User talk:Vercalos/November 2006

Derby/Darby

I play Bully with the subtitles on (not sure why, but I do), and throughout all the game's subtitles, Derby's name is spelled with an e. So, if it's a typo, it's a very persistent one. --RiffRaff1138 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for watching my back on the continuing vandalism from 72.145.84.13. I figure he's just digging his hole deeper and deeper. Anyway, I do appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: I'll take care of it

Just leave the school vandal to me. I'm used to people like that. That, and I have nothing better to do at the moment.--Vercalos 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reverting you do! I'll revert it if i see it there, it's this new tool I found. Have a look at Lupin's page and look at the anti vandal tool there, if you're interested in things like that! CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wish there was a User watchlist, where you could watch user contributions the way you watch articles

Funny thing. He called me gay, and it's not something I particularly take offense to.--Vercalos 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the user contribs. oh well, at least the watched page shows up easily though. I've already reverted 2 of his edits to that page, it seems like you've reverted more... he just isn't stopping. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 04:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Now he's blanking his talk page of the warnings he's recieved.--Vercalos 04:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That was quick- didn't have as many vandalism edits of a lot of I.P.'s i've reported. Good though... no more vandalism from that end. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My edit to the Bully video game article

Thank you, Vercalos, for letting me know what you had done and why you had done it. I normally would not have done so --- but there is that huge section, right above, about all the commotion about those who CLAIM that a game will Bully will actually CAUSE more cases like Columbine. It is highly relevant to find out that the kind of people who play violent video games are not the kind who outwardly express violence. It shows that the game possibly provides sublimation for pent up emotions, but doesn't incite a desire to act out.

I wasn't trying to cause any disruption to the topic (I noted the partial page protection), but thought that a bit of actual PROOF might go some distance in creating some NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Thanks extra much for the explanation even before you changed things. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 07:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I AM capable of getting my nose out of joint when someone reverts something I've poured myself into and really spent a lot of time thinking about. But as it was, I just bumped into that article and thought of Bully. It was really such a cool bit of research -- but when I went to "pick it up", I realized that I had edited into incomprehensibility, so tidied it a bit -- but since it will probably be deleted again, I decided to just leave it as it is -- if it doesn't get deleted, THEN I will improve it. If it gets deleted, no blood lost. Bullying articles tend to get a lot of vandalism, don't they? --A green Kiwi in learning mode 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Bully (video game)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Bully (video game). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [Iridescence]  talk • contrib 19:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I double checked the edit history with the edit you reverted, and all I did was revert a POV violation.--Vercalos 19:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. I completely messed that up. I've been using a script that looks for blanked pages and I've been getting too many false positives recently. I apologize; I won't revert it again. I have also removed your warn. Sorry once again. [Iridescence]  talk • contrib 19:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. That's why I usually look through the content of an edit before I revert it though. Considering your script is giving you false positives, you might want to start reading through the edit before you revert it.--Vercalos 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you have to make sure your script is approved before you use it, but I forgot where to do that..--Vercalos 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I'll check that out because I modified one I found already written (which could very well be the problem). [Iridescence]  talk • contrib 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Just so you know

That was something of my impression, as well. So far as I know, no administrative action resulted from the report. If similar problems persist, feel free to request assistance via the appropriate admin boards, including WP:PAIN and possibly WP:AN/I. You could also set up an RfC if you think it'll help. Luna Santin 20:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Luna, I could use some advice

Hmm. That's a bit of an unusual case, it doesn't quite fit any of the "usual suspects" we find ourselves dealing with. I'll drop them a note, see what happens, and try to keep an eye on their contribs. If I'm missing anything important, feel free to nag me. Luna Santin 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. There's been a great deal of controversy over such subpages, in the past, but some people don't think they're a big deal. If you do create one, probably best to avoid linking or mentioning it too often. Or you can find an off-wiki way to accomplish the same thing; personally, I have a folder of bookmarks I call "checkers," and periodically I just use Firefox's "load all bookmarks in folder in tabs" feature to check them all (user contribs, page histories, whatever I think will come in handy). I guess the easy answer here is something to the effect of "keep a low profile about it." Or something -- no clear-cut rule or precedent on it that I know of, but different people have different reactions to the idea. Luna Santin 07:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that one. Possible sockpuppet, mebbe? Whatever it is, I'm getting more curious by the minute. Luna Santin 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your 3RR report

[1] only seems to list 3 reverts. JoshuaZ 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for 3RR yourself since your 3RR occured only after Greier had switched to using an IP address. However, in the future please be careful about such things and don't go over 3RR. JoshuaZ 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)