The Dales of Glendale
|
I’m currently on a semi-wikibreak and will only be editing infrequently at various times. I have turned off my pings and I am not using my watchlist, so you will need to leave a message on my talk page or email me in order to get my attention. Thank you for your understanding. —Glendales 18:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC) |
For archived messages and discussions, please see User talk:The Dales of Glendale/Archives. To revive an archived discussion, copy and paste the contents of the archive onto this main talk page. Do not edit the archives. Thank you.
Your Recent Edits
changeYou're becoming a little too trigger happy. First of all, while articles are written in Simple English, there is no policy regarding what language users can use on pages in the user space. One of the goals of this project is to help those who do not already speak English well and help them get better. The community of editors here come from various backgrounds so it is important to respect those who do not speak English well enough. If they must speak to other users in their native tongue, they can. Second, do not revert unless you are ABSOLUTELY sure that it is vandalism. I've noticed on multiple occasions edits that did not need to be reverted, for example, Special:Diff/5936394, Special:Diff/5936379, and Special:Diff/5934307. IP addresses are human too and in a writing sense, should be treated the same as any other editor.
Additionally, making edits or reverts that are unnecessary disrupt the project. I understand that you have recently surpassed 1000 edits, but remember quality is always better than quantity. I suggest you be more careful in the future as some of us are becoming a little bit fed up. --Eurodyne (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first diff you provided adds useless wikitext formatting to an article. It doesn’t belong there. Anything useless or irrelevant to a subject belongs on the user’s user page/subpage or in the sandbox. The second diff you provided removes content (namely a film title) without adequately explaining why. I now see that the film in question didn’t belong there, but the first user who removed it was obligated to explain that in the edit summary - not expect us patrollers to investigate for ourselves. The third diff replaced an image with a significantly lower quality image, so, while not vandalism, still disruptive. I acknowledge what you wrote above but you are taking me out of context. —Glendales 22:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- No the person doing the reverting has an obligation to assume good faith and look at the edit they are reverting. There is no requirement to use an edit summary, it is good practice but it is not mandatory. It is however, mandatory for you reverting someone to make sure you aren't reverting a good edit such as #2. As for the third edit, that is completely a content issue, they may very well have decided the picture they added was better. I certainly think it is better since it doesn't have an object in the foreground blurred out and is a better composed picture. You must start assuming more good faith. It is great you are enthusiastic, but some of the things you are doing are more harm than good. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The second one was not a “good edit”, as it removed content without explaining why. As noted above, I now see that the removal was correct, but it is not up to us patrollers to go look up every single film made by Disney and find the one that is listed that wasn’t made by Disney. The user who removes it needs to say “this film wasn’t made by Disney so it has been removed” or something like that. —Glendales 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I am saying is yes it is up to patrollers to do that, if you aren't doing that then you shouldn't be patrolling. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- If patrollers have to go look up every single questionable edit and verify or disprove it before taking action on it, vandalism that isn’t blatant but is still there is going to remain public for a very long time. That’s not good at all. If a user removes seemingly valid content from an article, they MUST explain why. Nobody said that an edit summary is required, but they still have to justify their removal of content somehow. —Glendales 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- We get so little vandalism per hour that taking the time to make sure you aren't reverting a good edit should not be an issue. On most pages on our wiki they could go days (if not months or years) without being seen by a reader, so the extra 5 minutes you take to make sure something is or isn't vandalism isn't going to hurt the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- (change conflict) While not all IP addresses use edit summaries, not all of their edits are to be considered malicious either. Continually reverting possibly good edits is against number 2 of the founding principles of the foundation. --Eurodyne (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- We get so little vandalism per hour that taking the time to make sure you aren't reverting a good edit should not be an issue. On most pages on our wiki they could go days (if not months or years) without being seen by a reader, so the extra 5 minutes you take to make sure something is or isn't vandalism isn't going to hurt the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- If patrollers have to go look up every single questionable edit and verify or disprove it before taking action on it, vandalism that isn’t blatant but is still there is going to remain public for a very long time. That’s not good at all. If a user removes seemingly valid content from an article, they MUST explain why. Nobody said that an edit summary is required, but they still have to justify their removal of content somehow. —Glendales 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I am saying is yes it is up to patrollers to do that, if you aren't doing that then you shouldn't be patrolling. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- The second one was not a “good edit”, as it removed content without explaining why. As noted above, I now see that the removal was correct, but it is not up to us patrollers to go look up every single film made by Disney and find the one that is listed that wasn’t made by Disney. The user who removes it needs to say “this film wasn’t made by Disney so it has been removed” or something like that. —Glendales 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- No the person doing the reverting has an obligation to assume good faith and look at the edit they are reverting. There is no requirement to use an edit summary, it is good practice but it is not mandatory. It is however, mandatory for you reverting someone to make sure you aren't reverting a good edit such as #2. As for the third edit, that is completely a content issue, they may very well have decided the picture they added was better. I certainly think it is better since it doesn't have an object in the foreground blurred out and is a better composed picture. You must start assuming more good faith. It is great you are enthusiastic, but some of the things you are doing are more harm than good. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The next time you see an unexplained removal, you might want to ask the person why they removed what they did. Just be polite and not confrontational about it. You might even learn something, like (I hope) you did with the issues you had in the September 11 attacks article. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Blocked?
