User talk:Ixfd64

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Wiktionary Tutorial
 * Community Portal
 * Entry layout explained
 * Criteria for inclusion
 * FAQ
 * How to edit a page
 * How to start a page
 * Wiktionary Sandbox (a safe place for testing syntax)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Thanks for completing navigator. I was in the process of completing after it was created (with a silly definition) by a vandal. I have overwritten your entry with mine - sorry. SemperBlotto 09:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I am glad to have this opportunity to help. And don't worry about the "navigator" page. :-) --Ixfd64 09:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

format please
Your entries are valuable, but we would prefer it if they were properly formatted. Cheers SemperBlotto 20:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * All right, I will keep that in mind. --Ixfd64 23:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

vip
Thanks, yes, we know. I try to keep my messages on WS:VIP to a bare minimum, listing only the username/date/time these days. When newcomers like Joel7687 spot it before any of the admins it is worth a little recognition - we try to make that a rare event. Hopefully that list will soon be condensed. --Connel MacKenzie 23:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the spotting of these leftovers! These obvious ones can also be tagged with, which puts them in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Cheers. &mdash; Vildricianus 09:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about that template. I hadn't been very active on Wiktionary recently, so I was unaware of that template. Thanks again. --Ixfd64 09:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Welcome back! &mdash; Vildricianus 09:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No redirects
Please remember the rule of thumb on en.wikt is no redirects for capitalization. Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For the recent-changes patrolling. Conrad.Irwin 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem! --Ixfd64 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More thanks! - Amgine/talk 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

naïve
Hi. I found out that you are the user who added the definition at this entry and wanted to notify you of the discussion about its reshaping into a mere alternative spelling at Tea room, which I oppose. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Really..?
This is not a test. It is simple vandalism. Unless you wish to think of it as the anon testing "How long before I get banned/my work undone?" User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 22:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have any proper vandalism warning templates at the moment except for some in other editors' user spaces, so test seemed to be the best fit. In response to your concerns, I've made two new warning templates in my user space; I hope you don't mind! --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say I really mind but the thing is really I don't think the majority of admins and such around here care about warning vandals, and I agree; just ban them. Edits that are definitely testing wikicode or the like but wrongly so in the mainspace are a different issue and in that case seems like a fine idea but I see no point in conversing with vandals that do stuff in the form of
 * deleting a chunk of a page with no good reason to do so
 * "HURR  IS GAY"
 * addition of pure nonsense/gibberish
 * etc.

User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 10:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps the best idea would be to add some sort of warning to MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. I'm thinking about something like this:


 * Note that inserting nonsense, knowingly adding false information and gratuitously removing content are considered vandalism, and editors who engage in such behavior may be blocked without further warnings.


 * Of course, this should be common sense, but at least we can say that we did warn the vandals! --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that we have far fewer admins than Wikipedia, so we don't have the time to go through the kind of escalating warnings before blocking that are the standard there. I tend to revdel no-content vandalism so they have nothing to show for their efforts, and I've switched to making lots of shorter blocks, so they know someone is paying attention- but I rarely do blocks longer than a few days except for repeat or egregious offenders. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did just that. — Keφr 14:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully this will cut down on the nonsense edits and free up more time for editors. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)