User talk:Ginsengbomb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A quick question

Hi,
A while ago you left a warning on "User talk:87.54.8.195" warning about vandalism. That ip address belongs to my school. We are over 900 people here and many of us enjoy using wikipedia. Unfortunately there are now 3 warnings about vandalism, and i'm worried that our IP will be banned.
I was wondering if you have any idea as to what i should do. I'm still very new to wikipedia, and don't know the 'course of action'. I intend to make an announcment at my school, asking people to respect wikipedia, but other than that I don't know what to do.
Thank you. Dr. Marzipan 11:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the questionable edit to the article 420 (cannabis culture). I have seen the scene in question where the person constantly bids $420 on price is right when it is foolish to do so. And I am also sure that he was attempting to reference cannabis. However, you are right in that not evidence exists that this was his true goal. Please keep up the good work. HighInBC 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism?

Wow that is weird, but it definitely looks like a mistake. Looking at your contribs of fighting vandals, I'll WP:AGF, and remove the warning from your talk page. My apologies, and thanks for bringing the error to my attention. :-) Leuko 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi,

I'm sorry that nobody has extended a welcome to you yet. It's great to see the contributions you've made over the past week.

I was welcomed with a table of links which I found so useful that I have incorporated a modified version into my user page. I hope you'll find it as useful. Here it is: LittleOldMe 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Ginsengbomb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia: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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- LittleOldMe 16:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Vandalism

I assumed that VandalProof was reverting all the edits of the ip vandal, but I guess not. Thanks for the heads up! :) --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

response to "Editorialized Edit to Jessica Simpson"

That's okay with me -- I actually didn't put the statement in, that appears to have been done several edits earlier by user:68.20.5.86 -- however, I should have removed that manually as well, though. Thanks for taking care of it. -- ArglebargleIV 18:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol

Excellent job vandal-fighting! However, please remember to assume good faith by not using the edit summary "vandalism warning" for users such as 63.169.58.200, who appears to have only been experimenting for the first time. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. Still, though, it might save you time just to type "warning" and "rv" instead of "vandalism warning" and "rvv". Thanks for responding, and keep up the good work! --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Come fly with us

Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand Stop Hand

THE WIKIPEDA IRC SPAM PROJECT IS RECRUITING NOW WHY ME Your recent request to use VandalProof software has been refused as you have too few edits to the English Wikipedia. We need editors to look through recently edited pages and decide whether the links are spam or not. If the link qualifies as spam, you will need to revert the page to remove the link and warn the 'spammer'. This will increase your edit count and allow the VandalProof team to approve you in future ! In fact, the Wikipedia IRC Spam Project shares many VandalProof administrators and users. HOW TO JOIN 1. Install an IRC client. (ChatZilla, IceChat and X-Chat are free. X-Chat works on all platforms) - a full list is available here. 2. Visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam This channel lists, in real time, all external links added to Wikipedia. Around 50% of the links listed are suspicious and need to be checked. We flag especially suspicious links in RED. 3. Begin Checking Links Click on any diff (the Wikipedia URL) listed in the IRC channel to begin checking and reverting as necessary. If you revert, remember to place a spam warning {{subst:spam1}} → {{subst:spam4}} We need to be able to block persistent spammers just as we do persistent vandals. Remember - If you need help or admin intervention visit irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t POLICY Before you begin, please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. These polices are the basis of spam fighting. Best Wishes - The Wikipedia IRC Spam Project Team

• —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Catching That ;)

Thanks for catching this ink blot on the Argentina article ;). What a vocabulary he has :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL Tijuana RVV :)

Sorry about stealing your revert. :) That happens to me all the time, usually when I get a particularly juicy edit summary ready... Top 'o the mornin' to ya :D  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem! That happens all the time, as you point out. Your edit summary was much better than mine, anyway. Ginsengbomb 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Some people think my edit summaries are a bit much, but a child such as that vandal needs a bit of return fire. Bigots and spammers? Pour it on! Kill it! Kill it the old fashioned way! Kill it with Fire! LOL  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Life

Second Life is a Featured article candidate! frummer 03:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ginsengbomb! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cold Spring Harbor edits?

