User talk:Scott Delaney/Archive1

Userboxes

Can you tell me how to add a userbox? Thanks,--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Most userboxes are templates, so it only requires you enter a single line, which makes it kind of easy. The key is creating a "container" to hold the userboxes, in html, a DIV typically. Wikipedia:Userboxes is a must read, and explains it better than I can You can find premade userbox templates all over Wikipedia, or create your own, however, the templates are much much easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Why do people disrupt Wikipedia through IP addresses?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that is the $64,000 question. Boredom, they have an account and are getting vengeance against another user, they are mentally ill or just "not quite right", they have some agenda, they are kids and think its funny, or think "Wikipedia is dumb". Those are the top reasons. Not everyone gets the idea of trying to help in a small way to make something bigger than themselves. That is part of the price Wikipedia pays for being so open and easy to edit. I spend a good amount of time on vandalism patrol, looking for it and reporting users when appropriate. Lots of others do as well. Most vandalism doesn't stay on the page very long, sometimes just a matter of minutes. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I feel compelled to give a little unsolicited advice here...While a good deal of vandalism comes from IPs, there are also a lot of IP editors who contribute constructively to the project. I've known a few whose work was exceptionally good, and it always bugged me when registered users reverted and templated them, not because of the quality of their edits, but because they were IPs. The vandal fighter's job is complicated because of this, and you have to learn to judge the edit, not the editor. There's an essay on this at WP:IPs are human too. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Temporary blocking

What is a temporary Block?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• When a user is blocked for a fixed amount of time (not permanant) such as 72 hours or 1 week, to prevent them from doing damage. Blocks are not punishment, they are done then a user has shown they are vandalizing or causing problems, as a way of forcing them to "cool down" and keep them from disrupting Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Blocking policy explains it further. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)]

Sock Puppetry

• Why do banned users use Multiple Accounts To Evade Their ban And Vandalize Articles?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be so they can continue to vadalised articles. Merely active to disrupt the project because they have too much time on their hands and not enough to keep them busy. Mrlittleirish 14:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

What is a Rationale?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk|Contribs) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Justifiable reason, an explanation for an edit that might be controversial or contested. For example: If I tag an article as "Needs more references", my rationale might be "Only has one reference, lots of facts without sources". Or if I delete a large section of an article because no citations exist or can be found, I would say so "rm section because no sources can be found". Usually this provided in the summary or on the talk page, out of courtesy, so others don't have to ask why you did something. All edits *should* have some summary, even if it isn't exactly a rationale, so we can understand what each is doing. This provides a reason or rationale. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite Block

• What is an indefinite block?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Stopped from editing. Forever. If you are caught using a different account, that one is blocked. Most who do, are caught in time. Using a different account like this is one form of sockpuppeting. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

rollback rights

• What are rollback rights?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ROLLBACKER for info. Only granted to very experienced editors. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandboxes

• What is a Sandbox?--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• WP:SANDBOX. For lots of stuff, try searching "WP:[term]" to find official pages on them here. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of Old IP warnings template

Hello. I notice you added the {{Old IP warnings top}} template to several talk pages. Some of the warnings on those pages were not stale. In future, when using this template, please make sure to also include {{Old IP warnings bottom}} so that the current warnings are still shown. Also, the {{TOC right}} template should come before {{Old IP warnings top}} so the Table of contents will still be shown and work for the non-hidden sections. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your edits at User talk:198.110.175.129 and it looks like you are having some trouble, so I fixed that page for you. The {{Old IP warnings bottom}} template is used in conjunction with the {{Old IP warnings top}} template – in other words, they are a pair and one goes at the top of the sections you want hidden, while the other goes at the bottom. I hope that helps make things more clear. If you click on any of the template links here in this section, you can read more documentation on how they work. Mojoworker (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Scottdelaney1067. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Tow Trucker talk 03:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am proud of all the Vandlism I have reverted.--Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Do most people on Wikipedia like being rewarded with chocolate chip cookies?--Scott Delaney 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a welcome gift! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Honolulu International Airport

The edit is not vandalism. The IP did not provide a valid source for this addition and US Airways's website shows no nonsotp flights from Honolulu to Charlotte on January 1, 2013. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Seemingly bogus reasoning for reverting

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rare_Ltd.&diff=496035113&oldid=496034676

You left this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.36.79.193&redirect=no ( Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Rare Ltd. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Scottdelaney1067 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC))

I changed spelling for flow purposes. It's not at all a verifiability issue. This is why people hate editing wikipedia. 108.36.79.193 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your excellent vandalism removal. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Scott Delaney 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Hey! Thanks for being so dedicated to helping out Wikipedia. Your help is really appreciated.

