Re: Wow
Thanks. And shh... ;-) east.718 at 02:31, December 20, 2007
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I like your username and Mos references on your userpage. You might be interested in the article I wrote on the Nkiru Books. Stay up. • Freechild'sup? 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and nice article. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar, KOS. :-) I was actually hoping someone would fall for my lame impersonation and start writing a nom right away. Someone like me, who sometimes will let enthusiasm prevent from noticing small, important details. ;-) Best regards, Húsönd 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beat you. ;) GlassCobra 01:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh man. I'm not used to being beaten! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank YOU for removing vandalism on my page. I really appreciate it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anytime, it was my pleasure. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marlith T/C 04:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy holidays to you as well. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 06:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... Has been active again with 142.162.180.205 (talk · contribs). Have a nice day, merry Christmas. Funeral 23:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked, thank you for telling me. Happy holidays to you too! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here he is again: 142.162.203.69 (talk · contribs). Funeral 14:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, Oxymoron83 already got him. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you. It is much appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, you beat me to reverting vandalism all the time on RCP. :) Maser (Talk!) 04:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For vandalism reversion on my talkpage. Cheer --Nuttycoconut (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are very welcome. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so zealous, but the edit wasn't vandalism. The glossary of terms is not spesific to that satalite or anything on the article (is there a glossary on every technical article?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.31.84 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, please post new sections at the bottom of the page. You removed a large block of text without explaining why, that typically indicates vandalism. I won't revert again, but someone else might. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot getting it wrong is one thing, but you should have examined the situation more carefully. And the edit you made to Smilodon didn't make any sense at all; you didn't even remove the word "pussy" - were you just looking for something to revert to so you could get a revert in? You need to be more careful, you seem to have driven off a good user. Don't bite the newbies. —Random832 04:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you need to be more vigilant, here is the link. Yup thanks. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside: "Hi, one of your changes added the word "pussy" to the article hence my revert to a revision that was not vandalized. You are most welcome to edit the page, we encourage it. Just be careful! this is the diff KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)" If you call that biting the new users, then maybe you should read this page again. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The word "pussy" was legitimately present in the article, was the title of the cited source, and was _removed_ as part of vandalism. You didn't even remove it in your own revert (which seems to have been chosen solely on the basis of being before IP edits, without examining whether the IP edits in question were vandalism). This is absolutely unacceptable. You should have seen from context that the word was correctly there and that it was incorrectly removed by a vandal in the first place. While I can forgive the bot for getting it wrong, you REALLY should have known better. —Random832 04:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, yes, it is biting. Having a legitimate change reverted by someone who blindly goes through without paying attention to what he's reverting (which is the bot's job, not yours) is extremely frustrating, and it _does_ seem to have driven him away. —Random832 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about my tone. But it was a bit insulting for you to suggest that i'm not vigilant enough, when you are the one who isn't paying attention to what you're reverting. —Random832 04:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec x 4) Ah I see it now, I was mistaken, those do happen, my bad. But accusing me of biting a new user, is very fallacious of you. Did you even read the comment I left the user? Again if you call that biting, you need to read the policy page again. Are you also accusing me of simply reverting for the sake of reverting? Have you ever heard of this? I've been fighting vandalism on this project for over 2 years, I'm not going to get everything right, nor is everything I do going to be perfect. For you to accuse me of biting a new user, and of simply reverting for the sake of reverting is very laughable. An other thing, I didn't accuse the editor of vandalism, the bot left the warning. I manually reverted, what I believed to be a mistaken addition of a swear word. I saw that the user was reverting vandalism, and thought that he mistakenly reverted to a revision that had vandalism. Again for you to come here accusing me biting, and bad faith reverting is very poor form, and highly