You informed me that you reverted the Cold Spring Harbor page, "Cold Spring Harbor in Popular Culture" section, because you presumed I was "testing" something. I am not testing. I thoughtfully edited that section to add information to the section on Billy Joel's relationship to Cold Spring Harbor. I re-added similar text after receiving your note, and yet it has been removed again. Please explain your rationale for removing my contribution. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missswiss (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your well-written note on my talk page. I am happy to explain why I reverted your edit to the page and why it was reverted again by another editor. For starters it was completely unsourced. There is a certain tolerance level for unsourced edits if they are obviously true or at least believable. Yours, however, sounds more like rumor. Worse, it was highly inflammatory. This is an encyclopedia, and if you are going to be adding highly inflammatory, derogatory writing to an article it absolutely must be sourced and there needs to be a clear reason for its existence.

However, by -far- the most important reason for the revert to your edit is that the article is not about Billy Joel. The article is about the town of Cold Spring Harbor. There is clearly no reason to include a massive trivia item about Billy Joel in an article about the town of Cold Spring Harbor -- even bearing in mind that Joel was a former resident. The bar you reference -- Finnegan's -- isn't even IN Cold Spring Harbor! It is in the nearby town of Huntington. I know this because I grew up in Cold Spring Harbor, of course :).

Regardless, I hope this clears things up. I appreciate and believe that you really were trying to improve the article, so I'm going to assume good faith and remove the warning from your talk page. For future reference, the "your test worked" language is a standard level 1 warning. As part of the editorial policy of assuming good faith in all matters on Wikipedia, any potentially malicious edit is assumed to have been a "test" at first. It is clear that you weren't attempting to test your Wikipedia editing skills so unfortunately in this case the template wasn't entirely appropriate.

Anyway, I hope this hasn't dissuaded you from attempting to contribute in the future! You're well-spoken and a good writer. You could certainly contribute in meaningful ways here. Thanks! Ginsengbomb 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on CSH entry

Ginsengbomb--thank you for your clarifying response.

You're right; the original info was TMI in the context of a brief mention of Billy Joel's CSH album on a CSH page.

You're correct that my text did not reflect the appropriate "encyclopedic" tone for Wikipedia. Not as an excuse, exactly, but because opinionated rhetoric is so ubiquitous on Wikipedia it's not hard to forget its intended purpose and get caught up in the tendency to drift in that direction.

As mentioned, the "original" text included an apparently unchallenged assertion re: Billy Joel hanging out in CSH as a teen. Not only was that statement unsourced/undocumented, it also implied a different sort of relationship with the town than may be the case.

Also, the Levittown reference was changed to Hicksville because the reference to Billy Joel's "hometown" in the "original" text had not been flagged as inappropriate. Therefore, I was unaware that such a reference was inappropriate. I was simply correcting an error in that case.

My first iteration said something like "local favorite hangout, Finnegan's," meaning CSH locals considered it a favorite; subsequently, I added that Finnegan's is in nearby Huntington with a link to Huntington. Not that it matters anyway--I realize that information (while true) is hearsay and gossip, and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

I'm also from Cold Spring Harbor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Missswiss (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

For your efforts

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, AuburnPilot, hereby reward you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for refusing to let even the most persistent vandals get the upper hand. Keep up the great work; it's being noticed. auburnpilot talk 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Aww shucks, thanks. My pleasure :). Ginsengbomb 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New warning templates

Hi there. I thought you might like to know that there are new warning templates for Usertalk space at WP:UTM. - Flyguy649 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your help with the vandalism at Alice's Adventures in Wonderland; you're reverting it before I can even get the history to reload! Maybe I should be getting VandalProof. ShadowHalo 07:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! And yeah, my ability to handle vandals has been substantially enhanced by VP. I can deal with an almost unlimited number of vandals, simultaneously! It's a very effective tool for combatting the ever-present menace ;). Ginsengbomb 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Baseball

