| Revision as of 21:29, 21 October 2007 editMember - Society of Dog Lovers (talk | contribs)78 edits Why?← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:10, 22 October 2007 edit undoTvoz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,638 edits →WP:UNDUE: it's already thereNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| It's just something that I learned which is why I put it. I'm really not that interested in your article (you put your name as being the co-head of the article). ] 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | It's just something that I learned which is why I put it. I'm really not that interested in your article (you put your name as being the co-head of the article). ] 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :: No one is getting rid of anything - it has already been included in the article footnotes which is appropriate weight. Same thing applies to the Cheney article. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:10, 22 October 2007
IPs
This is a good reason in favor of sprot on high-visibility vandal-target articles, don't you think? What good would be the series of warnings and blocks that you favor in cases like this where different people are editing? Usernames, on the other hand, are at least accountable in some small way for the multiplicity of a person's edits. (It's a rhetorical question, although I am always interested in your thinking on this subject as our concerns seem to be quite different.) Cheers - off to watch the Yankees (gulp). Tvoz |talk 22:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
AIV report
You made a report at WP:AIV about four IPs vandalizing the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. However, when I checked their contributions, none of them had made recent edits. Either the warning messages worked, or they changed IP addresses. (I also checked the RDNS for their IP addresses, and it looks like there were different locations, like Massachusetts, Maryland, and Minnesota.) AIV is intended to stop vandals that are actively vandalizing or that are likely to vandalize again in the near future. I don't think blocking those four addresses would have prevented any further vandalism to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I understand your frustration, but there are times when blocks aren't always effective. --Elkman 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
mother's name
When did we go back to Stanley? I must have missed that - I mean, it is correct, but I thought we had abandoned it for the name she was more commonly known as. Your call - other than the annoyance of the likely reversions to Shirley, doesn't matter to me. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE
I saw the reference to UNDUE. It applies only if someone wants to put a huge section on Cheney being Obama's cousin. 1 sentence is just right, even according to most people on the talk page. What's the big fuss on you trying to get rid of it? Even one person said "things you learn in wikipedia". The way you have it, people will not learn these things. The fact that they are cousins isn't saying that Obama is bad because his relative is Cheney.
It's just something that I learned which is why I put it. I'm really not that interested in your article (you put your name as being the co-head of the article). Member - Society of Dog Lovers 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- No one is getting rid of anything - it has already been included in the article footnotes which is appropriate weight. Same thing applies to the Cheney article. Tvoz |talk 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)