hypocritical inappropriate. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "reverting for the sake of reverting" comment was maybe a bit out of line, but it was in light of the fact that, since you obviously couldn't revert _to_ the vandalism the other user had reverted, you chose some arbitrary past version. (one which went back past three non-vandalism edits prior to the version he reverted to, incidentally) But I do apologize for characterizing it that way. And, my statement about biting was not so much in the message you left on the talk page, but in the reversion itself - and, most importantly, in the fact that he was, in fact, driven away from the site by it. Think of it this way: how would you feel, if after the bot got it wrong and you change it back, someone comes in and [seemingly] blindly follows in the bot's actions? And, I didn't start to take such a harsh tone with you until you said "No, you need to be more vigilant" which directly insulted my intelligence (what, did you think I hadn't read the diff already? for context, i arrived here after a cluebot false positive report showed up on my watchlist). But I do apologize, I think I did cross a line with my tone. —Random832 04:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And, anyway - I do understand (barely) how you might have thought that he mistakenly reverted to a version that had vandalism in it. What I don't understand is how, from there, you don't (knowing it's a more complicated situation) then _look_ at the history to see _when_ that supposed vandalism was introduced, instead apparently just clicking on some version without (apparently) looking at the diffs between each version. In other words, it's a bit baffling how you go from thinking that the word "pussy" was inserted as vandalism, to reverting to a version that still has that word in it. I don't understand the process there. —Random832 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did check the revisions by the 3 anon edits, I reverted past those because one of them changed "smilu" to "smilē" which looked wrong and looks exactly like the random ridiculousness/test edits that are made everyday, not to mention the addition of unsourced content, which while not vandalism, I was perfectly in the right to remove. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are biting.
I've edited microscopy articles as an IP for a month now. My edits have been appreciated because they are technically accurate and improve these articles. I'm interested in Ice Age mammals, another problem on Wikipedia. I didn't add the word pussy, any more than you did. I "undid" another edit. This can be seen when you compare mine with the version prior to the BREE ROCKS IP edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Smilodon&diff=179092614&oldid=178764940.
You are now protecting your ego, just like the bot owner.
Did you look at my contributions? I have to assume they are valueless, because my time is being wasted with this shit. But no one undid my contributions, they simply asked me to do more. Fuck that.
I could have rewritten the entire vacuum pump article this weekend. I checked out and downloaded technical literature from the school library to do that. The Wikipedia article about removing gas molecules from a system with a rotary pump gives water well pumps as an example and explanation. Do you know what happens if you try to suck water with a vacuum pump designed to suck air? Neither do Wikipedia readers know because they've been misinformed with a bad example.
Instead of editing an article I would like to rewrite I'm spending my off time getting pissed off at being treated like shit by some self-proclaimed administrators and a bot's owner. If this is "anybody can edit" it's bullshit. If anybody can edit, anybody should be able to remove vandalism from an article before editing it without getting attacked by a bot, its lazy owner, and an administrator for doing so.
An apology would have ended this right away. Wikipedia should adopt "be polite" instead of "don't bite." Or "don't let your ego get in the way of common sense." Or "look at what people did before you gang up on them." My contributions were good. Now my account is trashed with this shit. So fuck Wikipedia and its inaccurate and misinforming microscopy articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaltheus (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, please be civil, I've made a mistake, I've admitted it, it's up above. Saying things such as "Fuck Wikipedia" will get you nowhere and do not shine you in a positive light. Again I do not believe I was "biting" but if I've offended you, I do apologize. Mistakes are bound to happen, even by the best of us. I do my best to protect Wikipedia, and I sometimes shoot blanks. I can't say anymore than that. Also please sign posts on talk pages with ~~~~ KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When smilē is quite clearly already in the lead of the article as the transcription of σμίλη, and σμίλη appeared right next to it as well (edit: apparently this _was_ the lead; sorry for the misunderstanding. But, anyway, the anon was right as it happens, and ē rarely appears in test/nonsense edits in my experience), I don't think that your assumption of bad faith was valid (you're not required to know the greek alphabet, but checking the lead sentence of the article would have been nice) Would you have thought it was a test/nonsense edit if I had made it? Anons are allowed to correct typos too. But anyway, since none of the (arguable) vandalism you found was by User:Amaltheus, maybe it would have been better to clarify that - that you felt the need to leave a message on his talk page could be (and was, apparently) taken to imply that you felt he had done something wrong. And there is still the fact that you reverted to a version that still had the word "pussy", and then _after_ that chastised someone for having added that word. —Random832 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I got ec'd by the above, but he's right - an apology would have settled this. There was no reason for you to leave a message on his page in the first place after determining that the insertion of the word "pussy", specifically, was not vandalism, even if you thought various other edits made well before his were problematic. —Random832 05:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I implied he did something wrong, I simply pointed out what I believed at the time was a mistake. I encouraged him to edit, and I've apologized. I'll endeavor to be a bit more mindful in the future, but this entire thing is getting blown out of proportion IMO. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk
You blew it out of proportion when you knocked me about something that a bot had already knocked me about. You made the same mistake I made. You reverted to a version that had the word pussy in it. The bot didn't go after you.