What team do you like? BuickCenturyDriver 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mets! :) Ginsengbomb 10:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:PAGEWRECKER

You commented on this users talk they had an unusual name - in future, you might want to report such names to UAA. They are a violation of username policy, and usually end up getting blocked. Although I must agree, that is an unusual name. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted -- thanks for the tip :). Ginsengbomb 04:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ginsengbomb! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 10:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae

I replied on my talkpage. gala.martin (what?) 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Vauxhall VXR8

It was me that made the saloon -> sedan change here. I stupidly put the links the wrong way around, which absolutely should have been reverted... but I do think it should indeed be referred to as a saloon; we really don't use the term "sedan" here, and it looks out of place in an article devoted to a British car. Loganberry (Talk) 02:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for the explanation, and apologies for reverting some good content. Ginsengbomb 02:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If I'd remembered to sign in, and to get my syntax right, it would probably have worked better to start with! Loganberry (Talk) 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Metaurus

I see your point and I agree (see the talk page). I think the contradictions among the ancient sources should be referred to in the article itself and the whole article should be carefully proof-read. I would be grateful if you can do it and make more suggestions. Regards Dobrin 11:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dobrin

Thanks, I do need help. Take a look at the battle of Crotona and the Po Valley Raid and think what could be done (except perhaps editing grammar). Yeah, I know these are too boring, but I took them because nobody else did. It's somewhat easier than messing with larger articles. Please, don't feel bound to read them if you are not interested. Greetings! Dobrin 23:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker

I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding {{Rollback}} and {{User rollback}} to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering! upstateNYer 04:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Shultz

