User talk:Landon1980

No problem, glad I could help.

Landon1980 (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I really cant be bothered monitoring the unconstructive edits on high school pages!!! Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. It is usually a given when you see the words 'high school' the edit is going to be vandalism.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't vandalism. All he was doing was adding a {{hangon}} tag to contest his article's nomination for speedy deletion yet you reverted and issued a warning. Authors of articles are allowed to contest speedy deletion, just not supposed to remove the speedy tag. No big deal, just be careful. :) --

I can't remember the actual content of the article, but wasn't the article itself vandalism? That is why I reverted (I think) that and the same user was vandalizing other articles. Thank you for the reverts on my talk page by the way. Also, I've only used Huggle for a few days now, and when I try and tag a page for speedy deletion, or request page protection Huggle freezes and I have to restart. Do you know what the problem may be?

Landon1980 (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

While the article itself was mostly nonsense, he's still allowed to contest its' speedy deletion although no sane admin would agree with him. As you your problems with

MindMeld 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm pretty sure that 69.107.48.207's edits to the Summer Olympics articles are legit, if not well explained. Somehow the Philippines replaced China as the primary medalist, which if memory serves, was not the case. I'm going to track down who made the initial edits. You might want to remove the warning from that IP (unless it's done other edits that are vandalism). [By the way, I don't blame you for the revert. I almost reverted the IP back again, but paused to consider it more]. Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending edit came from 222.126.14.10, which is incidentally in the Philippines. That IP has 3 edits, of which at least 2 are vandalism. They are very sporadic though, so I don't think additional action is required. Shadowjams (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)::No, I don't know how I reverted that, that edit definitely isn't vandalism. I'm still getting used to huggle, I bet I was looking at a revision that was vandalism while huggle had not yet caught up, so I inadvertently reverted the wrong person. I removed the warning and left them a welcome message. I really appreciate you letting me know, otherwise I would have most likely not found my mistake. Thanks again.

No problem. I've gotten nasty messages from people before for doing the same thing (doing good faith vandalism patrol but making a mistake, or having my software make a mistake) and I don't want to be one of the nasty ones, but I do want to make sure that I'm not missing some bigger picture. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually every time I finish with Huggle I scan through the majority of my edits to see if I made any mistakes. Oddly enough, most of the mistakes I find I have no recollection of the edit, and have no idea how it happened or who's fault it was (mine or the softwares). I think my accuracy rate is pretty good though, or at least I hope it is.

Landon1980 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because you revert vandalized pages on an internet site doesn't make you a hero of any description, my friend. You'll soon learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.232.66 (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, and warning.

Landon1980 (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, it might be of use to you mate.

Ok, thanks again.

Landon1980 (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Who are you to be giving out warnings? Are you a Wiki Cop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.8.14 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could say that. Kindly stop adding nonsense to that article. I'm sure we would welcome your positive contributions once that particular show airs in your region. –xeno ^talk 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..but please accept this:

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your help controlling the nonsense that MindMeld 07:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you very much :-). I do believe you dealt with him/her more than I did though. I was beginning to wonder if they would ever be blocked.

Landon1980 (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For awhile there it seemed like all the admins were on a coffee break..;) --

MindMeld 07:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the vandalism revert to my talk page. » skraz ^{talk,contribs} 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.

Landon1980 (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something I may be interested in. I will definitely check it out. Thanks for the invitation.

Landon1980 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I reverted a mocking edit on this user's talk page. This is after you gave him a Level 4 Warning--

Thanks, and nice working with you as well. He/she has been blocked a few times here lately, but keeps coming back.

Landon1980 (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

He is persistent, that's for certain.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked, though rest assured it will be back.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are welcome. Yes, they are definitely the same person. There is no need in filing an SPI though, as they can be blocked per

Landon1980 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there any reason why you reverted this constructive edit as vandalism and then final-warned the article creator? Cunard (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, no. I don't know what I was thinking. I caught my mistake before you posted this, and removed the report I made, and removed the warnings as well. I was confusing this user with another user.

Landon1980 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the explanation. Keep up the vandal fighting, but remember that accuracy is more important than speed. Best, Cunard (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed is not even my goal, I don't even try to be fast. I just started using huggle a few days ago, so hopefully as I get more used to it my accuracy rate will increase. Based on my 2,500 or so Huggle edits my accuracy rate so far is 99.something percent, my goal of course is 100% =). Cheers.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

What did I do you just deleted it without reason?--74.215.92.204 (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know we don't agree on the issue, but I'm going to let it play out a bit and then call for a consensus. I'm more than willing to accept the outcome of the consensus however that turns out. I hope the editor doesn't change anything until a consensus is reached. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a lot of research on the shooting, and this incident as well. As a Christian I think it is a beautiful story, but a story is all it is. I have no desire to fight for her to be remembered as a martyr, when it is blatantly obvious she was just a victim of a senseless shooting. I agree with the official version of what happened to her, the one supported by all the witnesses.