I followed directions to notify the bot's owner that the bot had made a mistake. That was a monumental waste of my time. The bot and his owner are too busy puking notices all over Wikipedia to notice mistakes. I'll make another mistake and probably be knocked out permanently by the bot.
This venture is a waste of time. "Fuck Wikipedia" is in line with how I have been treated. I edited articles that need major work. I edited in good faith. I made good edits. I removed serious misinformation from vacuum pump and electron microscopy articles. I removed graffiti. I got puked on twice for it. Consider my "Fuck Wikipedias" as hedged as your apology.
I see why there is too much bad information on Wikipedia. People can't edit without being engaged by shit.
Why sign? It would attach this to a trashed editor. I wouldn't trust my edits looking at my talk page history.
- Why? It was a mistake, and anyone who looked would see that. I think you're overreacting. —Random832 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think me saying, "Hi, one of your changes added the word "pussy" to the article hence my revert to a revision that was not vandalized. You are most welcome to edit the page, we encourage it. Just be careful!" is blowing something out of proportion and "thrashing" your name, then you need to re-evaluate the situation. If you continue on your path of incivility I will remove your posts and ignore you. I welcome and encourage constructive discussion, but uncivil commentary and borderline personal attacks will not be tolerated. Your "notification" of the bots mistaken revert was uncivil, and I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out to you until now. Your comments on your own talk page are uncivil, and your comments here are uncivil. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KOS - what I meant by it appearing that you thought that he had done something wrong; and actually, something I still don't quite understand here is: your note on his talk page specifically referred to the addition of the word 'pussy', but that was after you had chosen a version which also still contained the word 'pussy' to revert the article to. Based on what you're saying now, a more appropriate notice might have been a polite "your edit was right, but you missed some other stuff from before the version you reverted to". But, based on your response to me, it seems that at that time (despite having reverted to a version that contained 'pussy') you still thought that the insertion of that word was that wrong, and that a diff showing it was inserted should have been proof enough for me to think you were right. That was also what made me think you hadn't looked at the edits you were reverting, since you didn't seem aware that the version you reverted to contained 'pussy'. —Random832 05:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No no you are correct, but how many times must I admit my mistake and apologize? I saw him remove the vandalism, but when I checked the diff I saw the word "pussy" I assumed that he reverted a version that was vandalized. When I went to check the diffs, the additions by the anons caught my attention and I reverted to before those edits. No I did not follow up to see if "pussy" was removed. I assumed it was. As stated at the top of my talk page, I do a lot of RC patrol, more so than many. I will make mistakes, and I will attempt to make amends when I discover them. All I ask is that civility reigns, and Amaltheus has been blatantly uncivil, over a simple misunderstanding, and has escalated this situation. I thank you Random for starting this discussion, and again I apologize for my mistake. This issue is closed for me. My mistake has been pointed out, I've acknowledged it, and apologized. To continue on with this, is pointless. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I just noticed this and read through all the history. Don't take it too hard; that was a pretty gross overreaction from Amaltheus, and I'm frankly impressed with how hard everyone tried to make it right. I left a note on ANI. Happy holidays KOS, Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Antandrus, I saw your comment at AN/I and I really appreciate your opinion. Happy holidays to you too! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Spencer vandalism
Hi again, could you please do something about the user who continually keeps vandalising the Matthew Spencer page. This guy is getting really frustrating, I'm continually reverting his edits. Something needs to be done. Thanks again. Allied45 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted back to the correct version. I'll add the page to my watchlist and help keep an eye on it. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My characterisation was accurate. Here's your edit:[1] where you accused me of vandalism. Read your own words in addition to mine before getting so self-righteous.
