User talk:Walbert

Verification Needed

Seeing this edit, I thought I'd stop by and point out to you our {{VN}} tag, which can be used instead of deleting info that needs verification. You can elaborate in the tag itself ({{VN|is this reproducible?}}) or simply add a topic on the talk page regarding the questionable edit. Let me know if I can help with anything else. --GK^talk2me 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I nixed it given that every other edit by that user seemed destructive (with one exception) - but I will keep the VN tag in mind in the future. Walbert 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Titles

Excellent job with re-editing my UESPWiki:Style Guide addition. That looks far better than mine did! I'd like to make specific mention of when not to capitalize, though, or people will generally tend to capitalize everything. Care to take a crack at it? ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 02:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem - one concern I have is that the original release of Oblivion has dreadful spelling and the style guide is supposed to follow Bethesda's release, not the unofficial mod (and I can only assume Bethesda wished to follow proper convention, and any mistakes are honest, not intentional). Walbert 02:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the usual caveat of in-game use trumping all rules would still apply here, so if they're using "the Emperor", then so are we, at least for anything where we're directly citing the game. That brings up the other one that's confusing for most people: when the title is preceded by a definite article. The example my Style Guide gives is something like "The prime minister, Tony Blair, gave a speech." vs. "Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech." ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 03:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Warning

Hi Walbert. I think the second warning for that anon is unnecessary. It just repeats the previous one, where it is already explicitly stated that if they continue with their act, they will get blocked. Adding a second one is superfluous, and doesn't justify the first block given as it now looks like we'll just give them several warnings instead of a block. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 15:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wolok, from what I've read the second warning makes sense as their behaviour continued after the first warning - which is seemingly required for a permaban (not that I have any question such an action will happen when an admin is available - not that it'll do much). In no way do I feel that it sends a "soft" response - invasions/raids really could not care less what the formal response is until access is revoked (and even there, I doubt such a raid would be done without a proxy). The goal was simply to push the ban process along further by drawing more attention. The revocation of the anon edit was explained in history: anon IP may very well be initial IP furthering the goals of the raid. Walbert 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the anon whose edit you reverted is in fact User:Corevette789. Besides, simply reverting an anon's edit based on the fact that they might be involved in this whole matter isn't going to do it, certainly not when their actions appear to be genuine. The Blocking Policy does not talk about second warnings, which means that it is unusual to do so. I think the whole matter is still recent enough to get noticed by an administrator, otherwise it's always possible to attract their attention by posting a message on the Admin Noticeboard afterwards. Given the fact that the second warning is redundant, not standard and that it is unclear if it has any use, I'll remove it. ^Talk Wolok gro-Barok _{Contributions} 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I'm not trying to create conflict - simply to diffuse. If a legitimate user isn't logged in and has an issue, let them say so, otherwise I feel my reasoning to be sound based on my experience. That said, the Blocking Policy does state that only a logged in editor may post a warning - I would assume this can be extended to only a logged in editor may retract a warning (if this is not the case - whats the point of that rule? assumes too much "good faith" on behalf of vandals). I do recognize that two warnings may seem "unusual" - and I'm not contesting that (SOPs vary, etc). Walbert 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, just to second Wolok's statement, standard operating procedure around here is generally to give one warning per incident. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't require three or four consecutive warnings before we declare something to be vandalism. And while it's easy to assume bad faith on the part of the vandal, he did stop within two edits after the warning. The first of those edits was posted almost at the same time as the warning, so the New Message banner may not have appeared after that one—it's at least conceivable that he saw the message when the second post was made and then stopped at that point. But no harm done in the end—the vandal appeared to be long gone by the time you posted the second warning, and as you noted, SOPs vary from one wiki to the other in any event, so it wouldn't seem amiss to anybody who's used to other wikis. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 17:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was the anon who reverted the second warn you gave the other anon. I saw my name mentioned so I thought I would clear that up.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Corevette - no harm then; Robin - alright Walbert 17:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Anons

Here we don't usually welcome IP's unless it is a message or a tip like on the messages page.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Was in response to odd additions to an article - and since I'm not allowed to use the world "vandalism" or pose similar questions I have resorted to scripts. Yes I do realize that use of the welcome script is somewhat unusual - but it seemed a safe choice to present the various links/information I wanted to post (instead of writing it out by hand). Can change it if you'd like (to just have the same links/etc) Walbert 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that everyone is free to choose who to welcome and how, the lack of rules regarding welcoming is intentional. It's not my intention to imply anything here, but I feel it can never be said too often. --Timenn-<talk> 18:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Walbert, you've received some good advice, and from what I can tell you've taken it to heart. The last thing I'd want you to think is that anyone is nit-picking your actions.

The only thing I'd add is that it's always a good idea to personalize welcome messages a little; in this case it would've been a good opportunity to emphasize the links you felt the editor needed, possibly explain them a little, and remove the bit about the userpage (since there isn't one and we don't really encourage IPs to create user pages).  :) --GK^talk2me 21:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)