Landon1980 (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought there were only 2 witnesses (the guy who thought it was Cassie but later indicated it was from another side of the room and the girl who actually said it, got shot, and survived)? Either way, I don't think Ic's edit's fight for her remembrance as a martyr? That's why his wording said something like, 'at first it was thought she was a marty' and goes on to tell that this has since been brought into question. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official version of what happened to her. I can't remember how many witnesses there were, definitely more than two. Craig Scott (the one that mistook Valeen's voice for Cassie's), Emily, then three or four others. I think three is the number of witnesses that signed sworn statements that it didn't happen.

Landon1980 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow! What an informative site. That site does show that without a doubt, Cassie was not the one who was taunted about God. However, that does not discredit or take away notability of the fact that initial reports were that Cassie was martyred. I think to take this out takes away due weight. After all, this is what she is most notable for. So to say that she was initially thought to be a martyr is not incorrect. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that should be mentioned. Isn't that already mentioned though? I thought the article made it clear she was initially thought to be a martyr.

Landon1980 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OH, mistaken idenity. I am fairly new and do some minor updates to help my fav band pages, but since my chem page is locked, i came to my 2nd fav. please fill me in on any knowledge of editing. thanks. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I made a bad edit?, I learned one thing from Fezmar9 on another page and fixed that to the rules of wiki he showed me, and my other edits were very minor, did i make a mistake? Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree nothing is wrong with the edits, please stop reverting them. I'm just trying to do some minor updates since it looked like the information was a couple months old. And if I am edit warring then are you not edit war too, silly. But besides that I just trying some minor touch ups since my chem page is locked. I am still learning, please don't give me a hard time buddy. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you see I am editing the page, then how am I banned silly. Your funny. Is there a friend list on this site or like a buddy list we can add each other too? Your seem smart with a expanded knowledge, I think it be good to know you when there is a problem. Felix 12 22 (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been discussing that User:Felix 12 22 is banned. Where's the ban located at? (edit) please discuss here, not my talk page. tedder (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean he's a sock? In any case, stop reverting, I didn't template you because you know about 3RR, I'll just report Felix. tedder (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is a sock. I am allowed to revert the edits of banned users. There are a few admins familiar with USEDfan and will block per WP DUCK as soon as they see him. If a duck ever existed it's this user, I'd bet my life on it.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, don't bother with a 3RR report unless you just want to. If an admin doesn't act on the ANI thread soon I'll get Raul to run a checkuser again.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I didn't know there was an ANI, at least the 3RR allows us to get some time for the rest of the process to take place. I understand

WP:BAN, but obviously getting into a revert war isn't working, know what I mean? tedder (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, you are right. Seeing as one user can revert just as much as the other it is rather pointless. Seicer nearly always dealt with this guy, so since he retired this may take a little longer than usual. One thing that worries me is USEDfan (I think) usually edited from college/school, now that it is near summer I'm wondering if he may be back home, and back home be in a completely different area, hence contaminating the checkuser results. Thanks for taking the time to help out.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I know, and it's so easy to revert that it's easy to get past 3RR. I removed my 3RR thread, since there is traction on ANI. No worries. How does User:Drew R. Smith factor into this? And yeah, he's certainly quacking. I'm just coming into this as a disinterested third party. tedder (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)Best I can tell Drew encountered this user while patrolling recent changes, can't be sure though. He is quacking to you and you don't know the half of it. Everything is the same, from the way he writes, to the edits he is making, to how he reacts when called a sock. The username is even similar to the ones he always chooses. I have never had to gather evidence before regarding this user, Seicer was as familiar with him as I am and he always blocked on sight. So now I don't really know what to do. SPI's are such a long and drawn out process that I'd almost rather just forget about it as file one. Raul dealt with him last time and I have asked him to help out again.

Thanks for the context. Keep me in the loop, especially if you need anything. (I'm actually out of town/on the road, so it's harder to stay in touch) tedder (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may already know this, but if not,

Landon1980 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw that one, actually. Good times! We've had another incredibly .. productive sockpuppet floating about lately- enough so that I

started gathering the story. tedder (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me know if I can help in any way regarding this.

Landon1980 (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on my user page talk) 03:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Another Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Ha! Look! More of these! Keep up the good work, fine citizen of Wikipedia. talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you, very much! I really appreciate it. Have a good day.

Landon1980 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It is far from clear that I have engaged in edit-warring anywhere. I agree that the template I placed on a fellow editor of

User:Ibaranoff24 appreciated being (mistakenly) accused of vandalism by myself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Can I also add that said other editor has once again reverted to the version of the article that they prefer, despite my addition of further reliable sources. I would genuinely appreciate your opinion as to how to deal with what I regard as disruptive behaviour. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the assistance. I added a further comment to the talk page justifying the reliability of the sources provided, should you be interested. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, despite explanation, the same edit reversions to List of nu metal bands have been made again. Since I have no interest in edit-warring, I am simply going to leave it at this point. I would suggest that something should really be done about the situation, but I'm not sure which channels to go through. As always, advice much appreciated. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reconsider your views on the

Hi Landon1980. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was involved in previous discussions, please be aware of the current move discussion at

Caffieinebooost (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

124.170.116.162 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current