In addition to saying thanks, I also wanted to encourage you to be a little more careful with new or anonymous editors. You're reverting a lot of nasty vandalism, but when someone makes a simple mistake like this or this, giving them an automated warning might not be the best thing to do. It is much better to explain to them directly why their edit needed improvement, since they were really trying to improve the article. If it's a good faith mistake and not intentionally harmful vandalism, you can use Twinkle to "rollback AGF", which makes it easy to enter a custom edit summary and talk page message.

Thanks again, and keep up the vandalfighting!

Steven Walling • talk 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 

Scott, I'd like to echo what Steven has said. Dennis Brown and I have discussed this as well – sorry I forgot to follow up on that the other day. You're on the right track, but you just need to be a little more careful. For example, with this edit [1] you left a 3rr warning to an IP that appears to never have edited at all, let alone reverted 3 times. Perhaps you would like to check out the WP:CVU for anti-vandalism information and perhaps even get a mentor at the academy there. If you have any questions, just ask. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind Scott, templating people for disruptive activities, and being wrong, is itself a bit disruptive and can boomerang on you. If you aren't 100% sure on a template, don't use it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Response

Hi: I, the creator of my present account, would endeavour to show you that I have not edited many of the pages that has been claimed to be edited through my account. You have flagged a warning against me for editing the page George Vancouver, and I have not edited that page. I had never vandalised Wikipedia, and I do not plan to do so. All the information that I have added to Wikipedia are true and accurate to my knowledge. To be frank, I find it disruptive and insulting that someone (not you in particular, but many persons) should hold my edits as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that this post may cause, but I feel bound to express these views to you.

Yours truly,

alex0723alex0723 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0723alex0723 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your usage of vandal templates

Hi, we've never interacted before, but I thought I'd drop you a note concerning your use of vandal templates. I noticed that you templated this new user using a level-4 final warning vandal template for their first edit. I looked at the edit, and it was not clearly vandalism (they had even made an attempt to source it). When the user came to your talk page to say that they weren't vandalizing, you simply reverted them and templated them again with a signing template.

I'd suggest that you be more careful with the way you deal out templates. Wikipedia needs new editors, and we can't afford to be scaring off potential editors with scary vandal templates when they're attempting to edit in good faith. I also recommend reading WP:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Thanks for your anti-vandal work so far, and good luck in the future. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize

I am really sorry for the vandalism mistakes I have made. I have enrolled in the counter-vandalism unit academy. I will not try to revert any more vandalism until I have completed this course.-Scott Delaney (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Mainly, we want to be careful to not run off new editors, which is why it is better to NOT tag, than to tag wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I applaud you for this decision. I also think it will be for the best. Good luck! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you've enrolled in the CVU academy. I hope you find it worthwhile. Mojoworker (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scott Delaney. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Enroll.
Message added 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: your application to enroll in the CVUA Theopolisme _TALK 01:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your wonderful work on keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism!  TOW  talk  05:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello Scott Delaney! I'm Chip123456 and I'm happy to say I will be your academy instructor and it's great to have you on board! First of all as I'm sure you are aware vandalism is an everyday occurrence in Wikipedia, and we need to know how we deal with it correctly. We use The Four Steps of counter vandalism and that us to Identify it, remove it, warn the user and if need be, if they persist report to WP:AIV. I would suggest going through the links and also read WP:VAND. My first question is, have you got any questions? I'll be happy to answer! Once again, it's great to have you on board! Later on, I will go through your contributions so we have something to discuss about! Cheers, --Chip123456 (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! I have been looking through some of the posts on your talk page and have noticed that some people have commented on your warnings that you issue. They maybe complicated to understand at the beginning as there are different types and levels of warning. To issue warnings and file reports, I use Twinkle, which I believe you have. It's easy to use and you can preview the warnings before issuing them to the disruptive editor. I'm just going to go over the warning and reporting process with you! Below is an example if an editor who is vandalising on Wikipedia:

1. User has wrote 'Chris is gay LOL! :)' on Heathrow Airports article. This is their first edit on Wikipedia. Issue them a general note for vandalism (which van be found on twinkle by clicking the TW tab near the top right of the page and click on 'vandalism'). If you don't have twinkle, give them the first level warning under vandalism on WP:WARN.

2. The user has reverted your revert and has replaced the vandalism. Do the same process as above but give them a level 2 warning ( labelled as a caution on twinkle)

3. The user is now seen as purposely vandalising Wikipedia as they have gone onto HRH Princess Michael of Kents article and have placed 'Dfdfhhgrhdhdthdthdthdthdthgdhdthdhthhtdtfhdhdhdthdtfghfhtdh'. Like before give them a warning but now under level 3 (labelled as warning on Twinkle). This message informs the user that they maybe blocked if they continue.

