User talk:Heracles31

Hi Heracles31. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the info i putted on the page , i just wanted to show to my friend that you can modify somes stuff in wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.156.91 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please, use the the sandbox for your tests and demos. Heracles31 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an unusual log! I am honoured to appear on it!

Amandajm (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your exemplary efforts to find the vandalism that others may have missed. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! You beat me to this! Keep up the good work :) Set Sail For The Seven Seas 0° 28' 45" NET 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assessment. Don't worry : there is plenty of vandalism for all of us (unfortunately...) My god, how can people have that much time to do an so little to think ?!? Heracles31 (talk)

I believe there's an entire wikiproject out to find that answer! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 12° 43' 0" NET 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heracles. I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for putting your mind to trying to make recent changes patrol work more smoothly. If there were less vandalism, or what there is could be handled more efficiently, recent changes patrollers could focus on more substantive changes to articles and focus less on vandalism. While your solution might not yet provide sufficient payoff to offset the effort to program and implement it, the thought you’ve invested is a good first step. Keep up the good work! — SpikeToronto 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, by the way, have you installed and used Huggle yet? You might find it easier than using the recent changes page. — SpikeToronto 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SpikeToronto,

Thanks for your message and yes, I use Huggle. It is my first tool and the one I use for most of my reverse. I first start with Huggle and do fast cleaning. Every time I reverse something, I ask Huggle to open the page containing my edit in a new browser tab. Should I re-fix the same article, I do not open it twice in the browser. After a while or too many different edits, I stop Huggle and switch to the browser. For each article, I search the history for what looks like a few good faith edits and compare my own with the first of them. Should I find more damage, I fix it with Twinkle or manually. When happy, I close the tab and go to the next one. When they are all done, I return to Huggle and prepare a new batch of reviews. I think this formula is the best balance between fast first-shooting and deep review for ensuring the best quality. Thanks again and have a nice week-end, Heracles31 (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heracles! Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been a very busy boy! Lately my life has been living up to the notice at the top of my talk page … In any event, as regards Huggle, your system sounds very detailed indeed! I also do not use HG in the usual manner. I use it to provide me recent changes in a more useful manner than just using the recent changes page. If what it shows me on the screen is obvious vandalism, then I use HG to revert, especially since it does on two pages (the wikiarticle page and the vandal’s talk page), with one click, what takes much more work manually. I then always open both the wikiarticle page and the vandal’s talk page to confirm that HG did what I wanted it to do. This affords me the opportunity to also look at the article’s history to see, for instance, if the page has been victim to heavy vandalism, which may require that I request page protection and/or verify that there isn’t a more “correct” version of the page that I should instead revert to using Popups. Also, when HG shows me two edits made by the same editor, I open the page’s history to see if, instead of vandalizing, the editor is in fact doing a series of edits beneficial to the article. For example, perhaps the editor is performing cut-and-pastes to re-order and article, the cuts for which HG would read as deleting text and not match back up with the pastes; that would be for us to determine before reverting and warning the editor. Keep up the good work, oh Greek mythic hero! — SpikeToronto 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good show with the challenge,

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For taking on the Old School Vandalism hunting 3 challenge presented at both WP:Reward Board and O4E Challenges and successfully completing it by finding over 10 different various forms of vandalism and reverting them, I award you this defender of the wiki Barnstar for your tireless efforts to reduce vandalism in all its forms. Well Done. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)|}[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For helping to clean out the backlog at WP:ER by providing editors with quality reviews! Thanks! -- Ϫ 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]