change@Bsadowski1: Why am I indefinitely blocked? Were any of my recent edits today that inappropriate that you needed to indef me without notification whatsoever? (Especially considering the fact that I’m a bit on edge from all the vandalism and attacks against me) —Glendales 01:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The_Dales_of_Glendale (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
Why am I indefinitely blocked? Were any of my recent edits today that inappropriate that you needed to indef me without notification whatsoever? (Especially considering the fact that I’m a bit on edge from all the vandalism and attacks against me) —Glendales 01:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for using multiple accounts in a good hand / bad hand manner. See no reason here to unblock. -- DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Djsasso: @Bsadowski1: What do you mean by “using multiple accounts in a good hand / bad hand manner”? This is my only account. To repeat, this is my only account. If you think that I have another account, you are mistaken, so please link to it so I can try to figure out who it really belongs to. —Glendales 21:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- You were using one account to make vandalism edits and then using this account to undo them. It has been confirmed by checkusers that the accounts were coming from the same location. -DJSasso (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Djsasso: No, that is incorrect. I only have this account. I was not using a second account to vandalize. Why would I? The fact that they “came from the same location” is enough to make me concerned that my machines were compromised, so I will be taking them to a mechanic tomorrow. Please identify the username of the other account so I can tell the mechanic. —Glendales 00:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Djsasso: I took my computer and machines to the mechanic, and after investigating for a little over a week, the mechanic says it is very highly likely that my machines were compromised. However, they are unable to fully identify whether or not the compromising malware is still active without the name of the account(s) that the CheckUsers found coming from the same location. Therefore, I need you or another CU to provide this information. If some policy prevents you from doing so on-wiki, please email it to me at your earliest convenience. —Glendales 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Djsasso: No, that is incorrect. I only have this account. I was not using a second account to vandalize. Why would I? The fact that they “came from the same location” is enough to make me concerned that my machines were compromised, so I will be taking them to a mechanic tomorrow. Please identify the username of the other account so I can tell the mechanic. —Glendales 00:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- You were using one account to make vandalism edits and then using this account to undo them. It has been confirmed by checkusers that the accounts were coming from the same location. -DJSasso (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The_Dales_of_Glendale (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
I know that the unblock template is not a reply button, but it appears that for some reason @Djsasso: either has their pings turned off or for some other reason is not receiving them. As such, I’m placing this template here to get their or another admins attention. I took my computer machines back to the mechanic last week, and he just gave me the same results as before. He believes that the malware or other intruding software was erased when he ran an anti-virus scrubbing script, but he reiterates that he cannot be fully sure and confident without the username of the other account(s). Since this is not a real unblock request - rather just a ping to get admin’s attention, don’t bother declining it. Just remove this template once you have answered my comments above and provided the necessary information, either here or via email.
Decline reason:
Technical implausibility of your mechanic's proposal aside, checkuser policy does not permit revealing of this information, even to you by email. -- Chenzw Talk 01:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Chenzw: I don’t understand what you are saying by “technical implausibility of my mechanics proposal”. Also, if you aren’t allowed to privately tell me what other account(s) were editing from my computer, then how I am supposed to proceed in getting my account unblocked? —Glendales 02:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The_Dales_of_Glendale (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)
Request reason:
I have now completely replaced my computer and associated machinery, which therefore means that whatever malware/spambot/other bad stuff got into my previous computer and compromised my account is no longer an issue. As such, it should now be safe to unblock me. @Chenzw: @Djsasso: @Bsadowski1: @Auntof6:
Decline reason:
Quite frankly this story is pretty ridiculous, malware or anything of that nature didn't do this, you were acting as a sockpuppet. Lacking any acknowledgement of that will not lead to unblocking. -- DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)