User talk:Daven200520: Difference between revisions

If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.

Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.

Just wanted to request you go back and look at the Investor education site that was labelled as written like an advertisement. I've finally had a chance to get back there and add some content/references. I hope this will result in the tag being taken down. If not, let me know and I'll keep working away to try and get it inline with Wikipedia guidelines.

I could be doing this wrong Looks like our talk page its been a while since I have edited wikipedia. Anyways I wanted to refute a few of your changes to the WaveBird Article. I would like to point out that I did site the IGN article to point out that the Logitech Cordless Action controller came out with in months of the Wavebird same year and likely with little influence. The only section I edited other then a few wording changes that I felt are misplaced in the article are related to the WaveBirds influence on the current generation. And even with its sources before mine I doubt any one can find Sony and Microsoft admitting that they loved the wave bird so much they made there wireless controllers after it.

The line about 802.11x might be a little biased I can find a source if you want, but the existence of the Logitech Cordless Action is not and has a reasonable source to site when it came out. This is something more for the talk page of the article and I will keep up with it over the next few weeks to get an opinion before changing it again, but I do feel that your reversals are in error. At least in the influence section. Sorry for not doing all edits at one time, but I like to edit by section so there is less source hints the 4 edits as I was getting the article in order. The final change you made was putting back that the Wavebird is Unique because it was an RF device on 2.4Ghz which is really naive to me. 2.4ghz tech has existed in Keyboard/Phones/Mice/Remotes/ and many other devices long before 2002 the WaveBird was unique because it was first party not because it used radio communication. That edit only cleared things up in the article. I ask you think about your changes for me after what I have said. If you want I can provide more sources related to wireless tech and its age, but I think the already included links to wireless will back up my statments about the 2.4ghz range.

Thank you for your time I really try to keep Wikipedia clean, I just wanted to stay anon this time as it was a small edit. Kept anon because I needed you to recognize the IP

-72.148.115.85 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs) 09:17:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

It's not important what the politicians say, that's not preparations. It's what they do as a government that are preparations. – Chacor 07:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They as a government took the step to block entrants, so that would be considered preparations. However, saying "we are prepared!" isn't really useful information to put in the preparations section, imo. – Chacor 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can I suggest you please get a spell checker? You're capitalising words unnecessarily. – Chacor 07:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 08:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the placement of a block notice does not cause a user to be blocked; blocks must be effectuated by administrators. Non-administrators may request that users engaging in vandalism be blocked at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. John254 18:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, users become sysops after making a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. While there are no formal criteria for adminship, a successful request for adminship generally requires that the candidate has:

(1) at least several thousand edits

(2) some significant participation in the creation of encyclopedic content, the Wikipedia namespace, and RC Patrol

(3) not engaged in recent, significant policy violations or other disruption

(4) avoided recent participation in significant disputes or other controversy with other good-faith users.

At the moment, I am not a sysop. John254 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa! You should definitely not take John's word for it, Daven, because he's massively overstating what it takes to become a sysop (admin is the common term, actually). Basically all it takes is that you show some dedication to the project, and show that we can trust your judgment. For dedication, pick your own area, it really doesn't matter. For judgment, it may actually help if you were engaged in a dispute, because this tells us how you deal with disputes. One that starts screaming and insulting people in a dispute is not a good admin; one who deals with it level-headedly and resolves it somehow likely is. It really isn't such a big deal. >Radiant< 08:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not 'vandalism' --- I'm making corrections and adding more details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.116.184 (talk) 19:40:39, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Firstly, thankyou for your hard work reverting vandalism and doing other tasks around Wikipedia, it is greatly appreciated. However, please remember that you cannot block users simply by placing a block notice on their talk pages; only an administrator has the power to block IPs and users. The IP 63.226.201.123 has now been blocked by my request but in future you can report users for vandalising at the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. If the user has a full set of warnings and are actively vandalising then they will normally be blocked and thus, prevented from editing. If you have any questions about this or anything else, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! --Farosdaughter 20:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:71.35.46.20