It's time for you to stop this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaltheus (talk • contribs) 04:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the last time I'll explain this, it is on you to understand now. I saw you revert vandalism. I thought that you reverted to a vandalized state, hence my edit summary of rvv. If I thought you had vandalized I would have used my rollback button. Period. Good day to you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Amaltheus, you wrote: "Wikipedia must be the rudest place on the Internet". With all due respect, you can help see that it does not become that way by letting this matter drop. A lot of people have attempted to explain this to you, with considerable patience and politeness, and at this time I strongly suggest you put down your stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey i just wanted to say a quick thanks for dealing with some of the Nationalists over at the article on [Gilo] while i let my guard down. LOL. I am pretty new to wikipedia, but admins like you restore my faith in both wikipedia and humanity as a whole. Cheers. Colourinthemeaning (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thank you for your message. I appreciate it greatly. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perspicacite has been reverting back to a version of the article that contains off-topic content such as Isreal, Japan and the USA, a comment by the pope (really random) and a reference to "Children of Men" in the "See also" section.
I've warned him not to vandalize back to that edit, but from reading the complaints on his talk page, he has vandalized other articles as well. Could you keep an eye out on the article?
84.26.72.127 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What goes with this bot adding inappropriate !votes at RfA? Is it just going crazy? Has it been stopped or whatever? Just curious really, but can help out if need be. --Bduke (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an ongoing issue, Bduke. It is a sockpuppet that randomly pops up creating "bot" names, normally in some form of Agüeybaná's name, using different letters, or sometimes his alternate name, and adding "Jewish bot oppose" to RfAs. Checkuser has been done, let me see if I can dig that up. Ariel♥Gold 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have started back here, but there doesn't seem to be any requests for the subsequent accounts, or sock tags done to track the various accounts. My memory fails me so I'm not sure I remember them all, but I found that checkuser, and User:BoricuaeddieBot that one. Maybe the real Agüeybaná will remember more, but it isn't a frequent issue, one of them crops up now and then, and is swiftly dealt with, so I wouldn't think it is a huge deal. Ariel♥Gold 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey how do u know when a page is changed so fast?ARK23 (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I watch. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- how many pages do u watch at a time, or is it that u get a message every time something is changed?ARK23 (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I watch too many pages to count. I watch the recent changes feed. Which is how I noticed your vandalism. Please don't make a new subject heading unless you are going to discuss a different topic, this thread will suffice. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To paraphrase a Chuck Norris meme, KoS does not sleep: he waits. Acroterion (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, soooo true. Happy holidays, :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hey i was wondering if u could let me put my name in the feb. 2 page under births, thats my birthdayARK23 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, only people who fall within the scope of our notability policy get added to those pages. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reversion of the blanking vandalism of one of my user subpages has been noted with approval and gratitude. Good fortune upon you, your house, and all within. May all recognize your shining example and praise you excessively. Like me, now. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow thanks for the sentiments. Happy holidays and good health to you and yours as well. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, Steve. I hope you have a good one ;-) - Take care! ScarianCall me Pat 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
