith like the good Wiki ed that I am, I left a template for "incorrect information" as opposed to vandalism - asking for all future edits to be referenced etc. Seeing as neither Neve Campbell or her character Sidney Prescott is in the cartoon Wishology, I think I'm fairly safe in my assertion. Also, seeing as every edit they made seemed to run along the same lines... I think I'm ok. If you think I should do anything else, please let me know. Starlemusique (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Children in Need 2009

Thanks, you too! I'm going to keep updating it right through till 2AM, then i'll move onto tidying it up around the edges a bit :) Thanks for getting to the bits i'm missing! B G^7even 01:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! They will save me time and let me get to sleep a bit sooner :) B G^7even

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Starlemusique. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]