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Word of Wisdom. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Daven200520 23:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the dif again -- there was no vandalism or unhelpful edits. I substituted the less elegant <div class="references-small"><references /></div> for {{Reflist|2}} (which had the added benefit of putting the long notes section to 2 columns) and changed the section header from the less standard "Footnotes" to the more standard "Notes". Please actually look at what's being done before you make unsubstantiated accusations. -- 71.35.46.20 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance in helping fight vandalism on the Seven Wonders of the World article. However you only reverted one of the three edits made by the anonymous user [2]. In the future you may wish to double-check the edit history to make sure you get it all. Thanks again, --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My assertions upon making that trivia comment turned out to be incorrect, as made apparent by an early scene in the film. 68.164.58.202 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history on Alan Oliver, you restored a chunk of text that an anonymous user had removed[3]. As it turns out, the anon was correct to remove that paragraph. Please be more cautious about what you revert. - jredmond 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions to the Wikipedia article Covenant Elite are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. Finally, don't take this message personally. Thank you!

--Jayson 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please Refrain from making unnecessary and grammar deficient edits as you did on Covenant Elite.

I found the latter part pointless and insulting, I'm not entirely sure what I specifically did to receive such a message?

Thanks for uploading Image:Tsms header.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The creator's web reference suggests that they may be more of a translator then the original creator. I have no personal interest in this article, and deleted 2 other pages by that editor, but it feels like they are trying to be productive. Should this assumtion not be right, OR is not a speedy deletion criteria. {{prod}} may be effetive is this is a drive by contributor, if not there is always AFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you, but you should have requested it on User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage as someone would've dealt with it from there!

Regards

Reedy Boy 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needs to be made to edit summaries left by other authors. The msg I left here was not a whim, it was based upon scientific rules of naming that can be found here, for you to once again change it to what you thought it should be shows a need for you to understand the edits you do. -- Nashville Monkey 03:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Response moved here from my talk page... -- Nashville Monkey 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my mistakes for I was not in sync with the guidelines of Wikipedia. I find it deeply encouraging to get a response for my edits. Again thank you for correcting and notifying me of my disruptive edits. 1A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daven200520 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... -- Nashville Monkey 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some questions. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to boldly close your RfA early. Please don't take this personally, but it would not have any chance of succeeding at the moment. Please don't let it bring you down, many users who went on to become fantastic admins have a failed RfA on their record. Just keep editing articles, and get some experience in admin-related areas. (Going to update this with some suggestions shortly). Best regards, — Dorftrottel⁠ 00:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the Administrators' reading list (which includes generally useful info for all users, not only admins). One suggestion for a Wikipedia project space area to get involved in is WP:XFD. — Dorftrottel⁠ 01:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Arson hunterbrrok.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if it can improve over time, otherwise it may get nominated for deletion. The link for the perp is pointing to some senator from Georgia not helping matters. Carlossuarez46 18:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do a little research - at least read my change comment, since you did not Tedickey 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm - still didn't read it. I fixed it, a little - now it's up to a D-minus. Regards Tedickey (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tsmsblackheader.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll extend that offer. Would you be interested? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can start now. I'm so excited you decided to take my offer. Let me just briefly introduce myself. I'm 17 years old and live in Las Vegas, Nevada. I've been with Wikipedia for about a year. Mostly what I do is work on wrestling articles or other articles; but mostly wrestling. If its alright with you I'd like to know a little about yourself. Also tell me all you want to learn at my talk page and I will do the best I can. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with that. Also, take note that blocking users is a job for the Administrators. And to expand your limit of edits, you have to have more numbers to your name if you want to become an Administrator. :). --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I am also in school. If you're interested in joining the Wrestling project, sign up here and add this box to your userpage. If you have any questions, just hit me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricanehink/Active

Thanks for uploading Image:Arson hunterbrrok.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Daven200520. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well to you. Welcome back. Need any help? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you given me a warning when I haven't posted anything? I think yoiu've got me confused with someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.27.240 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you recently reverted at Law school rankings in the United States did delete a large amount of material, but the edits were thoroughly documented in edit summaries AND they removed poorly sourced POV-laden content. I had removed some of the same content a couple of hours earlier, and it was restored by an IP user who promised to supply sources. Subsequently, some of the content was sourced. The content removed by 72.89.67.193 was unsourced and likely not supportable by reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of life being that WP:NOTPOLICY is an essay as well, letting everyone know right up front editors are "not obliged to follow it."