4. The user has continued to vandalise in another article. Issue them their final warning (level 4 labelled final warning using Twinkle). If, you are dealing with a registered account (not an IP) it is probably clear that this is a vandalism only account and you can report at WP:AIV using twinkle. You click on the TW tab and click 'ARV'. Click on the 'select report type' and click vandalism. Then it asks you to tick a box, asking you why you have reported them. Click on 'Evidently a vandalism only account'. Note - you have an option to add a message. Then click 'submit query'.

5. If you have given the registered user another chance or the IP has continued to vandalise after the final warning, then report at WP:AIV using twinkle and click on 'vandalism after final warning' with optional message and submit query.

I hope this has helped, if it's confusing in any part, please ask me to explain further. Note - don't have twinkle? Install it by going on your preferences then gadgets and click twinkle, make sure you save!

--Chip123456 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Scott! Just to let you know, I will be probably inactive until Sunday, I have a lot of work. However, I will be looking over your contributions to discuss how they are going. If you should need any help, contact another academy instructor, although I am, still your instructor! Cheers! --Chip123456 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am public

The edit at mathematical coincidence was originally removed as trivia. I just wanted it removed (and better written anyway) for what it actually was. And I am not choosing log-in as IP address, btw. Just not have access to comp with good browser on Friday evenings is all.173.15.152.77 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

it was not trivial to me.--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) and also, if you believe i have warned you in error, just contact me. cheers!--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

as the notice says, discuss the matter on the article's talk page first.--Scott Delaney (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• If you are talking about this edit [2]then I would say that you are not correct Scott. He removed the section as original research and he summarized it as such. I was a section that was unsourced. WP:BRD doesn't require you talk before making a bold edit. Just because the system TAGs it as a potential problem, doesn't mean it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the notice was intended for the person who removed it originally, rather than me. I objected to its removal on the grounds of triviality myself (and I wanted an improved wording); but unless there were to be a surprising reversal of consensus regarding routine calculation as exception on WP:OR (to not having to be truly trivially routine), I expected its removal (so I removed it myself immediately after undoing the original revert (by rewrite)).173.15.152.77 (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave the issue of content to you and the other editors on that page, as you seem to know what should or shouldn't be there. My concern was that you did properly summarized and that he improperly tagged you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for that. It appears the person whose talkpage this is is trying to do more than he really has time for and accusing a lot of people of bad edits (At least that's my interpretation of what's under here).173.15.152.77 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why my content was taken down??

Scott,

I included a link on the "Cold Blank" wiki page that included a VALID interview with the subject Cold Blank. It was recorded directly with the artist and is 100% legal. Why was this taken down?

Thanks

Theuntz (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I had to take it down due to a possible Conflict of interest.--Scott Delaney (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not vandalism

Scott, do not tag edits like this as vandalism [3]. There are plenty of good reasons why someone would delete that info, primarily in that it isn't sourced or needed. Calling someone's edits vandalism when they aren't is itself quite disruptive and WP:BITEy. If you are going to use the tools, use them right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't have been marked as vandalism but judging from his username it's highly likely he is a member of the band. I left a note on his talk page about the issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also not vandalism

This edit [4] could easily be in good faith, and very likely was since it was a small, dubious section that lacked sources. If it isn't clearly vandalism, as defined by WP:VANDAL, then don't tag it as such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It most likely was good faith and not vandalism and the word "vandalism" should not have been used in the edit summary. However, the level 1 warning left on the ip's talk page (which sometimes are useful for good faith mistakes) was spot on. When removing large sections of text from an article, he need to say why he is doing it and now he knows. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One more that isn't vandalism

This edit [5] doesn't fit the criteria as vandalism either. This is beginning to worry me Scott. The fact that you templated their user page saying that a blank line was vandalism is very troubling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

More that is not vandalism

Scott, this [6] is related to a content dispute and is clearly not vandalism. The person even referenced the talk page. Did you LOOK AT THE TALK PAGE? There is disagreement on that name, but that is clearly not vandalism. This is 4 in just one day, and I'm not done looking. You are getting dangerously close to administrative action yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What's crossing him up seems to be the tags that the edit filter is adding to these edits. The edit in question was tagged "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". Scott, these tags are advisory, you still have to look at the edit in question and make your own judgement. That's the reason that the edit filter tags them instead of disallowing them and it's the reason that we just don't let a bot revert these. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is section blanking, not vandalism

This [7] is likely not vandalism. It may look borderline, but you should have noted it as section blanking, not vandalism. If you looked at the editors other two edits, in the same article, it would be clear that the deletion might be contentious but not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

More

This [8] was a mistake, not vandalism. Had you looked at his previous edits, you would have know this. He was trying to figure out how to add the reference since he was new, and you just bit him by calling him a vandal and leaving that template on his page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are forcing my hand here, Scott

This [9] is not vandalism. The editor explained why they remove the unsourced material. WP:BRD clearly allows this. It is a content decision that others may revert or discuss, but it is clearly not vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTICE

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT VANDALISM

regarding san donato val di comino edits. removing original research is not vandalism. because i no longer have a wikipedia account does not mean my edits are unworthy. please rewrite the section in question or leave it removed. 76.24.125.233 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Further non-vandalism.

