THC Science

RfA votes[edit]

Please don't !vote at RfAs without giving a good, solid constructive reason. It wastes your time, your vote gets ignored and it annoys a bunch of people unnecessarily. Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters has further information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not[edit]

Why can it not be undone, the man doesn't want that out in the ounlic eye, and as his friend would like to remove the legal issues at this point and time until they are actually brought to the table.

Monkeycrabs (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Those charges are all sourced. If you are his friend, we usually would ask that you refrain from editing his article as that creates a WP:conflict of interest. CLCStudent (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Gemma O'Doherty[edit]

Do not re-insert BLP violations and accuse the other party of vandalism - you will end up blocked. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee[edit]

There was nothing wrong with this edit - it was updating the link to the current version. Please be more careful in future when reverting others, especially if you are then going to warn them when they have done nothing wrong! Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Given the above thread, where CLCStudent was edit warring to restore this (which says the article's subject was "widely criticised on social media" and citing a Twitter post, as if that was ever an arbiter of a neutral and unbiased source!), and the boneheaded oppose !vote on Kevin's RfA, I think we may need an ANI thread on this chap before the month is out. :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: There is no need for an ANI thread. I still don't agree with the situation with user:Thomas8678, but I do not want to cause any more trouble, so I am leaving things the way they are. I also do not understand all the drama with my oppose vote. I voted that way because I did not think that user was ready to be admin. I would appreciate it if we can just put the events of today and this past weekend behind us. CLCStudent (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're me?[edit]

diff Was that a glitch in Twinkle or something? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that glitch on my end. CLCStudent (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird... no problem, just wanted to check in! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@ElHef: Actually, I just experienced this myself. Something's odd here... 15:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Same. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's being worked on. phab:T203583. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleted my summary for what exactly[edit]

You deleted typos that I fixed for the betterment of the page which you made my six which it is actually spelled to 6ix which makes absolutely no sense if you could reply back with and arguement that is better stating then mine we will keep it the way it is but if not I will revert my changes

Sincerely,

                           EditsAmazing Thank you for your cooperation  EditsAmazing (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You rewrote "6ix" as "six" which was incorrect, and you broke up a quote. What you fixed were not typoes, and in the process, made the page a little worse.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Re recent vandal[edit]

I've added File:Stage I.JPG to the bad image list Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For talk page stalkers, the above image is not suitable for work - it's certainly not a picture of a Nord Stage 1. @Ronhjones: We've had ongoing problems with this sort of main page vandalism for some time; the last time I spotted it, the vandal just swapped to another image., so we ended up range blocking. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

revdel[edit]

Do you think you can revdel the 2 revisions made by 122.100.227.132 on User talk:122.100.227.132? The links link to an image not appropiate for school... Thanks! ‑‑216.25.187.3 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Already done. CLCStudent (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Differential Privacy[edit]

I am working on the differential privacy entry. Please do not edit it while I am doing so148.129.71.156 (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I was mistaken. CLCStudent (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Hey! You probably don't recognize me, but I've definitely run into you a lot on Wikipedia, especially WRT vandalism reversion. I saw you've been here a good long while and you definitely contribute a serious net positive around here... You ever think about making a go for the mop? I myself am not an admin, but I've been around close to a decade and you would definitely have my !vote. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cymru.lass: If you think I am ready, I would love to be nominated. CLCStudent (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin yet myself, and I think they're usually a lot more receptive to administrators nominating, but if you know of an admin who would nominate you, I would gladly co-nominate! cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have not taken a hard look at your editing history but I have run into you a lot and my impressions from our interactions have always been positive. If you are interested in RfA I suggest you take a walk over to WP:OCRP as a first step. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was asked about this by Ad Orientem. I have to say I would be leaning towards !voting oppose at RfA, or at least asking a question about the incident in Gemma O'Doherty where CLCStudent falsely accused an IP of vandalism and continually restored BLP violations - I was close to blocking them. However, I am not amenable to changing my mind, and the easiest way you can get me to switch to support is write more in mainspace and use Twinkle less. That's pretty much it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I suppose I might as well provide my input here - I will say that the community is quite picky nowadays. I'm not an admin myself, nor am I the most experienced user ever, but I have observed multiple RfAs and what happens to them. I suspect that the mistakes with accusing editors of vandalism when they weren't actually vandalizing will cause concern among the community. In addition, although everyone has their primary focus, the community would likely prefer to see some more NPP, content creation, copy-editing, or something similar, rather than almost just vandalism fighting. Either way, I wish you good luck if you do still decide to go for the mop. Cheers, --SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) ...and that's not counting the criticisms from two admins of, what, about a fortnight ago? Including BLPVIOs? I don't think that will bode particularly well, to say the least. Sorry: but good luck in twelve months. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately, what I want is whatever position that would be best for me to help the community. I only want admin if everybody else wants me as admin. Otherwise, I will just stay where I am. CLCStudent (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would certainly support your RfA, but I strongly suggest you go to WP:ORCP before and get a good RfA nominator like SoWhy. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - barnstar[edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		thank you for all your help A 10 fireplane (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Eurovision Asia Song Contest 2018. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

CLCStudent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to protect the page. Look at the other user's filter log, which shows him trying to vandalize the page. I should be unblocked.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=I was trying to protect the page. Look at the other user's filter log, which shows him trying to vandalize the page. I should be unblocked. | 3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I was trying to protect the page. Look at the other user's filter log, which shows him trying to vandalize the page. I should be unblocked. | decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I was trying to protect the page. Look at the other user's filter log, which shows him trying to vandalize the page. I should be unblocked. | accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

CLCStudent (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it shows somebody saying the contest is likely to be cancelled (possibly trying to PROD / AfD it), going the wrong way about it, and wondering why the content he removed "isn't working" because you kept reverting him, the pair of you violating 3RR in the process. Assume good faith. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Likely" is a suggestive term. We want to have the information there unless we are sure it no longer applies. CLCStudent (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)