Looking back at the comment, I never said "this is policy" or used language like "you must follow this." I simply brought up relevant essays and guidelines, (is that different than what you just did here?) And by the way this was all in response to you threatening to block people for doing things that the guidelines do not forbid them from doing, such as removing comments from their talk page. Again, Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings. So if anyone has commented inappropriately, it isn't me for adding an opinion, it would be you for going around and using warning templates on users who you think have broken rules that don't even exist. Brando130 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that this was far too harsh for a first warning, first contribution for an IP address. Let me know if you have any questions about warning users —αlεx•mullεr 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You better watch your templates. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't you sorry -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Explanation - Jayson, you've attracted a fan who decided to issue spurious vandalism warnings in your name - Special:Contributions/90.151.83.105 - earning himself a holiday from editing as a result. Let me know if you see this happening again, and I'll extend the holiday. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little much for someone who barely started vandalizing and had no prior warnings, don't you think? DiverseMentality 07:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, I found that his comments were extremely inappropriate and were far deserving of my warning if you disagree please do elaborate. Jayson (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally, I think a final warning for a first-time offender is too much and should receive a prior warning before a final warning (I think of it that if there's a final anything, there had to be something before a final). Some vandals actually stop after the first warning, and I'm assuming this IP is one of those cases. Maybe it's just me though. DiverseMentality 07:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I enjoy feedback from other editors on my edits, I thank you for your time and patience to help better me, and I will be taking in account your suggestions on all of my future edits. Jayson (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Keep up the good work. DiverseMentality 07:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a new user and IP are making very offensive edits (such as racist or derogatory comments to a WP:BLP), and the user/IP has not received a warning yet, I recommend that you give them a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (only warning) as opposed to a {{uw-vandalism4}} (final warning). The uw-vandalism4im warning gets the message across quickly and seriously. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daven200520, I have granted your request for rollback. As an experienced vandalism patroller, you know that rollback is only to be used to fight cases of vandalism. Misuse of rollback is grounds for immediate removal. As an aside, I would agree with the comment above me that going straight to a level 4 warning is justified only in the worst cases of vandalism - threats to kill and such. Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to ask if I can do anything to help! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the {{db-web}} you placed on Chowk.com. The article can't be deleted under A7 since the 2005 AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.chowk.com was closed as keep. Since the arguments for keeping this article in that AfD aren't that good, you may want to re-nominate the article for deletion. Regards, Cunard (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate the work you do reverting real vandalism, but you realise that placing speedy tags on existing articles which have valid basic details and are verifiable constitutes as vandalism itself. I see its not the first time you have done this, but no administrator is going to speedy them. If you come across an article which is verifiable and has basic details in future but you find its notability questionable, try adding a {{notability}} tag instead or asking the editor to improve it first or simply take it to AFD which would have been the correct thing to do. Basically by placing an article up for speedy deletion you are not thinking of the overal encyclopedia and other users who find such articles completely acceptable and without any consensus in doing so is quite selfish. Please acknowledge this and be careful with using huggle and rollback. Keep up the good work reverting all those lemons. Cheers Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely, it was a fault on my part, I will use your wisdom in all my future edits. Jayson (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting the vandalism on my page. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem… Jayson (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Offical I'm applying for Acount creator privileges. Jayson (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you
for reverting the vandalism on my page.

I really appreciate your time (however short it may be). Thanks again, from a fellow huggler! :D —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 00:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honor to defend your page!! and Huggle is a genius! Jayson (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a joke. They're holding a Homestar Runner puppet, and they call it a muppet on their site.--68.36.20.207 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]