Ginsengbomb, you tagged Jacob Shultz for deletion saying that the author requested it. However, the author is still editing it. Also, s/he earlier deleted your WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion tag. That was an incorrect thing for him/her to do, I know, but it means that the original author did not ask for it. You are not the original author. I think you meant to use a different tag for speedy deletion since the edit history does not indicate that s/he wants it deleted, nor is there communication on either of your talk pages where s/he asked you to add a speedy delete template on his/her behalf. Not surprisingly, because s/he’s still editing it! Also, the rapidity with which you are jumping on any changes s/he makes could be construed as WP:BITE. Why don't you put the appropriate speedy delete tag on the page, alert him/her of the tag (which I see you did earlier), and then tell him/her on his/her talk page how to place a {{hangon}} tag on the article if s/he intends to fix it. S/he’s only just started the article and so may just need more time to flesh it out. I think s/he’s just really new, and needs some patience and guidance. See on his/her page where s/he answers you and Jeff G. with, “i dont know what all this means, im just trying to accurately create a page for a college track and field athlete.” You’re going too fast for him/her. Perhaps you could ask him/her if s/he would like it userfied, help him/her to do that, and then s/he can edit in their own user space until it’s ready to roll out as a new article. — SpikeToronto 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I see while I was typing the above — I take too long proofreading! — you changed to WP:CSD#A7. That’s great! But, don’t forget to give the guy a hand. He only just registered today, so he’s truly a newbie. — SpikeToronto 06:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I had originally tagged it with the WP:CSD#A7 tag (as you note) and, unfortunately, as you rightly suspect, I accidentally used an incorrect tag when I popped it back on (and then worsened the situation by jumping in with a rollback when I saw that -that- was removed). A mixup, but I went back in and popped the appropriate tag back in. Having now looked at the comment he/she added on their talk page, I definitely see that there's a serious possibility this is a WP:BITE type situation! I didn't think that was the case before seeing the comment you caught -- the individual in question has been doing a lot of editing tonight, most of which seemed questionable in terms of its validity for inclusion but I basically let it slide until I saw the new article creation. Either way, my bad with the jumpiness. I'll shoot the individual a message and see if we can work it out. Thanks for the heads up on that. Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just did not want to discourage the new guy from contributing. There must be something in the air, because Wikipedia (WP) seems to have gone crazy since the start of the month. AIV is running amok and everyone seems to be sipping from the Kool-Aid. By the way, be careful with Huggle (HG) that you don’t mark everything as vandalism when you revert. There have been several other new rollbackers who have gotten in trouble for this. For instance, I just reverted an edit at an article that was not vandalism; the appropriate HG selection was “Failing to cite a verifiable reliable source,” which places a warning on the users talk page akin to, in this case, {{Uw-unsourced3}}. The reason I mention it, is that earlier another editor reverted virutally the same edit in a different article but his HG selection told the editor it was vandalism, which it was not. I notice that you’re a new Rollbacker and thus a new Huggler, so I just wanted to pass on the tip. Happy Hunting! — SpikeToronto 07:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, and I completely understand. I generally take pains to make sure I'm using the appropriate template when reverting an inappropriate edit. Indeed, having originally been an anti-vandalism patrol person back when VandalProof was the state-of-the-art, I recall this sort of thing being relatively painful to get right. I'm -amazed- at how much things have advanced since VandalProof! It's extremely easy to flag inappropriate edits with the appropriate template now. Quite neato. I actually enjoy this aspect of Huggle quite a lot. The distinctions are extremely important in many cases. There will, of course, always be instances of differing opinion -- the guidelines here are malleable at the edges, as I'm sure you know, and the distinction between "vandalism" and "failure to cite a verifiable reliable source" is a perfect example of something that may be interpreted differently by different parties. For instance, I spent some time tonight reverting some nefarious edits to an article about Aryanism suggesting that Aryan followers idealize "Butch lesbians, like their Nazi forefathers" (or something). One could easily make the case that this wasn't vandalism but was merely a "failure to cite a verifiable source." I'm not going with this anecdote to knock that portion of your reply -- I just think that such distinctions are interesting, and part of what makes Wikipedia so fascinating to be involved with. Regardless, sincere thanks again for the note and the catch yesterday. Always good to see conscientious folks out there trying to get everything right in a situation that inevitably makes "everything right" a complete impossibility. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your example about vandalism versus “failure to cite …” exemplfies perfectly my point! Anyway, I think that these automated tools are very powerful. This is why one cannot use HG without having Rollback rights. Thus, I am surprised (shocked, perhaps) that anyone can use Twinkle (TW), which does virtually the same thing, without any special privileges. This might explain why I find a number of TW edits where the warning given to the offender is often done at the wrong Level: a not sufficiently experienced editor using a too powerful tool. They should have to spend time in the recent changes patrol trenches using undo and manually applying WP:UTM templates. I think that TW should require the same Rollback privileges as HG before one can use it. As for HG, I find I still have to do a lot manually because sometimes the list of possibilities in HG’s pulldown list doesn’t give me the right choice. Then, it’s back to WP:UTM and manually applying therefrom. I don’t really mind …

