User talk:99.12.242.126

Mistaken block

Please review my edits previous to the block--I seem to have been penalized for the actions of the account I reported [1]! Thank you, 99.12.242.126 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

This IP account was apparently blocked by mistake, credited with disruptive edits made by an account which I reported [2] (see link above).

Accept reason:

It seems you are right. Sorry that you have been inconvenienced. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; much appreciated. First time that's happened to me in almost 6 years here. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Registering an account

Hi, are you sure you don't want to create an account? You get to write pages and mark edits as minor and use custom editing tools and everything. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--I am so sure. Had an account, now mostly dormant, with 50,000 plus edits, numerous articles created, many DYK nominations, and was a barnstar whore. Am retired except for these little forays. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (re: User:Petiatil)

Thank you for fixing my talk page. User:Petiatil seems to be obsessed by undoing edits without examining them properly. His entire contribution history seems to consist of the destruction of other people's edits, and he blanked my comments in his own talk page too, "wiping the evidence", so to speak. He has a note on his user page saying, "Any false positives I have mistakenly reverted, please undo my edit and leave a message on my talk page so I can learn from the mistake." but that does not absolve him of careless reverting. 70.99.49.194 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've left a note at his talk page regarding his recent edits. Probably he just needs to get away for a bit, but if this continues I will request administrative input. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petiatil

Hello.

I saw that you stated here that you were considering filing a noticeboard report against User:Petiatil. I wished to inform you regarding an issue on Taja Sevelle, as well as the fact that (s)he removed my notice from his/her talk page, marking it as vandalism, when, in fact, I tried to write a note as politely as possible with the intention to bring up what I believed was an honest mistake.

If you feel that a report is warranted, I do invite you to file one (if this gets out of hand). If it does get out of hand, then we will have established a pattern, and I will allow you to state that I was a witness. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your observation, and that of 70 above, I think his intent is to revert vandalism, and he got careless in a series of edits, then issued inappropriate warnings and incorrectly characterized others' edits, compounding the felony, so to speak. It would be easier to assume good faith if he acknowledges errors, and perhaps he will. Otherwise this bears watching to see if it's a long-term mode here. 99.12.242.126 (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I'm letting it go and calling it a day. I don't think there was malicious intent--I suspect he was having a rough day, and just lost it for a few minutes. Cheers, 99.12.242.126 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G3

Please use speedy criterion G3, Vandalism, only for pages whose purpose is to harm the encyclopedia. The ordinary insertion of impossibly bad articles, and articles by people who don't understand the function of Wikipedia, is best dealt with under other criteria. Vandalism requires bad faith, not just incompetence. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template's use is appropriate for articles featuring "blatant and obvious misinformation". The article in question was likely a youthful hoax--if so, the vandalism rationale was not inapt. Thanks, 99.12.242.126 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.