User talk:VincentGross

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of new pages

Hi,

I've noticed that you've decided to take an active stance against vandalism, by deleting non-sense articles that are posted on Wikipedia. I understand more than anyone that while you're going through articles at the fastest rate possible to make sure nothing gets past you, you have to make quick judgment calls about the validity of an articles subject. Mistakes do happen. Case in point: Janet Maslin. I believe that this page may have merit in the future, if it were to be labeled as a stub using the templates {{film-stub}} and {{bio-stub}} in order to help expand them thus improving wikipedia. Don't take this as a criticism of you, ofcourse I realize that for every mistake you've made, you've tagged a hundred Unbirthdays and Vanilla Ice(manhwa)s. Thanks again for aiding in the fight against vandalism. Bobby1011 03:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings

Great work on warning users about vandalism. Two things: be sure that you put the message on the user's talk page not their user page (their user page does not give them an alert about a new message) and also it is usually good to start with {{subst:test1}} and move up if need be. Thanks and keep up the great work. --Hansnesse 00:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, keep fighting the good fight. Thanks, --Hansnesse 05:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carefull with the {{subst:test5}} warnings - they say the user was blocked. If they are obvious vandals, the {{subst:bv}} tag is prefered. You can also report them to WP:AIV for actual blocking. Thanks, --Hansnesse 07:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the user page - happens all the time. I wouldn't worry about the tag, but I went ahead and reported Lulzworth to WP:AIV. He is getting a bit much to handle. --Hansnesse 07:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Lulzworth was blocked for 24 hours. Incidentally, I noticed your userpage reference about vandalism; you may want to use the userbox {{user vandalized|1}}. As a guess (it would be an interesting experiment), since many vandals are attention-seeking, listing their names may attract them unnecessarily. In any event, well done. --Hansnesse 08:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has recieved four warnings ({{subst:test1}} through {{subst:test4}}) or blatent vandals (given the {{subst:bv}} tag, although it is probably best to use it sparingly), and continues to vandalize, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV for short). There are instructions on the page (essentially a cut and past bit) for the specifics of how to report. An admin reviews the edits and decides if to block and for how long (block lengths vary from minutes to indefinite). In extreme cases, generally complicated vandalism (multiple sockpuppets, use of bots, pages needing protection, complicated vandalism needing investigation, etc.) you can use Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress instead. You may want to read through Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Help for the specifics of when it should be used.

If a user does come back and continue to vandalize after being blocked, it is best to give him the benefit of the doubt--to a point. If they do clearly vandalize, I would tend to use {{bv}} more readily, but still not report on the first questionable edit. As far as I know, there is no requirement that someone who has recieved the warnings previously should need to get them again (except for anon IPs, who may be different users), but careful judgement is the name of the game. The best option is that they stop on their own, so I'd try them the opportunity to do so. But if they fall back to the same pattern, just report to WP:AIV. Hope this helps. --Hansnesse 09:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

himbrew...

All I did on that page is add a speedy delete. Thus, I do not know to what you refer. Kukini 06:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. I think you managed to delete it before I could put a speedy delete on it. I do not think deleting nonsense like that is something I am currently able to do on here. Maybe someday. Keep up the great work! Kukini 06:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the speedy delete I just posted. Was that the right one to do or was an AFD called for there? Kukini 07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linda West is the article. Hey don't forget to sign your comments with the tildes! Kukini 07:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message on user page

Yeah, I noticed that just a minute ago. I occasionally make that mistake when the user doesn't already have a user page. I moved my comment to the talk page just before I got your message. Thanks for letting me know though. NoIdeaNick 09:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monotypes article

To answer your question, I simply removed removed the word "obscure". "This is a(n obscure) band..." It's good to illustrate a point (in this case one could point out few hits, low ranking singles on charts, lack of touring, etc.) rather than just put a blanket statement which may look like a POV or opinion. Ifnord 14:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Monotypes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Monotypes.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sending template messages to other users

Hi, Vincent. When sending npa template messages to other users, could you consider subst'ing them by using {{subst:npa}} instead of {{npa}}. That reduces the load on the server. It also ensures that if the actual template is vandalized, the message on the user's talk page won't be affected. The same goes for many of the template messages, for example, {{subst:test1}} etc. If in doubt as to whether a particular template is suitable for subst'ing, you could try viewing it in "preview" before pressing "save". Thanks. AnnH ♫ 14:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Monotypes

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Monotypes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Monotypes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monotypes (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]