I am not a vandal. I edited a post twice in rapid succession, the second time to remove an old Youtube link I inadvertently added from someone's previous edit. How is this vandalism? I rarely edit anyway--to avoid things just like this.

You seem to do this a lot. If you have something constructive or critical to say about someone's edits then that's good, but If you don't know what you're doing, please stop.76.181.46.246 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Back to basics

You seem to have have a problem on one of the four steps of counter vandalism and that is identifying it. Now, I don't want to give you a long list on your talk page on what is and what isn't vandalism so I am asking (again!) that you read WP:Vandalism. This gives you examples if what is and more importantly, in your case, what isn't vandalism. As your CVUA instructor (and I'm sure with any instructor) for me to teach you, you need to know the basics, identifying. When you are reverting an edit, from now on, until you are sure you can identify vandalism, instead if using the 'rollback VAND' use 'rollback' which is in blue. Then give an explanation to your revert in your edit summary. What I would also suggest is, even if it takes longer, give the editor a personal message (unless it is obvious vandalism) without using twinkle. An example to this would be 'Hi, re your edit to (x), it has been removed because (x). Thanks!'. Something like that would be more suitable if it's not pure vandalism. Unfortunately, you have received a lot of complaints about your reverts, rightly so, because if I was a new editor making contributions, the last thing I would want was somebody labelling my edits as vandalism. Always assume good faith, if an editor has made a mistake (one which is not vandalism) and try not to bite them. The only way for us to remove your rights would be to block your account, which is a last resort. So always think, is it vandalism or is it a mistake? Is the editor contributing with good intentions or not? If you are unsure, always go back to WP:VAND or ask. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the WP:AN is very disappointing and also, this is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia by misusing your tools, label good edits as vandalism and bite new comers, you maybe blocked from editing. You are still in the CVUA and I do want to carry on being your instructor. When you start editing again, I and other users will tell you how you are doing and how you can improve. Regards, --Chip123456 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

CVU Academy

It is with regret Scott that we have decided to drop you from the academy due to recent events like the AN. Dan653 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If possible, I recommend WP:AAU. --Chip123456 (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This also is not Vandalism:Re

Dear Mr. Brown. I have read the warnings you have placed on my talk page and i have been thinking, I need to be more careful. I realized that if people remove content for a reason, it's Best not to revert it. I also realized if someone removes content, i need to click the blue rollback button using Twinkle and add, section blanking. I am going to Carefully check the edits made before taking any action. if you have any tips on what is Vandalism And what is not Vandalism, Please let me know. This will help me identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism. Thank you for letting me know about those false positives i made. This also Helps me to identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism.

P.S Do you think i should start a user talk page where people can report false positives?

Thank You.Scott Delaney (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• You might first want to come to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where this is being discussed. I've always tried to help you Scott, and will still try if I think it will help. But first you should go to the link I just provided, and perhaps discuss this with the rest of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Scott, if I were you, I would not revert section blanking at all. There are many valid reasons to blank a section as part of normal editing, and I do it frequently myself. Sometimes you're trying to merge two sections, sometimes you're removing inaccurate and un-cited original research, and sometimes you're removing a new section that was recently added by a disruptive editor who was acting without consensus. Seeing the difference between one of these situations and regular old vandalism can be tricky, and I'd recommend that you don't attempt it at all until you have more experience editing.

As a side note, would you mind if I asked how you find the vandalism that you revert? Where do you go to find it? Are you looking at tagged edits or recent changes or what? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to look at This edit.Because i do have experience identifying personal attacks. P.S I look at the Abuse log. Scott Delaney (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012(UTC)

• I understand Scott. I left that editor a note on their talk page about that very edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Auckland Airport

The warning you made to 68.113.122.83 is not disruptive regarding to Auckland Airport. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!--Scott Delaney (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

I've moved this discussion to User talk:Scott Delaney/Mentoring, since I expect that will be a more practical venue for our discussion than on your talk page. I hope you'll forgive me for boldly creating this sub-page in your user space. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC+12)