On another note, do you recall that fellow that you and Jeff G. were dealing with the other night? Altaicmania? He never got blocked! The blocking admins passed on dealing with him. The only thing I would suggest, then, would be for one of you guys to file a WP:3RR report at WP:ANEW. ’Cause believe me, his contribs show he’s still edit warring! <sheesh!> I was surprised nothing was done about him … — SpikeToronto 06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! That example does, indeed, perfectly exemplify your point, in a taken-to-its-logical-extreme strict interpretation of the rules kind of way. Letter of the law approach, if you will. My own approach has been to (I'm continuing with this example because it was the topic of my anecdote) use the failure to cite a verifiable source warning when it is clear that someone believes they are contributing real information but has supplied information that is both clearly new and clearly unsourced (I use POV warnings if the new information is representing an obvious POV, of course). This applies to my "butch lesbians" example, but it was clear to me that the person's intentions had little to do with adding useful information to Wikipedia and more to do with dumping on Aryans. In short, I once again absolutely see your point, but am not sure I agree with this strict letter-of-the-law interpretation of the warning system. Taking your argument to its logical extreme, I could advise someone against using a vandalism warning for an edit to an article about George W. Bush (or Abraham Lincoln -- don't want to pick too polarizing a figure for my example) saying that he is "a firm believer in the wholesale slaughter of Martians, because he met one once and thought the Martian tasted good after he slaughtered the Martian and ate it" because the issue with that statement isn't that it's vandalism, it's that it's uncited. And good luck citing that one, I suppose. Ultimately, if this person reposts his Dubya / Martian theory four times, he gets blocked anyway, eh? So... is that the point? Would you argue that, perhaps as a component of WP:AGF, I should use warnings relating to lack of citation except in the strictest, most blatant forms of vandalism (say, replacing a page with lots of gobbledygook)? I hope you read this as a sincere question -- it is intended as such. With HG's simplicity, I may just be clicking the wrong button half the time :). Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, long-story-short: your approach: do not let any hint of your own bias/preconceptions into your edits, this isn't about what you think is realistic. My approach: The opposite. I am actually pretty sure I'm in the wrong on this, but I continue to think the distinction is interesting. Obviously, my considering someone popping a bit about "butch lesbians" on a page about Aryans vandalism is reflective of my bias (my bias says: "Aryans are an easy target ; butch lesbians are something some people think are bad ; the notion that Aryans, as a rule, worship butch lesbians is plainly absurd ; ergo, this is vandalism" ... or something). Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your posting above is that it is based on a misunderstanding of my position. I rarely use {{uw-unsourced1}} through {{uw-unsourced4im}} in non WP:BLP articles. Why? Because when an editor adds something reasonable to an article, but fails to attach a verifiable reference/citation, the appropriate thing for a recent changes patroller to do is not to revert. (Martian slaughter in Bush’s article is not reasonable. The reasonableness of its addition to the article does not require debate.) Rather, the recent changes patroller should flag the addition with one of the templates found at {{FACT}}. (Or, if the entire article/section is unsourced/undersourced, add one of {{Unreferenced}}, {{Unreferenced section}}, {{Refimprove}}, and/or {{Refimprove section}} to the article/section, where appropriate.) Too many recent changes patrollers revert when all that is needed is some sort of maintenance template. For instance, if someone adds to the article on Dayton, Ohio, that it is twinned with the city of Osaka, Japan, but does not cite a source, reverting is inappropriate. As a recent changes patroller, I do not know if that fact is correct or not. We’re not fact checkers. The appropriate course of action is to flag with the appropriate {{Citation needed}} template, and then leave the article to its regular editors. It would be oversteping to revert.

Where there could be possible WP:BLP libel issues, I revert and apply {{uw-biog1}} through {{uw-biog4im}}. To be honest, as I said above, I rarely apply {{uw-unsourced1}} through {{uw-unsourced4im}} to non-BLP articles. Or, at least I cannot come up with a good hypothetical off the top of my head.

Your Martian example is clearly vandalism because its editor did not add it to improve the article, and thus did not make the addition in good faith. For one to use one of the {{uw-biog1}} or {{uw-unsourced1}} family of templates, the recent changes patroller has to be looking at an edit where the assumption of an edit made in good faith is at least probable. Thus, one can argue that an addition to an article about an NBA player in which the editor refers to that player’s team city as the most boring in the NBA, is most likely vandalism, but it may really just be a failure to cite, especially if the editor read it in Sports Illustrated or some such source. So, since that edit is not glaringly obvious as vandalism, why not revert and use one of the unsourced templates to encourage him to add a citation to the statement, if he has one? I would still revert it because the threshold is higher with WP:BLP. But, if he puts it back in with a citation, and that citation actually contains the statement, then it is not up to a recent changes patroller to do anything with it. It is for the regular editors of that wikiarticle to debate the retention of the statement.

