User talk:Children.of.the.Kron

Welcome!

Hello, Children.of.the.Kron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism fight[edit]

Hi Children! Thank you for fighting vandals, and for the effort you're taking in adding warnings on their pages. You may not be aware that we have a list of warnings at different levels at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. In cases like 134.7.248.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), when a user already has received a last warning, we try not to write a level-1 warning since it sounds a bit silly to say "welcome" after we already said "next time you'll be blocked". Either way, I'm grateful for your help! — Sebastian 06:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I usually patrol late at night, and with the changes coming so fast I may give the wrong warning trying to keep up. I will work on that. Children.of.the.Kron 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! The much more important problem in vandalism fighting is when the vandal fighter "freezes" some older vandalism: That's what happens when he/she reverts only the last vandalism, thereby effectively legitimizing earlier vandalism. (See also User talk:Philip Trueman#What to do about frozen vandalism.) I've seen egregious cases of that, such as when two vandalism fighters reverted each other and then placed uw-vand1 in the other's talk page. I hope this never happens to you! — Sebastian 18:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know the proper method for responding. Anyways, what I often see is a vandal will make a vandalism, then make a small edit right after it so you revert back to vandalism. Those are the times you have to manually pull up the page and edit. It kinda sucks, because you are trying to keep up with the RCs as they come in, and I sometimes feel overwhelmed. I have found that then I just go back to IRC and explore featured and topics under review, to find minor edits in that regard. While I still have free time, Wikipedia will see me. Children.of.the.Kron 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About responding: Please don't feel bad, that's indeed a bit confusing; many people here split up their conversations; I just happen to be one of those who want to keep them together. Because that happens a lot, I wrote the little template {{User:SebastianHelm/replyhere}} a long time ago, but I forgot to add it lately.

Back to vandalism fight: I'm not a dedicated vandalism fighter myself; I revert it when I see it, but I don't look for it. I would do more if it were easier technically. See also User:SebastianHelm/wishlist#Vandalism related wishes. — Sebastian 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tears of Polaris[edit]

The article Tears of Polaris has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No third party sources, no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]