My original comment had just been to mention that there have been recent complaints filed at WP:ANI wherein Hugglers where simply pressing the revert button without realizing that there are a raft of choices attached to the button. So, they were labelling everything as vandalism, whether or not it was. I mentioned it only so that both of us could be sure to learn from their mistakes. I did not mean to suggest that you were using the tool incorrectly. I have no opinion on that, and do not recall seeing any incorrect application of the tool on your part. (On my part may be a whole different ball game!) My own use of Huggle is 50/50 because I find that often the diffs it presents are such that further investigation using the article’s history is required. I often end up doing reverts and applying WP:UTM templates manually, or using Popups to make the revert because a slew of edits and reverts has made a complete hash of the article. I’m sorry this is so long, but I wanted to clear up the confusion. Have I? Or, have I made it worse? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Danni Minogue

You seem like a calm,sensible guy. Can you take a look at my post on Talk:Dannii Minogue and if you can manage it respond. --BRFC98 (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't put a page into protected status. I'm also not familiar with the issue at hand, although judging by the edits being made to that article you may have a point. You can nominate a page for protection staus at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Good luck! Ginsengbomb (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Righton

Caroline Righton has requested that her page be deleted, that is why I keep editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabkol (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

She is a public figure. You cannot come on and delete her page. If you continue deleting the page, you will be blocked. Thank you. Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism made to my user page. I'd give you a barnstar but that would be a conflict of interest... he eh. Thanks again, _Nezzadar_☎_ 22:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! Have a good one :) Ginsengbomb (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive gift of new award!

		Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
		Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend,   Nezzadar ☎  .

Thank you

Good morning, O my there was a lot of Vandalism on my talk page and on my user space. I saw that you keep reverted the Vandalism. I just wanted to thank you for doing this.--Zink Dawg -- 16:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Very much my pleasure :). Thanks for the note. Ginsengbomb (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Confederate States of America" and "White supremacy" articles

You were quite right that the "White supremacy" article had no mention of the CSA; I added some relevant material to "White supremacy" (although that whole article probably still needs a good bit of work). -- 206.221.235.188 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank's for backing me up on that vandal, I was answering another IP user's questions. :) Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 07:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Claim

I do not agree that my edits were vandalism. I found proof that the results of the election were around 70%. --Nielad (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite your proof, that ought to be funny. And how about changing a "78" rpm to the fictional "87" rpm single? Bearing in mind that there is no such thing as an 87 rpm single. Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography Jacklyn Sonnier Hirshberg, Swamp Dog: A True Story, Acadian House Publishing, 2000 --Nielad (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a citation--Nielad (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it actually intended to convince me of the existence of a one-of-a-kind 87 rpm single that would, by the way, be unplayable on just about any record player in existence? Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Key phrase: just about. The book also details how they created such a rare record player.--Nielad (talk) 04:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still far more interested in your citation for the election statistics, although discussing this creation of "such a rare record player" is indeed amusing nonsense! Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am Not a Vandal

ClueBot already flagged my edit and I explained the intent through the fashion as instructed. If further flagging can be refrained for a moment, I can add illustrating context.12.64.30.29 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. In short, completely agree with you here. I've removed my flag on your talk page. Carry on! Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

venus terraforming / effected/affected

It's "effected," not "affected." The sentence discusses how cooling could be -effected- (ie how it could be accomplished, achieved, etc.), not -affected- (how it would be impacted by something else, etc.). Make sense? The whole affected/effected thing is one of my five favorite frequently misspelled/misused words in the language, hehe. Ginsengbomb (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

effect is a noun. affect is a verb. this supposed to be a verb form. you are wrong. also, effected is not a word. affected covers both of your definitions. 68.106.25.58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.25.58 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Erm. Perhaps before dropping such definitive statements as "you are wrong," you should double-check what you're talking about :). Not trying to be gruff but I tend to react negatively when someone says "you are wrong" when I am in fact quite right.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/effect

–verb (used with object)

10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring. Ginsengbomb (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage (my first time!). I'm just curious: given that the user had not edited any other pages, how did you find it? Were you patrolling recent changes without restricting to articles? Or did it have something to do with checking on new accounts? For the record, I asked OverlordQ the same question. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! No problem at all. Congrats on your first time getting your user page vandalized -- usually a sign you're doing something right, hehe. Very simply how I nabbed it. I use a rollbacking app called WP:HUGGLE. It tracks the recent changes RSS feed and, among a number of other things, highlights contributions by users with 1 or more recent vandalism warnings on your talk page. OverlordQ had already given the user in question 2 or 3 warnings so when the user vandalized your page his edit showed up highlighted as suspect. Clicking on the edit made it pretty apparent. Hope that explains it! Ginsengbomb (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, of course, I've heard a little about how Huggle works. I don't normally do recent changes patrol cos my connection's too slow, but when I have done it, I've restricted it to articlespace edits. But I guess with Huggle's features there's no need to do that. Cool, thanks for the explanation. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help!

Actually I have a user acc. here (Alisha208). The problem is that my acc. got logged out when I was editing that page. I just wanted to know whether you can get that page back, which I edited. I will give a valid reason for that then.203.92.55.173 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's back! Go right ahead. Sorry for any confusion! Ginsengbomb (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!!203.92.55.173 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the revert on my user page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

My pleasure, and thanks for the cookie! Ginsengbomb (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

I've noticed your swift anti-vandalism edits all over recent changes. Just dropping a note to say nice work. By the way, have you considered talk page archiving? Cheers, BlazerKnight (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been on a bit of a cleanup tear tonight, hehe. Huggle is certainly a wonderful thing! Regardless, thanks for the good wishes. My talk page and user page are both very, very overdue for an overhaul (neither have been meaningfully reworked in over 2 years!), and archiving is something I will definitely have to do, as this page has gotten extremely unwieldy :). Anyway, thanks for stopping in and saying 'ello! Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for quick, automated page archiving. The bot makes its rounds daily and trims old threads. Very convenient. :) BlazerKnight (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I will check that out! Thanks! Ginsengbomb (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question about editing

If the Phillies take a 3-0 series lead would I be jumping the gun in editing their page and calling them the 2009 world series champions. The only way they would lose is if they have a huge collapse like yankees in 04 or like the kings of queens and collapses themselves, the NY Mets. I just dont wanna get in trouble for jumping the gun, if not I can wait till the Phillies are officially WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS or as our buddy Utley says WORLD F*ckin' CHAMPIONS! DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you would be jumping the gun. Ginsengbomb (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss "Diary of a Wimpy Kid"

Please, Ginsengbomb, can we talk about the edits we've been fighting about?

98.144.24.74 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Here's what's happening. You're removing content that doesn't seem blatantly invalid without an edit summary to explain. That's generally not okay. I will say this, too -- you vandalized my User page. I am always going to assume good faith per WP:AGF, but when I see an anonymous IP contributor removing content without any explanation who then goes on to vandalize my userpage, I am suspicious. That said, I am happy to hear your explanation! Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm sorry about the user page, but i was mad. I let my anger get the better of me. Anyway, I was removing that content because it wan't related to Diary of a Wimpy Kid, the FIRST book.

Mikeycc (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I've reread your edit and, as far as I'm concerned, go ahead and do the edit. Seems fine to me. Please, though, do be cautious about letting your anger get the best of you. Much more importantly, seeing as you appear to be someone who is trying to contribute positively, always include an edit summary when you are removing content. This is critical. Ideally, all content changes should have an edit summary, but it is if anything most important to do so when -removing- content. Removing a decent amount of content without an edit summary is very easily viewed with suspicion, whether that suspicion is warranted or not. Obviously, I erred in reverting your contributions, but if you put yourself in my shoes you'd have done the same thing: I see an anonymous IP address removing apparently fine content from an article without any explanation. So I revert that. Make sense? Just be careful and always include an edit summary, it's the best bet you have. You definitely seem like a good contributor. :) Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'm very sorry about that. Thank you.

Mikeycc (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Glad to see you've registered with a username. Keep up the good work, and I apologize as well for having misconstrued your well-intentioned edits as vandalism. Thanks! Ginsengbomb (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Redneck as ethnic slur

Hey, I see you added a reference List of ethnic slurs in regards to "redneck". As I noted on Talk:Redneck, I have strong doubts that this is supportable. If you have any further thoughts on the matter, could you comment? Thanks! --CAVincent (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)